Podcasts about compel

Subscribe for more Videos: http://www.youtube.com/c/PlantationSDAChurchTV Deeper Dive Theme: Pastor Rose explains why you can't do ministry on the cheap (i.e. when it's convenient for you). If there are no challenges in your Christian walk, there's something seriously wrong. Episode Title: Where Is Your Cross? Host: Dawn Williams Guest: Pastor N. Abraham Rose Date: April 2, 2025 Tags: #psdapodcast #psdatv #cross #sacrifice #ministry #worth #disciples #compel #resources #time #ability #service #CrossEqualsSacrifice #NoMinistryOnTheCheap #ItsWorthIt #CrossInExchange4Crown For more life lessons and inspirational content, please visit us at http://www.plantationsda.tv. Church Copyright License (CCLI): 1659090 CCLI Streaming Plus License: 21338439Support the show: https://adventistgiving.org/#/org/ANTBMV/envelope/startSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Subscribe for more Videos: http://www.youtube.com/c/PlantationSDAChurchTV Deeper Dive Theme: Pastor Rose explains why you can't do ministry on the cheap (i.e. when it's convenient for you). If there are no challenges in your Christian walk, there's something seriously wrong. Episode Title: Where Is Your Cross? Host: Dawn Williams Guest: Pastor N. Abraham Rose Date: April 2, 2025 Tags: #psdapodcast #psdatv #cross #sacrifice #ministry #worth #disciples #compel #resources #time #ability #service #CrossEqualsSacrifice #NoMinistryOnTheCheap #ItsWorthIt #CrossInExchange4Crown For more life lessons and inspirational content, please visit us at http://www.plantationsda.tv. Church Copyright License (CCLI): 1659090 CCLI Streaming Plus License: 21338439Support the show: https://adventistgiving.org/#/org/ANTBMV/envelope/startSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Subscribe for more Videos: http://www.youtube.com/c/PlantationSDAChurchTV Theme: Those who are true disciples of Jesus, will be "compelled...to bear His cross." Their service to the cause of Christ will require sacrifice, that of themselves, their resources, their time, and their abilities. There is no genuine service to God without sacrifice. Speaker: Pastor N. Abraham Rose Title: Where Is Your Cross? Key text: https://www.bible.com/bible/59/MRK.15.21.esv Bulletin/Notes: http://bible.com/events/49411080 Date: March 29, 2025 Tags: #psdatv #cross #sacrifice #ministry #worth #disciples #compel #resources #time #ability #service #CrossEqualsSacrifice #NoMinistryOnTheCheap #ItsWorthIt #CrossInExchange4Crown For more life lessons and inspirational content, please visit us at http://www.plantationsda.tv. Church Copyright License (CCLI): 1659090Support the show: https://adventistgiving.org/#/org/ANTBMV/envelope/startSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Joan y Carles nos hablan de comunicación no violenta y de observar sin juzgar. De no confundir la realidad con lo que uno piensa. Un tema muy interesante. ¿Lo de la resaca? Escuchad el programa y lo entenderéis.Además, repasan, como cada semana, las novedades de las redes sociales y del mundo digital; y nos recomiendan:Usuario: @AskPerplexity Web: https://www.airhint.comPelícula: WolfgangÚnete a nuestra comunidad:Telegram: t.me/caviaronlineFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/caviaronline

Episode 26: Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, et al.Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, argued before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 19, 2025. Argued by Cameron Norris (on behalf of Parents Defending Education); Elliott Gaiser, Solicitor General of Ohio (on behalf of Ohio and 22 other states as amici curiae); and Jaime Santos (on behalf of the Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, et al.).Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech's second amicus brief (in support of reversal): While students may freely identify as having genders that do not correspond to their biological sex, other students enjoy the same right to credit their own perceptions of reality—and to speak their minds when addressing their classmates. Students cannot be compelled to speak in a manner that confesses, accommodates, and conforms to an ideology they reject—even if that ideology's adherents are offended by any refusal to agree with them or endorse their viewpoint. Yet that is what the Olentangy school district's speech code does.“Pronouns are political.” Dennis Baron, What's Your Pronoun? 39 (2020). History shows that people have long used pronouns to express messages about society and its structure—often in rebellion against the prevailing ideology. And the same is true today. Choosing to use “preferred” or “non-preferred” pronouns often “advance[s] a viewpoint on gender identity.” Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 509 (6th Cir. 2021). So mandating that students use “preferred” pronouns or none at all elevates one viewpoint while silencing the other. It compels students to adopt the district's ideology on gender identity while at school, and in doing so, “invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.” W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).Statement of the Issues, from the Brief of Appellant Parents Defending Education:The use of gender-specific pronouns is a “hot issue” that “has produced a passionate political and social debate” across the country. Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 508-09 (6th Cir. 2021). One side believes that gender is subjective and so people should use others' “preferred pronouns”; the other side believes that sex is immutable and so people should use pronouns that correspond with biological sex. Id. at 498. Like the general public, students have varying views on this important subject, and the Supreme Court has long recognized that students don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). Yet the Olentangy Local School District has adopted policies that punish speech expressed by one side of the debate—the use of pronouns that are contrary to another student's identity. The district court upheld the Policies as consistent with the First Amendment and denied PDE's preliminary-injunction motion.The issues presented in this appeal are:Whether the District's speech policies likely violate the First Amendment because they compel speech, discriminate based on viewpoint, prohibit speech based on content without evidence of a substantial disruption, or are overbroad.Whether, if PDE is likely to succeed on the merits, the remaining preliminary-injunction criteria favor issuing a preliminary injunction.Resources:CourtListener docket page for Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School Dist, et al.Brief for Appellant Parents Defending EducationBrief for Appellee Olentangy Local School Dist, et al.Supplemental En Banc Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Parents Defending EducationInstitute for Free Speech first amicus brief (in support of rehearing en banc)Institute for Free Speech second amicus brief (in support of reversal)

We had the pleasure of Stuart Estes and his family come and share a report from the Association of Baptist Students at the University of Arkansas.  He finished with this challenge from Jesus as recorded in Luke's gospel.  We cannot be complacent at the Great Commission of Jesus.  Compel the lost to come to Jesus … Continue reading Compel Them →

REVELATION 13 1. Resist the Persuasive Power of Evil Empires (v1-10) a. He Wants your Love and Loyalty (1-2) b. He Wants your Wonder and Worship (3-4) c. He Wants your Surrender and Submission (5-10) 2. Reject the Pervasive Pressure of Imperial Idolatry (11-18) a. He Wants to Deceive and Distort You b. He Wants to Impress and Influence You c. He Wants to Compel and Control You

For centuries, elite bloodlines have conjured extraterrestrials, secret chiefs, and reptilians. Some researchers surmise that these occult families possess reptilian or serpent DNA and are the real controllers of the planet. This hidden order gave us the ideas shared in the mystery religions, codified the rites of sacrifice, centralized access to extra-dimensional entities, and was responsible for creating the concepts given to us in the Bible and other so-called sacred texts. Will these beings of dark origin openly reveal themselves as we come closer to the eschaton? Tonight on Ground Zero (7-10 pm, pacific time on groundzero.radio), Clyde Lewis talks about REPTILIAN LINEAGE – MAY THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPEL U…FOS.

Visit the Law Nerd Shop at https://LawNerdShop.comThe civil lawsuit against Diddy and Jay-Z was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought again. Jay-Z and his attorney, Alex Spiro, have released statements, emphasizing that there was no settlement. Jay-Z's legal battles with attorney Buzbee in California and Texas are continuing. Diddy is suing NBC for $100 million over a documentary. There are ongoing issues related to a search of Diddy's jail pod and attorney-client privilege. The Karen Reed case is heating up as we approach the April 1st trial date! We're breaking down the latest discovery disputes, expert witness battles, and the pending motion to dismiss. The legal battle between Blake Lively and the Baldoni parties continues with broad subpoenas, allegations of media leaks, and a new defamation lawsuit in Texas from Jed Wallace. We'll discuss the implications of these filings and what to expect next.RESOURCESHollywood Reporter Article - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/blake-lively-subpoenas-phone-records-justin-baldoni-legal-battle-1236135188Karen Read Motion to Compel - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M04gYYieIj4 Jay-Z & Diddy Civil Lawsuit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxSCZvUOQywThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

PARABLES 17 HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS  Today I'm sharing the parable of the king who invites many privileged guests to his son's wedding feast, but they are all too busy attend. This is one of many end times parables that Jesus taught, after finishing two years and some months ministry in Galilee and then heading towards Jerusalem to begin the second part of his ministry. In Jerusalem he would begin to teach about his death and resurrection and ascension into heaven and his return to earth in the last days.   This parable is prophetic of the wedding feast of Jesus and his bride the Church in the last days. It tells the story of a King who was arranging a wedding feast for his son and had invited certain privileged guests, and many of those guests did not honour the king with their acceptances but made excuses for why they could not come. Both Matthew (Ch.22) and Luke (Ch.14) tell the story and the stories each complement one another emphasising certain attitudes and values in one story, and not in the other, and giving detail in one story to supplement the other. Matthew defines the man who was inviting the guests as a king, which makes the refusal to attend, a grave insult or rebuff. Luke makes the emphasis that the dinner tables were already set and just waiting to be occupied by the guests, which means that there was little or no notice for the guests to plan the event in their calendar, because the date of a wedding was never announced a long time beforehand as they are today. In those times the bridegroom would have to prepare a home for he and his bride to live in, and only then would he let people know when he was ready. And this all had to meet with the parents' approval and when it was determined that the home was ready, the groom would gather his friends and go to retrieve his bride—often at night, with lamps and great celebration. The bride and her companions had to be constantly prepared (as seen in the Parable of the Ten Virgins), and did not know the exact day or hour of his arrival. Once the groom arrived, the wedding celebration began and could last for seven days or more and unprepared, or unresponsive guests who were not ready for the announcement missed out on the feast. When the king heard of the rebuffs to his invitation, he was furious, and he punished those privileged people firmly. Matthew writes. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore, go into the highways (Luke adds the byways – (or hedges), and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.' So those servants went out into the highways and byways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.  In the Gospel of Luke, the servants are to firstly go to the streets and lanes to the poor and disabled and the blind and the crippled. And when these had come in the servant said to the master that there was still lots of room left still n as room.' Then the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. And those people came in, and they would have brought their friends with them. Compel may seem to be a forceful word, but the Apostle Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5 that the love of God ‘compelled' him to reach out to bring others into the Kingdom of God. God the Father wants a full house for the marriage feast of his Son Jesus to his Bride which is the Church, and this will occur at God's appointed time, but if those in the Church are not prepared and ready, God will still get himself a full house. He will be sending the Holy Spirit (his servants in the parable) into the world to open peoples' hearts to receive his invitation. There will be highways and byways people out there and streets and lanes people out there, that may be at different stages of spiritual growth or have some weird and wonderful ideas about God, but if they have hearts to know God they will be taught of the Lord and hear and receive the full message of Jesus, and their souls will be saved. And they will also bring their friends with them.  The following words about God that we are about to hear are from two people who in recent times have become listened to by millions of people around the world day after day, and they influence people in the political culture or the philosophical or even alternate cultures. They are sincerely grappling to understand the mystery of faith, and I believe God has given them a voice as a trumpet sound to awaken unbelieving hearts to the goodness of God. And these people already proclaim Jesus as God and as our resurrected Lord and Saviour. These two people are Jordan Peterson and Russel Brand who preach Jesus, and the transforming work of God in their lives. You will hear these if you listen to the podcast and in the PDF file of the notes you can click on the links to the video clips that we saw in church.  Jordan Peterson – video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PbKxMnoCao&list=PLKki_g3WkrNeYJr2mUzjFh4B1lOzRp8bH&index=1 Russel Brand – video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQhznYoCeOc&list=PLKki_g3WkrNeYJr2mUzjFh4B1lOzRp8bH&index=2 God is speaking to us from Heaven in these days more than ever before in history. The Bible says in Acts Ch 2 that on the Day of Pentecost ‘Each one heard God speak in their own language'.  This is not merely a spoken national language or dialect but it is the uniquely personal way that God has created the individual human spirit of every person on the planet to hear the Holy Spirit speak to them in a deeply personal way, using all kinds of communicational frameworks.  Many hear The Holy Spirit by reading in the Word of God, and some by hearing the heart of God through a song, whether spiritual or secular, and others see God in the awesomeness and beauty of his creation or even in a dream or a vision. For others it may be the prompting of God through a meaningful phrase that comes into our mind and that only we could personally interpret. When we have faith in the work of the Kingdom of God in Heaven, we begin to understand the spiritual reality that God's will in Heaven is always waiting to happen on earth in our lives. That spiritual reality becomes our new reality for our hearts and minds – what we think and what we believe. And if we ask for the Holy Spirit to become active in our lives, we will be guided by the Holy Spirit to hear what God is saying to us though Jesus and see with eyes of faith what he showing us to do. We will pray prayers of surrender to receive God's answers and get his results rather than our demands for our own wishes.  In the days of Jesus, a wedding was not planned with a calendar. And a wedding feast will be prepared for God's people before Jesus returns, and we don't have a calendar for that either, but the same principle applies about being prepared and ready for the anticipated event – Jesus said that only the Father knows the day and the hour. This parable emphasizes faithfulness, and the expectancy of the joy of final oneness together, making marriage a powerful metaphor for God's covenant love. God is stirring this love response in peoples' hearts through familiar and unfamiliar ways and voices in these days. The Holy Spirit can use all of us as doorkeepers that can open the doors of peoples' hearts to hear the voice of Jesus personally and offer their lives to him as he has done for us. Be open to engaging with the highways and byways people in your world - so that you can help them understand the hope that lives in your life concerning the reality of Jesus.  

In the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433), on February 26, 2016, plaintiff Virginia Giuffre filed a motion to compel defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to produce documents that Maxwell had withheld, citing objections deemed improper by the plaintiff. Giuffre argued that Maxwell's objections were unfounded and that the withheld documents were essential for the case. The motion sought the court's intervention to mandate the disclosure of these materials, which Giuffre believed were pertinent to her allegations against Maxwell.In response, Maxwell filed a motion for a protective order on March 2, 2016, aiming to limit the scope of discovery and prevent the release of certain documents. The court addressed both motions, ultimately granting Giuffre's motion to compel and denying Maxwell's motion for a protective order. This decision required Maxwell to produce the contested documents, thereby advancing the discovery process in the litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre v. Maxwell | MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . Document | CasetextBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433), on February 26, 2016, plaintiff Virginia Giuffre filed a motion to compel defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to produce documents that Maxwell had withheld, citing objections deemed improper by the plaintiff. Giuffre argued that Maxwell's objections were unfounded and that the withheld documents were essential for the case. The motion sought the court's intervention to mandate the disclosure of these materials, which Giuffre believed were pertinent to her allegations against Maxwell.In response, Maxwell filed a motion for a protective order on March 2, 2016, aiming to limit the scope of discovery and prevent the release of certain documents. The court addressed both motions, ultimately granting Giuffre's motion to compel and denying Maxwell's motion for a protective order. This decision required Maxwell to produce the contested documents, thereby advancing the discovery process in the litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre v. Maxwell | MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . Document | CasetextBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433), on February 26, 2016, plaintiff Virginia Giuffre filed a motion to compel defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to produce documents that Maxwell had withheld, citing objections deemed improper by the plaintiff. Giuffre argued that Maxwell's objections were unfounded and that the withheld documents were essential for the case. The motion sought the court's intervention to mandate the disclosure of these materials, which Giuffre believed were pertinent to her allegations against Maxwell.In response, Maxwell filed a motion for a protective order on March 2, 2016, aiming to limit the scope of discovery and prevent the release of certain documents. The court addressed both motions, ultimately granting Giuffre's motion to compel and denying Maxwell's motion for a protective order. This decision required Maxwell to produce the contested documents, thereby advancing the discovery process in the litigation.o contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre v. Maxwell | MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . Document | CasetextBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433), on February 26, 2016, plaintiff Virginia Giuffre filed a motion to compel defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to produce documents that Maxwell had withheld, citing objections deemed improper by the plaintiff. Giuffre argued that Maxwell's objections were unfounded and that the withheld documents were essential for the case. The motion sought the court's intervention to mandate the disclosure of these materials, which Giuffre believed were pertinent to her allegations against Maxwell.In response, Maxwell filed a motion for a protective order on March 2, 2016, aiming to limit the scope of discovery and prevent the release of certain documents. The court addressed both motions, ultimately granting Giuffre's motion to compel and denying Maxwell's motion for a protective order. This decision required Maxwell to produce the contested documents, thereby advancing the discovery process in the litigation.o contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre v. Maxwell | MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . Document | CasetextBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode we get back to the court documents and take a look at the declaration of Anne Taylor in support of Bryan Kohberger third motion to compel discovery.(commercial at 7:29)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062323+Declaration+of+Anne+C+Taylor+in+Support+of+Defendants+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf (amazonaws.com)

We are diving back into the court documents in this episode and we are taking a look at the states motion to compel notice of defense of alibi or alternatively bar certain evidence. We also have on tap the affidavit of Rylene Nowlin and the response to the states response to the order to reconsider a speedy trial. (commercial at 9:58)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072423+Response+to+States+Motion+to+Reconsider+Order+Staying+Time+for+Speedy+Trial.pdf (amazonaws.com)source:071423+Affidavit+of+Rylene+L+Nowlin.pdf (amazonaws.com)source:072723-Motion-to-Compel-Notice-of-Defense-Alibi-Alt-Bar-Certain-Evidence.pdf (amazonaws.com)

In this episode we get back to the court documents and take a look at the declaration of Anne Taylor in support of Bryan Kohberger third motion to compel discovery. (commercial at 7:29)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062323+Declaration+of+Anne+C+Taylor+in+Support+of+Defendants+Third+Motion+to+Compel.pdf (amazonaws.com)

In this episode, we are diving into the new batch of court filings and taking a look at the declaration of Stephen B. Mercer in support of Bryan Kohberger's third attempt to compel discovery.(commercial at 11:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062323 Notice of Filing Declaration of Stephen B Mercer in Support of Def Third Motion to Compel.pdf (idaho.gov)

A motion to compel in family law litigation is filed when one party fails to respond to discovery requests (like interrogatories or document requests) or provides incomplete responses. The motion asks the court to order the non-compliant party to answer fully. Judges typically review the responses and may impose deadlines, sustain objections, or award attorney's fees if misconduct is evident. This process helps ensure both parties share the necessary information for divorce or family law cases.This podcast is based on our Family Law Headquarters blog titled: What's a motion to compel in family law litigation? To learn more or to schedule a consultation with our Houston, Texas divorce lawyers, please call 855-805-0595 or email info@stangelawfirm.com.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/family-law-talk--6410781/support.

In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs's legal team has filed a request for a modification to the Protective Order issued by the court. The current order restricts the defense from receiving electronic copies of video evidence referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the indictment, permitting only inspection of the footage. Combs's attorneys argue that this restriction hinders their ability to fully investigate the evidence and demonstrate its exculpatory value. They contend that the videos strongly support Combs's innocence and must be electronically produced for proper evaluation and use in his defense.Citing Rule 16(a)(1)(E), which mandates the government to provide access to relevant evidence, and Rule 16(d)(1), which limits restrictions on such evidence to cases with demonstrated "good cause," the defense asserts that no valid justification exists for withholding electronic copies. They emphasize that the videos are critical to ensuring a fair trial and argue that the government's restrictions undermine the defense's ability to effectively utilize the material alongside other Rule 16 and Brady disclosures. The motion urges the court to modify the Protective Order and allow for standard electronic production of the videos.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the government has requested that the court direct Sean Combs's defense team to remove and refile their January 14, 2025, motion to amend the Protective Order. The government argues that the defense's filing violated the existing Protective Order by failing to appropriately redact sensitive information. The motion in question seeks to modify restrictions on video evidence, which is currently limited to inspection by counsel and the defendant, without allowing for electronic production.The government asserts that the defense's incomplete redactions breach the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. 26), which is designed to safeguard the handling of specific evidence in the case. While acknowledging the defense's request to amend the order regarding the video evidence, the government emphasizes that compliance with the current protective measures is essential. They request the court to ensure the filing is re-submitted with redactions that fully adhere to the established rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.126.0.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the prosecution filed an objection to the defense's motion to compel discovery under Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and for sanctions. The defense had argued that the prosecution failed to provide comprehensive expert reports, hindering their preparation. In response, the state contended that it had fulfilled its discovery obligations by disclosing all pertinent materials in a timely manner. The prosecution emphasized that any outstanding expert reports were either not yet finalized or not applicable to the current stage of proceedings.The state further argued that the defense's request for sanctions was unwarranted, asserting that there was no willful withholding of information or violation of discovery rules. They maintained that ongoing communication between both parties would address any concerns regarding the exchange of information. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the case to proceed without the imposition of sanctions or additional discovery mandates.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

In the case of State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense filed a "Motion to Compel I.C.R. 16(b)(7) Material and for Sanctions" on December 27, 2024. This motion asserts that the prosecution has failed to provide comprehensive expert reports and opinions as mandated by Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7). Specifically, the defense highlights that, out of the 25 experts the state intends to call, only five have submitted their reports. This lack of disclosure, according to the defense, hampers their ability to prepare adequately, especially with a looming deadline of January 23, 2025, for submitting their own expert disclosures.The defense contends that the prosecution's incomplete disclosures violate discovery rules, thereby prejudicing Kohberger's right to a fair trial. They argue that such omissions impede their capacity to confront and counter the state's expert testimonies effectively. As a remedy, the defense requests the court to either exclude the undisclosed expert testimonies or compel the prosecution to provide the necessary reports promptly. Additionally, they seek an extension of the January 23 deadline to ensure sufficient time for their preparations. This motion underscores the defense's concerns about procedural fairness and the necessity for full compliance with discovery obligations in this capital murder case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:122724-Motion-Compel-ICT-16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the prosecution filed an objection to the defense's motion to compel discovery under Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and for sanctions. The defense had argued that the prosecution failed to provide comprehensive expert reports, hindering their preparation. In response, the state contended that it had fulfilled its discovery obligations by disclosing all pertinent materials in a timely manner. The prosecution emphasized that any outstanding expert reports were either not yet finalized or not applicable to the current stage of proceedings.The state further argued that the defense's request for sanctions was unwarranted, asserting that there was no willful withholding of information or violation of discovery rules. They maintained that ongoing communication between both parties would address any concerns regarding the exchange of information. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the case to proceed without the imposition of sanctions or additional discovery mandates.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the prosecution filed an objection to the defense's motion to compel discovery under Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and for sanctions. The defense had argued that the prosecution failed to provide comprehensive expert reports, hindering their preparation. In response, the state contended that it had fulfilled its discovery obligations by disclosing all pertinent materials in a timely manner. The prosecution emphasized that any outstanding expert reports were either not yet finalized or not applicable to the current stage of proceedings.The state further argued that the defense's request for sanctions was unwarranted, asserting that there was no willful withholding of information or violation of discovery rules. They maintained that ongoing communication between both parties would address any concerns regarding the exchange of information. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the case to proceed without the imposition of sanctions or additional discovery mandates.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense filed a "Motion to Compel I.C.R. 16(b)(7) Material and for Sanctions" on December 27, 2024. This motion asserts that the prosecution has failed to provide comprehensive expert reports and opinions as mandated by Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7). Specifically, the defense highlights that, out of the 25 experts the state intends to call, only five have submitted their reports. This lack of disclosure, according to the defense, hampers their ability to prepare adequately, especially with a looming deadline of January 23, 2025, for submitting their own expert disclosures.The defense contends that the prosecution's incomplete disclosures violate discovery rules, thereby prejudicing Kohberger's right to a fair trial. They argue that such omissions impede their capacity to confront and counter the state's expert testimonies effectively. As a remedy, the defense requests the court to either exclude the undisclosed expert testimonies or compel the prosecution to provide the necessary reports promptly. Additionally, they seek an extension of the January 23 deadline to ensure sufficient time for their preparations. This motion underscores the defense's concerns about procedural fairness and the necessity for full compliance with discovery obligations in this capital murder case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:122724-Motion-Compel-ICT-16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the prosecution filed an objection to the defense's motion to compel discovery under Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and for sanctions. The defense had argued that the prosecution failed to provide comprehensive expert reports, hindering their preparation. In response, the state contended that it had fulfilled its discovery obligations by disclosing all pertinent materials in a timely manner. The prosecution emphasized that any outstanding expert reports were either not yet finalized or not applicable to the current stage of proceedings.The state further argued that the defense's request for sanctions was unwarranted, asserting that there was no willful withholding of information or violation of discovery rules. They maintained that ongoing communication between both parties would address any concerns regarding the exchange of information. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the case to proceed without the imposition of sanctions or additional discovery mandates.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

In the case of State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense filed a "Motion to Compel I.C.R. 16(b)(7) Material and for Sanctions" on December 27, 2024. This motion asserts that the prosecution has failed to provide comprehensive expert reports and opinions as mandated by Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7). Specifically, the defense highlights that, out of the 25 experts the state intends to call, only five have submitted their reports. This lack of disclosure, according to the defense, hampers their ability to prepare adequately, especially with a looming deadline of January 23, 2025, for submitting their own expert disclosures.The defense contends that the prosecution's incomplete disclosures violate discovery rules, thereby prejudicing Kohberger's right to a fair trial. They argue that such omissions impede their capacity to confront and counter the state's expert testimonies effectively. As a remedy, the defense requests the court to either exclude the undisclosed expert testimonies or compel the prosecution to provide the necessary reports promptly. Additionally, they seek an extension of the January 23 deadline to ensure sufficient time for their preparations. This motion underscores the defense's concerns about procedural fairness and the necessity for full compliance with discovery obligations in this capital murder case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:122724-Motion-Compel-ICT-16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, the prosecution filed an objection to the defense's motion to compel discovery under Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and for sanctions. The defense had argued that the prosecution failed to provide comprehensive expert reports, hindering their preparation. In response, the state contended that it had fulfilled its discovery obligations by disclosing all pertinent materials in a timely manner. The prosecution emphasized that any outstanding expert reports were either not yet finalized or not applicable to the current stage of proceedings.The state further argued that the defense's request for sanctions was unwarranted, asserting that there was no willful withholding of information or violation of discovery rules. They maintained that ongoing communication between both parties would address any concerns regarding the exchange of information. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the case to proceed without the imposition of sanctions or additional discovery mandates.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:123124-Objection-Defendants-MtC-ICR16b7-Material-Sanctions.pdf

The Crossing Church

Our climb into the sewers of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise continues in this episode as we are now taking a look at the unredacted motion made by Viriginia Roberts to compel Maxwell to answer deposition questions filed under seal.(commercial at 11:06)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:epstein-documents-943-pages - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The dive into the court documents continues in this episode as we take a look at The Defendants Second Motion to Compel Discovery and we are also taking a look at the States Objection To Stay Proceedings.(commercial at 9:32)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:061523 Defendants Second Motion to Compel Discovery.pdf (idaho.gov)source:061523 States Objection to Motion To Stay Proceedings.pdf (idaho.gov)

In the lawsuit between Diageo and Combs Wines, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team submitted an opposition to Diageo's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the complaint. In this opposition, Combs argues that his claims, including requests for equitable relief, are not subject to arbitration under the terms of the joint venture agreement. The agreement's language, which allows for injunctive relief in cases of "irreparable harm," forms the basis of Combs' assertion that these matters should be handled in court.Combs alleges that Diageo discriminated against his brand by limiting its distribution and failing to meet its obligations within their partnership, claims that, according to his team, merit judicial review rather than arbitration. The court agreed with Combs in an earlier ruling, allowing these equitable claims to proceed in court. Diageo, however, maintains that all disputes, including those for damages, should be resolved through arbitration and is appealing the court's decision to deny its motion. The case continues to unfold as both sides contest the interpretation of the arbitration provisions and the scope of equitable relief allowed under the agreement.(commercial at 10:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_v_Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW_I_69.pdf (digitalmusicnews.com)

Over the last seven decades, some states successfully leveraged the threat of acquiring atomic weapons to compel concessions from superpowers. For many others, however, this coercive gambit failed to work. When does nuclear latency--the technical capacity to build the bomb--enable states to pursue effective coercion? In Leveraging Latency: How the Weak Compel the Strong with Nuclear Technology (Oxford UP, 2023), Tristan A. Volpe argues that having greater capacity to build weaponry doesn't translate to greater coercive advantage. Volpe finds that there is a trade-off between threatening proliferation and promising nuclear restraint. States need just enough bomb-making capacity to threaten proliferation but not so much that it becomes too difficult for them to offer nonproliferation assurances. The boundaries of this sweet spot align with the capacity to produce the fissile material at the heart of an atomic weapon. To test this argument, Volpe includes comparative case studies of four countries that leveraged latency against superpowers: Japan, West Germany, North Korea, and Iran. Volpe identifies a generalizable mechanism--the threat-assurance trade-off--that explains why more power often makes compellence less likely to work. Volpe proposes a framework that illuminates how technology shapes broader bargaining dynamics and helps to refine policy options for inhibiting the spread of nuclear weapons. As nuclear technology continues to cast a shadow over the global landscape, Leveraging Latency systematically assesses its coercive utility. Our guest today is Tristan Volpe, an Assistant Professor in the Defense Analysis Department at the Naval Postgraduate School and a nonresident fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Over the last seven decades, some states successfully leveraged the threat of acquiring atomic weapons to compel concessions from superpowers. For many others, however, this coercive gambit failed to work. When does nuclear latency--the technical capacity to build the bomb--enable states to pursue effective coercion? In Leveraging Latency: How the Weak Compel the Strong with Nuclear Technology (Oxford UP, 2023), Tristan A. Volpe argues that having greater capacity to build weaponry doesn't translate to greater coercive advantage. Volpe finds that there is a trade-off between threatening proliferation and promising nuclear restraint. States need just enough bomb-making capacity to threaten proliferation but not so much that it becomes too difficult for them to offer nonproliferation assurances. The boundaries of this sweet spot align with the capacity to produce the fissile material at the heart of an atomic weapon. To test this argument, Volpe includes comparative case studies of four countries that leveraged latency against superpowers: Japan, West Germany, North Korea, and Iran. Volpe identifies a generalizable mechanism--the threat-assurance trade-off--that explains why more power often makes compellence less likely to work. Volpe proposes a framework that illuminates how technology shapes broader bargaining dynamics and helps to refine policy options for inhibiting the spread of nuclear weapons. As nuclear technology continues to cast a shadow over the global landscape, Leveraging Latency systematically assesses its coercive utility. Our guest today is Tristan Volpe, an Assistant Professor in the Defense Analysis Department at the Naval Postgraduate School and a nonresident fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Over the last seven decades, some states successfully leveraged the threat of acquiring atomic weapons to compel concessions from superpowers. For many others, however, this coercive gambit failed to work. When does nuclear latency--the technical capacity to build the bomb--enable states to pursue effective coercion? In Leveraging Latency: How the Weak Compel the Strong with Nuclear Technology (Oxford UP, 2023), Tristan A. Volpe argues that having greater capacity to build weaponry doesn't translate to greater coercive advantage. Volpe finds that there is a trade-off between threatening proliferation and promising nuclear restraint. States need just enough bomb-making capacity to threaten proliferation but not so much that it becomes too difficult for them to offer nonproliferation assurances. The boundaries of this sweet spot align with the capacity to produce the fissile material at the heart of an atomic weapon. To test this argument, Volpe includes comparative case studies of four countries that leveraged latency against superpowers: Japan, West Germany, North Korea, and Iran. Volpe identifies a generalizable mechanism--the threat-assurance trade-off--that explains why more power often makes compellence less likely to work. Volpe proposes a framework that illuminates how technology shapes broader bargaining dynamics and helps to refine policy options for inhibiting the spread of nuclear weapons. As nuclear technology continues to cast a shadow over the global landscape, Leveraging Latency systematically assesses its coercive utility. Our guest today is Tristan Volpe, an Assistant Professor in the Defense Analysis Department at the Naval Postgraduate School and a nonresident fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

Over the last seven decades, some states successfully leveraged the threat of acquiring atomic weapons to compel concessions from superpowers. For many others, however, this coercive gambit failed to work. When does nuclear latency--the technical capacity to build the bomb--enable states to pursue effective coercion? In Leveraging Latency: How the Weak Compel the Strong with Nuclear Technology (Oxford UP, 2023), Tristan A. Volpe argues that having greater capacity to build weaponry doesn't translate to greater coercive advantage. Volpe finds that there is a trade-off between threatening proliferation and promising nuclear restraint. States need just enough bomb-making capacity to threaten proliferation but not so much that it becomes too difficult for them to offer nonproliferation assurances. The boundaries of this sweet spot align with the capacity to produce the fissile material at the heart of an atomic weapon. To test this argument, Volpe includes comparative case studies of four countries that leveraged latency against superpowers: Japan, West Germany, North Korea, and Iran. Volpe identifies a generalizable mechanism--the threat-assurance trade-off--that explains why more power often makes compellence less likely to work. Volpe proposes a framework that illuminates how technology shapes broader bargaining dynamics and helps to refine policy options for inhibiting the spread of nuclear weapons. As nuclear technology continues to cast a shadow over the global landscape, Leveraging Latency systematically assesses its coercive utility. Our guest today is Tristan Volpe, an Assistant Professor in the Defense Analysis Department at the Naval Postgraduate School and a nonresident fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/national-security

In the lawsuit between Diageo and Combs Wines, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team submitted an opposition to Diageo's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the complaint. In this opposition, Combs argues that his claims, including requests for equitable relief, are not subject to arbitration under the terms of the joint venture agreement. The agreement's language, which allows for injunctive relief in cases of "irreparable harm," forms the basis of Combs' assertion that these matters should be handled in court.Combs alleges that Diageo discriminated against his brand by limiting its distribution and failing to meet its obligations within their partnership, claims that, according to his team, merit judicial review rather than arbitration. The court agreed with Combs in an earlier ruling, allowing these equitable claims to proceed in court. Diageo, however, maintains that all disputes, including those for damages, should be resolved through arbitration and is appealing the court's decision to deny its motion. The case continues to unfold as both sides contest the interpretation of the arbitration provisions and the scope of equitable relief allowed under the agreement.(commercial at 10:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_v_Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW_I_69.pdf (digitalmusicnews.com)

Over the last seven decades, some states successfully leveraged the threat of acquiring atomic weapons to compel concessions from superpowers. For many others, however, this coercive gambit failed to work. When does nuclear latency--the technical capacity to build the bomb--enable states to pursue effective coercion? In Leveraging Latency: How the Weak Compel the Strong with Nuclear Technology (Oxford UP, 2023), Tristan A. Volpe argues that having greater capacity to build weaponry doesn't translate to greater coercive advantage. Volpe finds that there is a trade-off between threatening proliferation and promising nuclear restraint. States need just enough bomb-making capacity to threaten proliferation but not so much that it becomes too difficult for them to offer nonproliferation assurances. The boundaries of this sweet spot align with the capacity to produce the fissile material at the heart of an atomic weapon. To test this argument, Volpe includes comparative case studies of four countries that leveraged latency against superpowers: Japan, West Germany, North Korea, and Iran. Volpe identifies a generalizable mechanism--the threat-assurance trade-off--that explains why more power often makes compellence less likely to work. Volpe proposes a framework that illuminates how technology shapes broader bargaining dynamics and helps to refine policy options for inhibiting the spread of nuclear weapons. As nuclear technology continues to cast a shadow over the global landscape, Leveraging Latency systematically assesses its coercive utility. Our guest today is Tristan Volpe, an Assistant Professor in the Defense Analysis Department at the Naval Postgraduate School and a nonresident fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

In the lawsuit between Diageo and Combs Wines, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team submitted an opposition to Diageo's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the complaint. In this opposition, Combs argues that his claims, including requests for equitable relief, are not subject to arbitration under the terms of the joint venture agreement. The agreement's language, which allows for injunctive relief in cases of "irreparable harm," forms the basis of Combs' assertion that these matters should be handled in court.Combs alleges that Diageo discriminated against his brand by limiting its distribution and failing to meet its obligations within their partnership, claims that, according to his team, merit judicial review rather than arbitration. The court agreed with Combs in an earlier ruling, allowing these equitable claims to proceed in court. Diageo, however, maintains that all disputes, including those for damages, should be resolved through arbitration and is appealing the court's decision to deny its motion. The case continues to unfold as both sides contest the interpretation of the arbitration provisions and the scope of equitable relief allowed under the agreement.(commercial at 10:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_v_Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW_I_69.pdf (digitalmusicnews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the lawsuit between Diageo and Combs Wines, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team submitted an opposition to Diageo's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the complaint. In this opposition, Combs argues that his claims, including requests for equitable relief, are not subject to arbitration under the terms of the joint venture agreement. The agreement's language, which allows for injunctive relief in cases of "irreparable harm," forms the basis of Combs' assertion that these matters should be handled in court.Combs alleges that Diageo discriminated against his brand by limiting its distribution and failing to meet its obligations within their partnership, claims that, according to his team, merit judicial review rather than arbitration. The court agreed with Combs in an earlier ruling, allowing these equitable claims to proceed in court. Diageo, however, maintains that all disputes, including those for damages, should be resolved through arbitration and is appealing the court's decision to deny its motion. The case continues to unfold as both sides contest the interpretation of the arbitration provisions and the scope of equitable relief allowed under the agreement.(commercial at 10:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_v_Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW_I_69.pdf (digitalmusicnews.com)

Actress Whitney Goin was raised in Orlando, Florida, immersed in a community, church, and family that modeled generosity as a way of life. Her father, a powerful influence, shaped her understanding of giving as a deeply relational commitment, leaving a profound legacy in his community through his wholehearted generosity. After his passing, Whitney felt compelled to pursue her own distinct path, discovering how to express generosity in a way that truly resonated with her. A meaningful connection with our guest co-host, Julie Wilson, led Whitney to find a welcoming community in Women Doing Well—a network of faith-driven, generous women. This supportive circle helped her reignite her sense of purpose in giving, as she uncovered God's unique design for her generosity journey. Now, Whitney uses her passion for acting and theater to inspire others, encouraging them to embrace their own distinctive calling to generosity in alignment with their purpose and passions. Major topics include: Her father's generosity legacy Learning how God designed you to give Following the voice of the Holy Spirit with joy The blessing and tension of freedom from comparison in generosity How to know and walk in your purpose Individuality and diversity within the Body of Christ Freedom in spontaneous generosity QUOTES TO REMEMBER “God does not ask us to give of ourselves until He fills us to overflowing with what He's asking us to give.” “I started realizing just how unique and special and diverse we all are, not only with how we give and where we give, but in the way we were created uniquely to give.” “I'm now on fire with joy! It's truly an overflow rather than trying to scrap for a little energy to be generous.” “So much of our walk with the Lord is having the vulnerability to really get to know ourselves and let Him show us who we are. Stop trying to be who you think you're supposed to be so you can truly be the hands and feet He's created you to be.” “I pray everyday, ‘Compel me or constrain me according to Your will.'” “I don't need to be any bigger than the influence He's put right before me.” LINKS FROM THE SHOW Julie Wilson, President of Women Doing Well (see our past interview here) Generous Giving (see our interviews with cofounders Todd Harper and David Wills and CEO, April Chapman) A Land Remembered by Patrick D. Smith The Finish Line Community Facebook Group The Finish Line Community LinkedIn Group BIBLE REFERENCES FROM THE SHOW Matthew 11:30 | Easy and Light “For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” 2 Corinthians 9:7 | A Cheerful Giver Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. Psalm 31:7-8 | A Broad Place I will rejoice and be glad in your steadfast love, because you have seen my affliction; you have known the distress of my soul, and you have not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; you have set my feet in a broad place.   WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! If you have a thought about something you heard, or a story to share, please reach out! You can find us on Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn. You can also contact us directly from our contact page. If you want to engage with the Finish Line Community, check out our groups on Facebookand LinkedIn.

In the lawsuit between Diageo and Combs Wines, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team submitted an opposition to Diageo's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the complaint. In this opposition, Combs argues that his claims, including requests for equitable relief, are not subject to arbitration under the terms of the joint venture agreement. The agreement's language, which allows for injunctive relief in cases of "irreparable harm," forms the basis of Combs' assertion that these matters should be handled in court.Combs alleges that Diageo discriminated against his brand by limiting its distribution and failing to meet its obligations within their partnership, claims that, according to his team, merit judicial review rather than arbitration. The court agreed with Combs in an earlier ruling, allowing these equitable claims to proceed in court. Diageo, however, maintains that all disputes, including those for damages, should be resolved through arbitration and is appealing the court's decision to deny its motion. The case continues to unfold as both sides contest the interpretation of the arbitration provisions and the scope of equitable relief allowed under the agreement.(commercial at 8:11)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_v_Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW_I_69.pdf (digitalmusicnews.com)

In the lawsuit between Diageo and Combs Wines, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team submitted an opposition to Diageo's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the complaint. In this opposition, Combs argues that his claims, including requests for equitable relief, are not subject to arbitration under the terms of the joint venture agreement. The agreement's language, which allows for injunctive relief in cases of "irreparable harm," forms the basis of Combs' assertion that these matters should be handled in court.Combs alleges that Diageo discriminated against his brand by limiting its distribution and failing to meet its obligations within their partnership, claims that, according to his team, merit judicial review rather than arbitration. The court agreed with Combs in an earlier ruling, allowing these equitable claims to proceed in court. Diageo, however, maintains that all disputes, including those for damages, should be resolved through arbitration and is appealing the court's decision to deny its motion. The case continues to unfold as both sides contest the interpretation of the arbitration provisions and the scope of equitable relief allowed under the agreement.(commercial at 8:11)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_v_Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW_I_69.pdf (digitalmusicnews.com)

In the lawsuit between Diageo and Combs Wines, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team submitted an opposition to Diageo's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the complaint. In this opposition, Combs argues that his claims, including requests for equitable relief, are not subject to arbitration under the terms of the joint venture agreement. The agreement's language, which allows for injunctive relief in cases of "irreparable harm," forms the basis of Combs' assertion that these matters should be handled in court.Combs alleges that Diageo discriminated against his brand by limiting its distribution and failing to meet its obligations within their partnership, claims that, according to his team, merit judicial review rather than arbitration. The court agreed with Combs in an earlier ruling, allowing these equitable claims to proceed in court. Diageo, however, maintains that all disputes, including those for damages, should be resolved through arbitration and is appealing the court's decision to deny its motion. The case continues to unfold as both sides contest the interpretation of the arbitration provisions and the scope of equitable relief allowed under the agreement.(commercial at 8:11)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_v_Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW_I_69.pdf (digitalmusicnews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the lawsuit between Diageo and Combs Wines, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team submitted an opposition to Diageo's motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the complaint. In this opposition, Combs argues that his claims, including requests for equitable relief, are not subject to arbitration under the terms of the joint venture agreement. The agreement's language, which allows for injunctive relief in cases of "irreparable harm," forms the basis of Combs' assertion that these matters should be handled in court.Combs alleges that Diageo discriminated against his brand by limiting its distribution and failing to meet its obligations within their partnership, claims that, according to his team, merit judicial review rather than arbitration. The court agreed with Combs in an earlier ruling, allowing these equitable claims to proceed in court. Diageo, however, maintains that all disputes, including those for damages, should be resolved through arbitration and is appealing the court's decision to deny its motion. The case continues to unfold as both sides contest the interpretation of the arbitration provisions and the scope of equitable relief allowed under the agreement.(commercial at 7:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_v_Combs_Wines_and_Spirit_MEMORANDUM_OF_LAW_I_69.pdf (digitalmusicnews.com)

We analyze the latest two filings from Richard Allen's defense team in the Delphi murders case.Support The Murder Sheet by buying a t-shirt here: https://www.murdersheetshop.com/Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Episode 2542 - On this Wednesday show, Vinnie Tortorich welcomes guest co-host Teresa Strasser to discuss the things that compel you in food addiction, creatine, and more. https://vinnietortorich.com/2024/09/the-things-that-compel-you-episode-2542 PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS YOU CAN WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE - The Things That Compel You Continuing the conversation from an earlier episode regarding food addiction and GLP-1s. (2:30) How the hormones leptin, ghrelin, cortisol, and insulin work. (6:30) The body can become resistant to these hormones and create hunger even when your stomach is full. Teresa shares news regarding levels of chemicals in certain foods, including dark chocolate. (17:00) Vinnie advises athletes on what to do to bulk up. (22:00) You cannot “pump” fat; you can only “pump” muscle. Athletes need lean muscle, not fat. (23:30) Vinnie doesn't always advise protein powders, but there are a couple that may help with goals. (27:30) Creatine can help, too, but there are some caveats. (30:00) More is not better; if too much is taken over time, the body will downregulate and not produce its own. Other sources that have creatine are red meat and eggs. Creatine can also help with hydration, brain function, and other benefits. Teresa has a book called “,” which is in Vinnie's Book Club. Teresa shares how Cal Ripken Jr came to endorse her book, “Making It Home.” (39:00)   (27:30) It's listed under “Special Interest” with a PG-13 rating. There is nothing in it to have earned a PG-13 rating—it's family-friendly. Buy or rent it, rate it, and review it! Watching, rating, and giving good reviews will help him expand the documentary's reach.   Don't forget about the NSNG® Foods promo code! Use promo code VINNIE at the checkout and get 15% off. The promo code ONLY works on the NSNG® Foods website, NOT Amazon. Vinnie's rumble channel: Vinnie's X/Twitter channel: Vinnie shares an update to his website that you'll want to check out: a VIP section! Go to   to join the waitlist! [the_ad id="20253"] PURCHASE  DIRTY KETO (2024) The documentary launched in August 2024! Order it TODAY! This is Vinnie's fourth documentary in just over five years. Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere: Then, please share my fact-based, health-focused documentary series with your friends and family. The more views, the better it ranks, so please watch it again with a new friend! REVIEWS: Please submit your REVIEW after you watch my films. Your positive REVIEW does matter! PURCHASE BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE (2022) The documentary launched on January 11, 2022! Order it TODAY! This is Vinnie's third documentary in just over three years. Get it now on Apple TV (iTunes) and/or Amazon Video! Link to the film on Apple TV (iTunes):  Then, Share this link with friends, too! It's also now available on Amazon (the USA only for now)!  Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere: REVIEWS: Please submit your REVIEW after you watch my films. Your positive REVIEW does matter! FAT: A DOCUMENTARY 2 (2021) Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere: FAT: A DOCUMENTARY (2019) Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere: