Podcasts about defendants

Public defenders working in the federal system representing indigent defendants aren't getting paid. The federal government ran out of money, as my colleague April Baumgarten reported recently. That's a big problem. Every American accused of a crime has a right to counsel, and while you might think that public defenders are just for poor people, they actually represent most people accused of a crime. In North Dakota, the precentage of criminal defendants represented by a public defender is north of 80%. In the federal system, nationwide, it's around 90% Jason Tupman said on this episode of Plain Talk. Tupman is the top federal public defender for the North Dakota and South Dakota district (full disclosure: my sister works as an investigator for Tupman's office). "There will be consequences," he said of this lack of funding. "I think they are not just short-term, either." The federal employees in Tupman's offices cover about 2/3's of the cases in North and South Dakota, with the rest going to private sector attorneys who participate in what's called the Criminal Justice Act Panel. Right now, those panel lawyers won't be getting a check until October 1, though given the chaos in Washington D.C. right now, there's not a lot that's certain. Tupman, and Mark Friese, a prominent defense attorney from the Vogel Law Firm who is a representative on the CJA Panel, say that lawyers are beginning to turn down these cases. That means delays in the criminal justice process for defendants, which in turn means more costs associated with things like pre-trial detention. Also, it may also mean that they're assigned by lawyers from other areas, who may struggle to provide adequate counsel, which in turn may result in more appeals and procedural delays. We are currently having a rollicking debate about the federal debt and deficits, but delays or cuts in funding for federal public defenders could actually end up costing the taxpayers more. Tupman points out that the work of his office isn't political. "This office and this panel has represented George Floyd protesters and they have represented January 6 defendants," he said. "This is a non-political group...who represent individuals, treat them with dignity, and do so every day pretty quietly. To not pay them for the work they've already done can be crippling. Crippling to them and crippling to our future functioning." Friese, meanwhile, pointed out that even when the feds are paying the bills, they're far below what private sector attorneys can otherwise earn. "A lot of your listeners are going to say, $175 an hour, that's crazy," he said referring to the rate at which panel attorneys are compensated. "That's less than half the market rate. That's less than half the prevailing rate if you were to come to me in my private practice to hire me for representation." "When I take my car in the mechanic shop, the prevailing rate in in North Dakota is 150 bucks an hour," he continued. "So, we're paid $25 more an hour than a mechanic shop, essentially." Also on this episode, co-host Chad Oban and I talk about my criticism of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa's lawsuit over redistricting (Chad thinks I'm full of it) and we also give some praise to the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce for their efforts to promote civics. If you want to participate in Plain Talk, just give us a call or text at 701-587-3141. It's super easy — leave your message, tell us your name and where you're from, and we might feature it on an upcoming episode. To subscribe to Plain Talk, search for the show wherever you get your podcasts or use one of the links below. Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Pocket Casts | Episode Archive

This Day in Legal History: Residence ActOn July 16, 1790, the U.S. Congress passed the Residence Act, establishing the District of Columbia as the permanent seat of the federal government. The decision was the product of a political compromise between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, brokered in part by James Madison, whereby southern states would support federal assumption of state debts in exchange for locating the capital along the Potomac River. The land for the new district was ceded by both Maryland and Virginia, and the Constitution allowed for a federal district not exceeding ten miles square. President George Washington personally selected the site, which straddled the Potomac and included portions of Alexandria and Georgetown.Pierre Charles L'Enfant was tasked with designing the city's layout, envisioning broad avenues and grand public spaces to reflect the dignity of the new republic. In the early years, however, Washington, D.C. remained underdeveloped and muddy, with many of the federal buildings still under construction. Over time, most major institutions and monuments were built on the Maryland side of the river, causing concern among residents on the Virginia side. In 1846, responding to economic neglect and the declining significance of Alexandria as a port, Congress approved Virginia's request to retrocede its portion of the district. This land, now Arlington County and part of the city of Alexandria, rejoined Virginia, reducing the size of D.C. to its current boundaries.The Residence Act and subsequent development of Washington, D.C. created a unique legal and political entity—neither a state nor part of one. This status continues to affect the rights and representation of its residents, a legal debate that remains active today.An $8 billion shareholder lawsuit against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other current and former company leaders began this week in Delaware's Chancery Court, focusing on alleged failures to uphold Facebook's 2012 privacy agreement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The plaintiffs argue that Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Reed Hastings, and others knowingly allowed Facebook user data to be harvested—specifically in relation to the Cambridge Analytica scandal that surfaced in 2018. That breach led to a record $5 billion FTC fine, which shareholders now want the defendants to personally reimburse, along with additional legal costs.The trial, presided over by Chief Judge Kathaleen McCormick, will feature testimony from several high-profile witnesses, including White House Chief of Staff Jeffrey Zients, who served on Meta's board from 2018 to 2020. Plaintiffs claim Zuckerberg profited by selling Facebook stock before the public learned of the data misuse, allegedly netting over $1 billion. Defendants deny all wrongdoing, maintaining they relied on compliance experts and were misled by Cambridge Analytica.This is the first oversight liability case of its kind to reach trial, a notoriously difficult claim under Delaware corporate law. Meta itself is not named as a defendant, and the company has declined to comment, though it has previously stated it has invested heavily in privacy protections since 2019.Facebook privacy practices the focus of $8 billion trial targeting Zuckerberg | ReutersKilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant wrongly deported from the U.S. despite legal protections, is scheduled to appear in a Tennessee federal court on smuggling charges, though the future of his case remains murky. Abrego had been living legally in Maryland with a work permit and was protected by a 2019 court order barring deportation to El Salvador due to threats of gang violence. Nonetheless, he was deported in March and imprisoned there before being returned to the U.S. after federal prosecutors indicted him for allegedly participating in a human smuggling operation.He has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers claim the charges are politically motivated—a cover for the Trump administration's mishandling of his case. They also challenge the credibility of prosecution witnesses, who are alleged co-conspirators seeking to avoid their own deportation or charges. A magistrate judge ordered Abrego released on bail, but prosecutors are appealing, arguing he poses a flight risk and should remain detained. Even if released from criminal custody, immigration officials have said they plan to detain him immediately for possible deportation.Judge Waverly Crenshaw is expected to hear arguments and potentially rule on his bail status. Abrego's attorneys have asked to delay any release until Wednesday to prevent sudden removal before he can challenge deportation. The administration has signaled it may try to deport him to a third country—possibly Mexico or South Sudan—instead of El Salvador. His case has become emblematic of broader concerns over due process in the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement agenda.Returned deportee Abrego due in Tennessee court; future of smuggling case uncertain | ReutersMilbank, a prominent New York-based law firm, is representing the cities of Newark and Hoboken in a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump's administration over their immigration policies. The federal suit, filed in May, accuses the cities of obstructing immigration enforcement by acting as “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Milbank's defense team includes notable figures like former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal and ex-New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, now both partners at the firm.Milbank's involvement in the case comes just months after it agreed to a deal with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted by executive orders aimed at major law firms. Trump had accused those firms of politicizing legal work and using racial diversity initiatives improperly. In response, several firms—including Milbank—committed to providing nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to mutually agreed-upon causes. Milbank set aside $100 million as part of its agreement, though it was not formally sanctioned.Despite that arrangement, Milbank has taken on multiple high-profile cases opposing the Trump administration. In addition to defending Newark and Hoboken, Katyal is leading two other cases challenging Trump policies, including import tariffs and alleged wrongful termination of a federal board member. The firm's role in these cases highlights its continued legal pushback against the administration, even while navigating its negotiated settlement with the White House.Law firm Milbank defends NJ cities in Trump immigration lawsuit | ReutersA piece I wrote for Inside Higher Ed this week argues that tax policy deserves a central place in the undergraduate liberal arts curriculum—not as a technical specialty but as a cornerstone of civic education. I open by reflecting on the tax legislation passed under President Trump, that is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, noting how its complexity served political ends by shielding its full implications from public understanding. That opacity, I suggest, is not accidental—and it's exactly why we need to teach tax more broadly.In my course at Drexel University, “Introduction to Tax Theory and Policy,” I approach tax not as accounting or law but as a form of civic infrastructure. The course welcomes students from all majors, encouraging them to think about taxation in terms of fairness, power, and values. We explore how tax policy shapes economic behavior, redistributes resources, and reflects assumptions about what and whom government should support. Students analyze topics ranging from estate taxes to digital surveillance and propose their own reforms grounded in ethical and civic reasoning.By demystifying the tax code and framing it as a site of public decision-making, I aim to empower students to see themselves not just as subjects of tax policy but as potential shapers of it. Their engagement—often surprisingly enthusiastic—reveals a hunger for this kind of critical, values-based education. Ultimately, I argue that tax belongs in the liberal arts because it teaches students not just how the world works, but how it's been made to work—and how it could be remade more equitably.Tax Policy Belongs in Liberal Arts Curriculum (opinion) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Sedition Act PassedOn this day in legal history, July 14, 1798, the United States Congress passed the Sedition Act, one of the most controversial laws in the nation's early political history. Part of the broader Alien and Sedition Acts, this law made it a crime to publish “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the federal government, Congress, or the President with the intent to defame or bring them into disrepute. Ostensibly aimed at quelling foreign influence and internal subversion during the quasi-war with France, the Act was also a clear weapon against domestic political opposition—particularly the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson.Federalist lawmakers, who dominated Congress and the presidency under John Adams, justified the law as necessary for national security. However, it was widely criticized as an assault on First Amendment rights and a means of silencing dissent. The law resulted in the prosecution of several Republican editors and even members of Congress, including Representative Matthew Lyon of Vermont, who was sentenced to four months in jail.The Sedition Act provoked a fierce backlash and spurred Jefferson and James Madison to draft the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which introduced the doctrine of nullification—the idea that states could declare federal laws unconstitutional. Public outrage over the Act played a significant role in the Federalists' defeat in the election of 1800 and the subsequent repeal or expiration of most provisions of the Alien and Sedition Acts.The Sedition Act expired on March 3, 1801, the day before Jefferson assumed the presidency. Its legacy remains a cautionary tale about the tension between national security and civil liberties, and it is frequently cited in debates over the limits of free speech in times of political crisis.California tax authorities have flagged over 1,500 high-end vehicles sold by 500 dealerships as likely being registered through Montana LLCs in an attempt to avoid California sales tax and vehicle registration fees. These vehicles—worth more than $300 million collectively—are tied to a long-running strategy used by buyers of luxury assets like exotic cars, yachts, and RVs to exploit Montana's zero percent sales tax and minimal registration costs. Dealers and buyers now face possible penalties, audits, and investigations as California intensifies enforcement.The scheme works like this: a buyer sets up a Montana LLC, purchases and registers the vehicle under that entity, and keeps the car out-of-state on paper—even if it's garaged and driven daily in a state like California. That regulatory fiction is precisely what states are cracking down on. Bloomberg Tax recently highlighted the scale of the problem, noting that more than 600,000 vehicles are likely registered in Montana but used elsewhere, costing states billions annually in uncollected taxes.Montana LLCs have become a go-to workaround for the wealthy looking to sidestep their home-state tax obligations. While technically legal under Montana law, when the vehicle is used in another state without proper registration or tax payment, it becomes a form of tax evasion. States like Illinois and Utah are following California's lead, passing laws to “look through” LLCs and hold in-state beneficial owners accountable.This isn't just a niche tax dodge—it's a broader challenge to state tax enforcement. As wealthier individuals increasingly exploit differences between state tax codes, it's prompting legal reforms and inter-agency cooperation to close loopholes once thought too obscure or dispersed to address. California's latest enforcement push suggests these Montana LLC schemes are no longer flying under the radar—and that other states may soon follow with penalties and structural reforms of their own.California Finds 1,500 Vehicles Linked to Montana Tax SheltersNearly two-thirds of the U.S. Department of Justice's Federal Programs Branch—the unit charged with defending Trump administration policies in court—has resigned or announced plans to leave since Donald Trump's reelection. Out of roughly 110 attorneys, 69 have exited, according to a list reviewed by Reuters. The exodus includes nearly half the section's supervisors and is far greater than typical turnover seen in prior administrations. While the Trump administration maintains its legal actions are within constitutional bounds, current and former DOJ lawyers cite an overwhelming workload and ethical concerns as key drivers of the departures.Many career lawyers reportedly struggled to defend policies they saw as legally dubious or procedurally flawed, including efforts to revoke birthright citizenship and claw back federal funding from universities. Several feared they'd be pressured to make misleading or unethical arguments in court. In some cases, lawyers were expected to defend executive orders with minimal input from the agencies involved. A recent whistleblower complaint even alleged retaliation against a supervisor who refused to make unsupportable claims in immigration cases.Despite the mass departures, the Trump administration continues to rely heavily on the unit as it seeks to expand executive power following favorable Supreme Court rulings. The DOJ has reassigned attorneys from other divisions, brought in over a dozen political appointees, and exempted the unit from the federal hiring freeze to keep up with litigation demands. Critics argue the changes undermine DOJ independence, while supporters claim the administration is merely ensuring its policies get a fair defense in court.Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit | ReutersAn $8 billion trial kicks off this week in Delaware where Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and several current and former Facebook leaders are accused by shareholders of knowingly violating a 2012 FTC consent decree aimed at protecting user privacy. The lawsuit stems from the 2018 revelation that Cambridge Analytica accessed data from millions of Facebook users without their consent, ultimately leading to billions in fines and costs for Meta—including a $5 billion penalty from the FTC in 2019. Shareholders, including union pension funds like California's State Teachers' Retirement System, want Zuckerberg and others to reimburse the company, alleging they operated Facebook as a law-breaking enterprise.Defendants in the case include Sheryl Sandberg, Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel, and Reed Hastings. While Meta itself is not a defendant, the case focuses on the board's alleged failure to oversee privacy practices and enforce the 2012 agreement. The plaintiffs must prove what legal experts call the most difficult claim in corporate law: a total failure of oversight by directors. Delaware law gives leeway for poor business decisions—but not illegal ones, even if they're profitable.Zuckerberg is expected to testify, and plaintiffs argue he personally directed deceptive privacy practices and tried to offload stock ahead of the Cambridge Analytica scandal to avoid losses, allegedly netting $1 billion. Defendants deny wrongdoing, claiming the company took privacy seriously by investing in compliance and being deceived by Cambridge Analytica.Meta investors, Zuckerberg to square off at $8 billion trial over alleged privacy violations | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In the case CR29-22-2805, the defense filed a Reply to the State's Objection to the Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue. This motion is part of the ongoing legal proceedings against Bryan Kohberger, who is accused of the murder of four University of Idaho students. The defense argued that due to the extensive media coverage and the intense public interest in the case, finding an impartial jury within Latah County would be nearly impossible. They contend that moving the trial to another venue is necessary to ensure a fair trial.The State, however, objected to this motion, asserting that the pretrial publicity, while extensive, does not automatically disqualify the ability to empanel an impartial jury. The defense's reply emphasized that the local community's involvement and the saturation of the case in the media have created a prejudiced environment, making a fair trial in the current venue untenable.The reply also referenced surveys and expert opinions that support the argument for a change of venue. The defense further criticized the State's reliance on the voir dire process (jury selection) as an adequate safeguard against bias, arguing that the overwhelming public sentiment in the area would not be adequately addressed merely through questioning potential jurors.This back-and-forth on the motion reflects the high stakes and contentious nature of the pretrial proceedings, with both sides preparing for a legal battle that hinges on ensuring the trial's fairness amidst widespread public interest.(commercial at 7:43)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs et al., the Combs defendants filed a reply memorandum in further support of their partial motion to dismiss the complaint. They argue that several of the plaintiff's claims—including those related to alleged events occurring outside the statute of limitations—should be dismissed as time-barred. The defense maintains that the plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient factual support to sustain certain causes of action, including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and various state law allegations. They also contend that the complaint improperly lumps together multiple corporate entities without specific allegations connecting each to the alleged conduct.Additionally, the Combs defendants assert that the complaint is vague and fails to meet the pleading standards required under federal law. They emphasize that the plaintiff has not sufficiently linked Sean Combs or the named corporate entities to actionable misconduct that would justify moving forward on all counts. The reply brief reinforces the argument that certain claims—particularly those not tied to clearly identified actions or dates—lack the specificity needed to survive a motion to dismiss. As such, they request the court to dismiss the relevant portions of the complaint while allowing only properly pleaded claims to proceed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629905.61.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs et al., the Combs defendants filed a reply memorandum in further support of their partial motion to dismiss the complaint. They argue that several of the plaintiff's claims—including those related to alleged events occurring outside the statute of limitations—should be dismissed as time-barred. The defense maintains that the plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient factual support to sustain certain causes of action, including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and various state law allegations. They also contend that the complaint improperly lumps together multiple corporate entities without specific allegations connecting each to the alleged conduct.Additionally, the Combs defendants assert that the complaint is vague and fails to meet the pleading standards required under federal law. They emphasize that the plaintiff has not sufficiently linked Sean Combs or the named corporate entities to actionable misconduct that would justify moving forward on all counts. The reply brief reinforces the argument that certain claims—particularly those not tied to clearly identified actions or dates—lack the specificity needed to survive a motion to dismiss. As such, they request the court to dismiss the relevant portions of the complaint while allowing only properly pleaded claims to proceed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629905.61.0.pdf

In the memorandum of law filed on June 24, 2025, Best Buy Co., Inc. moves to dismiss the complaint brought by Latroya Grayson, arguing that her claims are legally insufficient and fail to meet the required pleading standards. Best Buy asserts that Grayson's complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying the company to any actionable misconduct. They contend that her claims are vague, conclusory, and do not provide enough detail to establish liability under any legal theory presented. Best Buy emphasizes that the complaint does not demonstrate how the company engaged in or was directly responsible for any wrongdoing that could support the causes of action alleged..Furthermore, Best Buy argues that even if the facts alleged were accepted as true, they do not constitute a viable claim under the applicable law. The memorandum highlights deficiencies in Grayson's legal assertions, including a failure to show damages or injury traceable to Best Buy's conduct. The company also challenges any implied legal theories within the complaint as speculative and unsupported. As such, Best Buy requests that the court dismiss the case in its entirety with prejudice, citing the insufficiency of the complaint to survive a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.633985.71.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the memorandum of law filed on June 24, 2025, Best Buy Co., Inc. moves to dismiss the complaint brought by Latroya Grayson, arguing that her claims are legally insufficient and fail to meet the required pleading standards. Best Buy asserts that Grayson's complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying the company to any actionable misconduct. They contend that her claims are vague, conclusory, and do not provide enough detail to establish liability under any legal theory presented. Best Buy emphasizes that the complaint does not demonstrate how the company engaged in or was directly responsible for any wrongdoing that could support the causes of action alleged..Furthermore, Best Buy argues that even if the facts alleged were accepted as true, they do not constitute a viable claim under the applicable law. The memorandum highlights deficiencies in Grayson's legal assertions, including a failure to show damages or injury traceable to Best Buy's conduct. The company also challenges any implied legal theories within the complaint as speculative and unsupported. As such, Best Buy requests that the court dismiss the case in its entirety with prejudice, citing the insufficiency of the complaint to survive a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.633985.71.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the memorandum of law filed on June 24, 2025, Best Buy Co., Inc. moves to dismiss the complaint brought by Latroya Grayson, arguing that her claims are legally insufficient and fail to meet the required pleading standards. Best Buy asserts that Grayson's complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying the company to any actionable misconduct. They contend that her claims are vague, conclusory, and do not provide enough detail to establish liability under any legal theory presented. Best Buy emphasizes that the complaint does not demonstrate how the company engaged in or was directly responsible for any wrongdoing that could support the causes of action alleged..Furthermore, Best Buy argues that even if the facts alleged were accepted as true, they do not constitute a viable claim under the applicable law. The memorandum highlights deficiencies in Grayson's legal assertions, including a failure to show damages or injury traceable to Best Buy's conduct. The company also challenges any implied legal theories within the complaint as speculative and unsupported. As such, Best Buy requests that the court dismiss the case in its entirety with prejudice, citing the insufficiency of the complaint to survive a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.633985.71.0.pdf

In the memorandum of law filed on June 24, 2025, Best Buy Co., Inc. moves to dismiss the complaint brought by Latroya Grayson, arguing that her claims are legally insufficient and fail to meet the required pleading standards. Best Buy asserts that Grayson's complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying the company to any actionable misconduct. They contend that her claims are vague, conclusory, and do not provide enough detail to establish liability under any legal theory presented. Best Buy emphasizes that the complaint does not demonstrate how the company engaged in or was directly responsible for any wrongdoing that could support the causes of action alleged..Furthermore, Best Buy argues that even if the facts alleged were accepted as true, they do not constitute a viable claim under the applicable law. The memorandum highlights deficiencies in Grayson's legal assertions, including a failure to show damages or injury traceable to Best Buy's conduct. The company also challenges any implied legal theories within the complaint as speculative and unsupported. As such, Best Buy requests that the court dismiss the case in its entirety with prejudice, citing the insufficiency of the complaint to survive a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.633985.71.0.pdf

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs et al., the Combs defendants filed a reply memorandum in further support of their partial motion to dismiss the complaint. They argue that several of the plaintiff's claims—including those related to alleged events occurring outside the statute of limitations—should be dismissed as time-barred. The defense maintains that the plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient factual support to sustain certain causes of action, including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and various state law allegations. They also contend that the complaint improperly lumps together multiple corporate entities without specific allegations connecting each to the alleged conduct.Additionally, the Combs defendants assert that the complaint is vague and fails to meet the pleading standards required under federal law. They emphasize that the plaintiff has not sufficiently linked Sean Combs or the named corporate entities to actionable misconduct that would justify moving forward on all counts. The reply brief reinforces the argument that certain claims—particularly those not tied to clearly identified actions or dates—lack the specificity needed to survive a motion to dismiss. As such, they request the court to dismiss the relevant portions of the complaint while allowing only properly pleaded claims to proceed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629905.61.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prosecutors in Miami-Dade have dropped a high-profile sexual battery charge against businessman Ohad Fisherman, who was accused of assisting the Alexander brothers in a 2016 rape. A drone video posted to Facebook—allegedly showing Fisherman miles away at the time of the attack—shook up the case just before trial. But with federal prosecutors withholding key metadata, questions remain. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber speaks with Fisherman's attorney, Jeffrey Sloman, about the dropped charge, the alibi evidence, and the ongoing federal case against the Alexander brothers.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Download the FREE Upside App at https://upside.app.link/sidebar to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations.In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants' position that the case does not warrant further litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to DismissBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations.In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants' position that the case does not warrant further litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to DismissBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

A man who was pardoned for his actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol breach was recently handed down a life sentence for what he attempted to do while awaiting trial. Specifically, for his plan to murder the FBI officials who were working on his case. Let's go through the story together.

Episode 264 of the Endless Endeavor Podcast features Tony Mont—a guest I met completely by chance while speaking at the Grove Theater during a Bedros event last month. Tony was sitting front row, and after I handed him the mic and heard his short but powerful response, I knew immediately: I need to have this guy on the podcast. And here we are. Tony shares the gripping story of a life-altering bar altercation that resulted in a man's death—an incident for which he was charged with murder. After being acquitted at trial, Tony packed up, moved across the country, and set out to rebuild his life from the ground up. The second half of our conversation dives into Tony's journey as an entrepreneur. From starting with nothing to finding major success in both the bicycle and real estate industries, Tony's resilience and drive are nothing short of inspiring. He was an incredible guest and a blast to have in the studio. I think you'll be just as drawn to his story as I was. Please enjoy Episode 264 of the Endless Endeavor Podcast. Connect with Tony Mont:  Instagram: @thetonymont Website: https://go.thetonymont.com/mentorship Connect with Greg: Instagram: @granderson33 Email: gregandersonpodcast@gmail.com Linktr.ee: https://linktr.ee/Granderson33 Podcast Apparel: www.theelectricnorth.com Episode Resources:  Moya Brand https://www.moyabrand.com Coupon ENDLESS 20% off LMNT https://drinklmnt.com/endlessendeavor Free variety sample pack just pay $5 shipping here in the US Bio Pro https://www.bioproteintech.com/discount/endless?redirect=%2Fproducts%2Fbiopro-plus Coupon Code ENDLESS saves 10% If you enjoy the show, make sure to give the Endless Endeavor Podcast a rating via your favorite audio platform OR on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCieFsr26t9cyPDKMbLQJzXw/featured!

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations.In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants' position that the case does not warrant further litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to DismissBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations.In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants' position that the case does not warrant further litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to DismissBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations.In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants' position that the case does not warrant further litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to DismissBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

From the archives: 6-21-23Touch DNA refers to the trace amounts of DNA that can be transferred through direct contact between an individual's skin cells and an object or surface. It is a valuable forensic tool used in crime scene investigations to help identify potential suspects or link individuals to a particular location.When individuals touch an object or surface, they leave behind skin cells containing their DNA. Touch DNA analysis involves collecting and analyzing these minute samples to extract the DNA and generate a DNA profile. The DNA profile contains unique genetic markers that can be compared to known DNA samples, such as those from a suspect or a DNA database, to determine a potential match or identify an unknown individual.The process of touch DNA analysis typically involves the following steps:Sample collection: Forensic investigators collect potential touch DNA samples from objects or surfaces at a crime scene using various techniques. This may involve swabbing the surface with a sterile cotton swab or using adhesive tape to lift any visible or invisible biological material.DNA extraction: The collected samples undergo a DNA extraction process to isolate the DNA from other substances present on the surface. This step aims to purify the DNA and remove any potential inhibitors that might interfere with subsequent analysis.DNA amplification: The extracted DNA is subjected to a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which amplifies specific regions of the DNA. PCR allows for the generation of sufficient DNA material for further analysis, even if only a minimal amount of touch DNA was initially present.DNA profiling: The amplified DNA is analyzed using techniques such as short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. STR markers are specific regions within the DNA that exhibit variations in the number of repeated DNA sequences. By comparing the lengths of these STR markers between the crime scene sample and a reference sample, a DNA profile is generated.Database search and interpretation: The DNA profile obtained from the touch DNA sample can be compared to known reference samples from suspects or individuals in a DNA database. If a match is found, it can provide investigative leads or potentially establish a link between the individual and the crime scene.It's important to note that touch DNA analysis has certain limitations. The amount of DNA left behind through touch is often very small, making it susceptible to contamination and degradation. Factors such as the environmental conditions and the time elapsed since the DNA was deposited can affect the quality and quantity of the touch DNA sample. Additionally, the presence of multiple individuals' DNA on an object or surface can complicate the analysis.Nevertheless, touch DNA analysis has proven valuable in numerous criminal investigations, aiding in the identification of suspects, establishing links between individuals and crime scenes, and exonerating innocent individuals. It is a powerful tool in forensic science that complements other methods of DNA analysis, such as blood or saliva DNA samples."The comparison showed a statistical match—specifically, the STR profile is at least 5.37 octillion times more likely to be seen if Defendant is the source than if an unrelated individual randomly selected from the population is the source," the filing says according to the article.In this episode we take a look at how strong that evidence is and how Kohberger's team might attempt to challenge it.(commercial at 7:40)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger DNA Revelation Made in New Court Documents (newsweek.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations.In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants' position that the case does not warrant further litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to DismissBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This week:  two high profile January 6th rioters are being given top jobs in the Trump AdministrationJudge Tanya Chutkan denies another rioter his attempt at restitution.  A J6 defendant is being sentenced to life in prison. Emil Bove is the PADAG and has been nominated to the 3rd Circuit, but before that he prosecuted January 6th rioters. How has Bove survived AG Bondi's purge of January 6 prosecutors?Thank you, Mint Mobile.Get this new customer offer and your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a month at  MINTMOBILE.com/CLEANUP  Allison Gillhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com/https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.comHarry DunnHarry Dunn | Substack@libradunn1.bsky.social on BlueskyWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations.In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants' position that the case does not warrant further litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to Dismiss

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations.In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants' position that the case does not warrant further litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to Dismiss

A shocking attempted kidnapping of 6-year-old Rah Shem “Rah Rah” Gantt on Coney Island left a boy and his parents in a state of terror. Suspect Jonathan Robalino allegedly snatched the boy, only to be thwarted by the child's mother and father. With conflicting accounts...video evidence versus the family's claims of a head injury....and a defense pushing for psychiatric care over jail time, Robalino is due back in court 7/11- we hope he stays put. Parents everywhere, stay vigilant.Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/oFzcqC29wm0Notes:https://nypost.com/2025/07/08/us-news/maniac-may-have-allegedly-grabbed-6-year-old-nyc-boy-but-he-didnt-toss-him-on-head-lawyer/https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcrim_attorney/Detail?which=case&docketNumber=QZPQ1ugvxyQEd9WZE3KDKg==&courtType=U&countyId=wTDNnHf/UHIgYlsGmMChHQ==&docketId=/IFlxgRyKNZMMVqgT9lofQ==&docketDseq=T/O1YN_PLUS_BG65HkOeqEnpAkw==&defendantName=Robalino,+Jonathan&county=&court=Kings+Criminal+Court&recordType=U&recordNum=#IncidentandArrest Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations.In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants' position that the case does not warrant further litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to DismissBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations.In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants' position that the case does not warrant further litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to DismissBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

If there is one universal truth in the criminal justice system - it's that people would rather be out of prison than in prison. Defendants generally ask judges to release them, not detain them.However, given the abuse and untrustworthiness of Trump's Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security, Abrego Garcia and his lawyers have asked a federal judge to continue to detain rather than release Abrego Garcia in his criminal case in Tennessee.Glenn discusses why he made and the judge ordered this unusual request.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

DAMIONThe next phase of Starbucks' turnaround plan is offering executives up to $6 million in stock grants, as baristas scrap to get annual raises above 2%Starbucks will reward company executives with up to $6 million in stock grants should they effectively fulfill cost-saving and timely rollout goals of the company's “Back to Starbucks” turnaround strategy. Starbucks Workers United representatives dubbed the move “ridiculous and irresponsible” amid contract negotiations over barista wages.WHO DO YOU BLAME?Double boomerang CEO and founder Howard Schultz1987-2000; 2008-2017; 2022-2023CEO and Chair Brian Niccol and his $113 million golden hello packageThe company's work-from-home policy which allows its CEO to work remotely from his home in Newport Beach, California, while the company's headquarters are in Seattle, Washington. As part of his employment agreement, Starbucks pays for him to travel between his home and the Seattle headquarters on the company's private jet.Former failure Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer who was appointed as a director to Starbucks 4 days before the announcement of the new retention awards. Compensation Committee chair Ritch Allison: The guy passes every pay plan for whoever; is the former CEO of Domino's Pizza so is here to enrich executives; and owns $3M is SBUX stock so doesn't really care: someone should be responsible for a CEO pay ratio of 6666:1Agios Appoints Dr. Jay Backstrom to Board of DirectorsJay Backstrom appointed as Class III director as of July 8, 2025, 20 days after the company held an election to appoint two Class III directors.WHO DO YOU BLAME?The top 4 institutional investors (35% of voting power):Farallon Capital 10% Vanguard 10%BlackRock 9% BB Biotech 6%The company's childish bylaws which separate directors into three classes that are voted on every three yearsFormer CEO Jacqualyn Fouse (23%) who stuck around to serve as board chair after being CEO for only 3 yearsNominating Committee chair and Lead independent director Kaye FosterEmasculated CEO Brian GOff (15%) who presides over a board with a +7% gender influence gapAn anti-DEI investment firm postponed its Tesla ETF, saying Elon Musk has 'gone too far' by launching a political partyWHO DO YOU BLAME?Its BS mission statement: “Azoria is an investment firm with the mission of compounding capital for investors through a commitment to free thinking, excellence, and meritocracy.”Wouldn't that include Elon?James T. Fishback, Founder and CEO of Azoria, a free-thinking investment firm“We have an anti-American subculture that cancels the science fair in favor of drag queen story hour, forces colleges to spend more time teaching micro-aggressions than microbiology, and teaches kids in America that Cardi B is a role model and Thomas Jefferson is a racist.”“Fishback will become a major Gen Z star in our pro-American movement.” — Vivek Ramaswamy, 2024 Presidential Candidate.“dropped out of Georgetown University to establish a hedge fund at 21 years old”Azoria partner Sol Ehrlich:“For my last day at Spectra, it's important that I share just how much this opportunity has meant to me. In June of 2023, I was a 28 year old mediocre Euro League baseball player with no job prospects outside of coaching. My only qualification to work in finance was my work ethic, which Brent Donnelly recognized when he met with me over Zoom and saw the litany of Post-It tabs I used to annotate his book”“It's with great excitement that I'll be taking this skillset to Azoria as a partner and its Head Trader- an opportunity I couldn't have imagined 18 months ago.”While the internet was introduced to James Fishback's talents this year, I've been aware of them since 2009 when we competed against each other in high school debate. (His meme game was A+ even then- I still remember him closing a speech on U.S. sanctions with 4 Russian leader puns.)”Me. Because somehow I'm connected to Fishback on linkedin.Greenlight Capital, for making James angry:In a lawsuit: “Greenlight Capital says James Fishback is a liar. The 29-year-old hedge fund manager and former employee, contrary to his own proclamations, was never “head of macro” at Greenlight, never had any “authority or discretion” over investments, and certainly wasn't responsible for an “insane” $100 million in profits as a mere research analyst. In fact, his contributions were so not “insane” that the hedge fund was about to fire him before he chose to leave of his own accord.”Greenlight's alleged former head of macro is hoping to get at least $5 million from David Einhorn, claiming age discrimination"Mr. Einhorn dismissively told Mr. Fishback that his compensation was 'a lot of money for a kid,'" the filing states, and Fishback argues the comment "demonstrates that Defendants' decision about Mr. Fishback's compensation was driven largely by his age — a protected characteristic."Tech founders call on Sequoia Capital to denounce VC Shaun Maguire's Mamdani commentsMaguire, an outspoken supporter of President Trump, posted on X over the weekend that Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani “comes from a culture that lies about everything.”WHO DO YOU BLAME?Shaun Maguire: “My whole life I've sought out people that I think are really talented but a little bit off the radar.”Shaun Maguire: “[E]ven more important to me is someone that's just irrationally motivated. For whatever reason, it's their life mission to try to revolutionize the industry they're going after.”Shaun Maguire: “Should I go public with the story about the time I was told I can't be promoted for being a white man? Fuck it, This happened at Google. That company is an absolute trash can dumspeter fire.”Sequoia Capital: for proudly endorsing some of its most insipid founders: Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Vlad Tenev (Robinhood, online betting on stocks), Keller Rinaudo (Zipline, autonomous delivery), Winston Weinberg (Harvey, AI for lawfirms), Brian Chesky (Airbnb, rent killer)MATTForward Air, after their AGM battle with Ancora, still hasn't released their 8K after a MONTH despite Ancora announcing it was a “landslide” directly afterWHO DO YOU BLAME for not releasing an 8k?Charles Anderson, Robert Edwards Jr, Michael Hodge who own roughly 25% of the voting power, even if FF data doesn't properly show them as having all the influence on the boardAncora, who just couldn't help but IMMEDIATELY put out a press release stating: “Absent the more than 30% of shares that were legally committed to vote for the incumbent Board, Chairman George Mayes, Jr., Javier Polit, and Laurie Tucker lost in a landslide, highlighting the substantial level of concern regarding the legitimacy of the Board's strategic review. We believe the resignations of these legacy directors will empower the Board to carry out a thorough assessment of value-maximizing opportunities.”Christine Gorjanc, chair of the audit committee, who was chair of the audit committee at Invitae from 2015 to 2024 when it declared bankruptcy despite getting her degree in accounting and a MS in “taxation”Michael L. Hance, chief counsel who also holds a masters in Divinity, who couldn't find the “submit” button on his iPhoneNo, Carnival Cruises is not banning rap musicCarnival Cruise Lines denied reports circulating online that DJs aren't playing hip-hop.The cruise line has responded to claims circulating online that DJs aren't including hip-hop music in their sets or honoring song requests, with some social media users saying the alleged move is racially motivated.WHO DO YOU BLAME for this malicious rumor?Carnival's ZERO BLACK leadership team, lead by Mickey Arison - they do have two Hispanic men, Enrique Miguez (General Counsel) and Gustavo Antorcha (President of Princess Cruises), but it's balanced out by the Scandinavian (Lars Ljoen, Chief Maritime Officer) and other Euro men (Felix Eichhorn, Paul Ludlow)Carnival's Board of Directors, which has 11 members and is 91% white, with one black woman, Nelda Connors. Nelda's background is in hydraulics and metals with a degree in mechanical engineering, so she's probably too “nerdy” for rap anywayChristine Duffy, the head of Carnival Cruises, whose prior role was President of the Cruise Lines International Association which put out a report in 2008 showing that 93% of cruise passengers were white, and in 2025 said that 1 in 4 passengers came from either Texas or Florida. Duffy grew up in Northwood Philadelphia, which in 1950 was three quarters white but by 2020 is 93% black.Thinking hip hop is “black music”DAMIONPeople are boycotting Etsy over ‘Alligator Alcatraz' merchCalls to boycott Etsy are growing since “Alligator Alcatraz” merch popped up on its marketplace. The term refers to the Trump administration's new migrant detention facility in the Florida Everglades.WHO DO YOU BLAME?The 48% influence duo: CEO Josh Silverman (25%) and longest-tenured director (2007): Board Chair and Nominating Committee chair Fred Wilson (23%)The -13% gender influence gap at a company where: “approximately 80% of Etsy's buyers and sellers are women.Leadership is 6 men and 2 women, one of who is CHROThe company's dumb classified board structureThis year's 3 directors: 24%, 28%, 22% againstTokens to Access Private Companies, or to Investor Trouble?Robinhood is the latest to offer investors a novel, and potentially risky, investment opportunity: crypto that's meant to give exposure to the likes of OpenAI.WHO DO YOU BLAME?CEO/founder/Chair Vladimir Tenev: 47% influence; 24% voting power Baiju Bhatt: 37% influence; 36% voting powerThe pesky Class B share: for being worth ten votes per shareThe non-democratic Founders' Voting Agreement: Our Co-Founders have agreed: “to vote all of their shares in favor of the election of each Co-Founder”Lead Independent Director Jonathan Rubinstein: for being the most pointless Lead Independent Director of all time: Lead Independent Director at Robinhood since 2021 and Lead Independent Director at Amazon.com from 2017-2023OpenAI Says It's Hired a Forensic Psychiatrist as Its Users Keep Sliding Into Mental Health Crises"We're developing ways to scientifically measure how ChatGPT's behavior might affect people emotionally."WHO DO YOU BLAME?Sam AltmanBret Taylor (Chair)Sam AltmanMatt: AI itself for being a jerk

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations.In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants' position that the case does not warrant further litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to Dismiss

The defendants in the case of Sara Rivers v. Sean Combs and others have submitted a memorandum of law supporting their motion to dismiss the complaint. This legal filing argues that the plaintiff's claims lack sufficient legal basis or fail to meet the necessary standards for the case to proceed. The defendants seek dismissal on grounds likely related to procedural or substantive deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations.In this memorandum, the defendants outline the legal reasoning and precedents that justify the court dismissing the complaint against them. The document aims to persuade the judge that the plaintiff's claims should be rejected without going to trial, emphasizing the defendants' position that the case does not warrant further litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://dwt-my.sharepoint.com/personal/garcd_dwt_com/Documents/DKG/Cases/2025/June/6.23.2025/File/Rivers/Rivers - Memo ISO Motion to Dismiss

If there is one universal truth in the criminal justice system - it's that people would rather be out of prison than in prison. Defendants generally ask judges to release them, not detain them.However, given the abuse and untrustworthiness of Trump's Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security, Abrego Garcia and his lawyers have asked a federal judge to continue to detain rather than release Abrego Garcia in his criminal case in Tennessee.Glenn discusses why he made and the judge ordered this unusual request.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint against the Combs Defendants argues that the plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a viable claim under applicable legal standards. The defendants contend that the complaint is legally insufficient because it relies on conclusory allegations without concrete factual support, particularly regarding claims of sex trafficking and racketeering. They emphasize that the plaintiff has not demonstrated the necessary elements to establish a criminal enterprise or direct involvement by Sean “Diddy” Combs or his affiliated entities, and thus the case should be dismissed at this early stage.Furthermore, the defendants assert that the complaint improperly conflates business operations with alleged illegal conduct, failing to show that the defendants knowingly participated in or benefited from any criminal activity. They argue that the plaintiff's attempt to hold the defendants liable for the actions of third parties lacks the required causation and direct connection. The memorandum stresses that courts must reject attempts to extend liability beyond what the law permits, especially in complex cases involving serious accusations, and urges the court to grant dismissal in favor of the Combs Defendants to prevent unwarranted litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632026.47.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the civil case Shareka Sherrod v. Sean Combs et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Combs Defendants submitted a Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of their Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint. Sherrod accuses Combs and a wide array of his affiliated corporate entities—ranging from Daddy's House Recordings to Bad Boy Entertainment—of serious misconduct, including allegations tied to sexual abuse and trafficking. In response, Combs's legal team argues that the amended complaint remains legally deficient and should be dismissed in full. The reply memorandum asserts that Sherrod's claims fail to meet the pleading standards required by federal law and are either too vague, speculative, or untethered from actionable conduct by the defendants.The defense contends that Sherrod's complaint relies heavily on conclusory statements and lacks specific factual allegations linking Combs or his business entities directly to the alleged misconduct. They also argue that many claims are either time-barred or improperly attempt to impose liability on corporate entities with no demonstrated involvement. Furthermore, the Combs Defendants dispute any basis for piercing the corporate veil or treating the businesses as extensions of Sean Combs personally. The filing reiterates that no further amendments should be permitted and requests that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The request for oral argument signals the defense's desire to reinforce these positions in open court, possibly anticipating broader implications for Combs's growing slate of civil litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630246.65.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint against the Combs Defendants argues that the plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a viable claim under applicable legal standards. The defendants contend that the complaint is legally insufficient because it relies on conclusory allegations without concrete factual support, particularly regarding claims of sex trafficking and racketeering. They emphasize that the plaintiff has not demonstrated the necessary elements to establish a criminal enterprise or direct involvement by Sean “Diddy” Combs or his affiliated entities, and thus the case should be dismissed at this early stage.Furthermore, the defendants assert that the complaint improperly conflates business operations with alleged illegal conduct, failing to show that the defendants knowingly participated in or benefited from any criminal activity. They argue that the plaintiff's attempt to hold the defendants liable for the actions of third parties lacks the required causation and direct connection. The memorandum stresses that courts must reject attempts to extend liability beyond what the law permits, especially in complex cases involving serious accusations, and urges the court to grant dismissal in favor of the Combs Defendants to prevent unwarranted litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632026.47.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode, Jim Garrity argues for more frequent videotaping of depositions, especially those of parties and witnesses likely to be unavailable at trial. The reason? Unlike live witnesses - who are generally called once in trial - videotaped testimony can be played two or more times. This technique utilizes one of the most effective tools of persuasion ever invented, repetition, borrowed straight from Madison Avenue, where repetition is everything. Clips played during the trial, during closing, and sometimes in opening by consent or court order, allow you to essentially present the same witness and testimony multiple times. This kind of repetition isn't possible with live witnesses, and is far superior to reading deposition transcripts to the jury. In a world where people are accustomed to getting their information through video, reading a transcript of testimony is likely to test your jurors' attention span (and patience). Garrity discusses a UCLA professor's "7-38-55 rule" to underscore the point. The gist of this rule is that when people communicate, only 7% of the message is conveyed through words, 38% through tone and voice, and a whopping 55% through body language. That's what makes the presentation of deposition testimony by video clips so powerful. Listen in!SHOW NOTESSmith, et al. v. City of Chicago, etc., Case No. 21-cv-1159, 2025 WL 1744919 (N. D. Ill. June 24, 2025) (denying use of video depo testimony in opening, but allowing it in closing argument that was admitted into evidence during trial, over objections by defendants that permitting video testimony during closing statements would be “unfairly prejudicial because it emphasizes testimony that is presented by video through repetition, and that opportunity does not exist for a live witness”)Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., No. C-05-00334 RMW, 2008 WL 190990, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2008) (denying use of video depo testimony in opening, but would consider allowing reading from transcript; “If the parties wish to read a portion of a deposition transcript in their opening statement, they are to exchange any excerpt with opposing counsel sufficiently in advance of opening statements so that the court can rule on any dispute over use”)Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12CV689-MMA (DHB), 2014 WL 11997809, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2014) (collecting cases refusing to allow playing of videotaped deposition testimony during opening statements) (“See In re Ethicon, Inc., 2014 WL 505234, at *8 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 5, 2014) (“[T]he use of video clips during opening statements is precluded as to all parties ....”) (quoting In re Bard, Inc., 2013 WL 3282926, at *8 (S.D. W. Va. June 27, 2013)); Carpenter v. Forest Meadows Owners Ass'n, 2011 WL 3207778, at *7 (“Video recordings of the deposition will not be permitted.”) (emphasis in original); Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare W., No. 09–2972 KJM, 2011 WL 6396500, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2011) (denying the plaintiff's motion to use portions of videotaped depositions during opening statement); Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2008 WL 190990, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“Neither side shall use any videotaped deposition testimony in its opening statement.”); but see Sadler v. Advanced Bionics, LLC, at *3 (W.D. Kent. April 1, 2013) (providing that the court “may” consider allowing the parties to utilize videotaped deposition testimony during opening statements); MBI Acquisition Partners, L.P. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., 2002 WL 32349903, at *2 (permitting party to play segments of video deposition in its opening statement))Beem v. Providence Health & Servs., No. 10-CV-0037-TOR, 2012 WL 13018728, at *2 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 19, 2012) (rejecting request to play videotaped deposition during opening, and rejecting argument by plaintiff that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3), she may use the deposition of an adverse party “for any purpose,” stating that “What Plaintiff proposes to do, is to introduce evidence during opening statement. The Court will not allow the showing of video deposition excerpts during opening statement. The motion is denied.”)K.C. ex rel. Calaway v. Schucker, No. 02-2715-STA-CGC, 2013 WL 5972192, at *7 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 8, 2013) (“there is no per se ban on the use of video excerpts of depositions in closing arguments”; also citing 88 C.J.S. Trial § 300 (2013) (“[T]here is no blanket prohibition against counsel playing selected portions of a videotaped deposition for a jury during closing argument, and trial courts have discretion to permit, or to refuse, the replaying of videotape segments in closing argument.”)MBI Acquisition Partners, L.P. v. Chron. Pub. Co., No. 01-C-0177-C, 2002 WL 32349903, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 2, 2002) (allowing use of video depo excerpt in opening, stating, without further discussion, that “Defendants may use excerpts from the video deposition of David Straden during opening argument. Counsel are to advise plaintiff's counsel promptly of the particular excerpts they intend to show”)Sadler v. Advanced Bionics, LLC, No. 3:11-CV-00450-TBR, 2013 WL 1340350, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 1, 2013) (preliminarily allowing use of videotaped deposition testimony in opening statements, saying If this testimony is otherwise admissible at trial and is not unnecessarily lengthy, the Court may consider allowing this procedure for both parties”)Northfield Ins. Co. v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. SACV 03-0492-JVS, 2003 WL 25948971, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2003) (subject to further objection and ruling before trial, “The Court is generally of the view that a party in opening statement may use any piece of evidence which the party in good faith believes will be ultimately received at trial. Rule 32(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the use of a party deposition “for any purpose”) you like the shoes I wore in high schoolSmith v. I-Flow Corp., No. 09 C 3908, 2011 WL 12627557, at *4 (N.D. Ill. June 15, 2011) (“The Court denies I–Flow's request to bar use in opening statement of excerpts from video deposition testimony. The Court will expect plaintiffs to disclose by no later than noon on the Friday before the start of trial any such excerpts they intend to use in opening statements and will expect defendants to make reciprocal disclosures by no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Saturday before the start of trial.”)Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3) (providing that "An adverse party may use for any purpose the deposition of a party or anyone who, when deposed, was the party's officer, director, managing agent, or designee...") (emphasis added)

This one is for the people out there that see a love interest and think "I can fix them", except this time you are in the jurors box and staring at the defendant...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of critical legal concepts in real property and criminal procedure, essential for law students preparing for the bar exam. It covers the intricacies of property ownership, the bundle of rights, distinctions between real and personal property, various types of estates, co-ownership, government powers over property, and the criminal justice process from arrest to trial. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding definitions, procedural steps, and the application of legal principles in real-world scenarios.TakeawaysUnderstanding the bundle of rights is critical for property law.Real property has distinct physical characteristics that affect its value.Intent is key in determining whether an item is a fixture or personal property.Easements can be created in several ways, including express and implied methods.Probable cause is essential for lawful arrests and searches.The burden of proof in criminal trials lies entirely with the prosecution.Defendants have fundamental rights, including the right to counsel and a jury trial.The jury's verdict must generally be unanimous in serious criminal cases.Property taxes have a super priority over other liens.Keep practicing application skills to master legal concepts.law, real property, criminal procedure, bar exam, legal concepts, property rights, ownership, easements, liens, government powers

The cost of justice in Idaho continues to balloon by the day and there many factors at play that are moving the needle towards the red.   Here are two of the issues that are driving costs through the roof as the state of Idaho continues to pursue a conviction against Bryan Kohberger.Capital murder cases typically cost more to prosecute in Idaho, as in many other states, due to several factors:Legal Representation: Capital cases involve complex legal proceedings, often requiring extensive legal representation. Defendants in capital cases are entitled to competent legal representation, which can include hiring experienced attorneys and investigators. The state may also appoint defense counsel, and these attorneys often require additional resources for research, preparation, and presentation of the case.Lengthy Trials: Capital murder trials tend to be longer and more complex than non-capital murder trials. These trials involve more extensive pre-trial motions, jury selection processes, and evidentiary hearings. The trial itself can last for weeks or even months, requiring court personnel, judges, jurors, and legal professionals to dedicate significant time and resources to the case.Expert Witnesses: Capital cases often require expert witnesses to testify on various matters, such as forensic evidence, mental health evaluations, and other specialized areas. Hiring and compensating these expert witnesses can add substantial costs to the prosecution.Appeals Process: Capital cases are subject to mandatory appeals, which can extend over many years. The appeals process involves additional legal expenses, including filing fees, court costs, and expenses related to appellate attorneys and expert witnesses. These costs can accumulate significantly, especially if the case proceeds through multiple levels of appeal, including state and federal courts.Security Measures: Capital cases often require heightened security measures due to the seriousness of the charges and the potential for public attention or emotional reactions. Additional security measures may be necessary to ensure the safety of participants in the trial, including judges, jurors, witnesses, and attorneys. These security measures can involve increased staffing, security personnel, and infrastructure upgrades, all of which contribute to the overall cost of prosecuting the case.Emotional Toll: Capital cases can take an emotional toll on all parties involved, including victims' families, defendants, jurors, and legal professionals. Providing support services, such as counseling and victim assistance programs, adds to the overall cost of prosecuting these cases.The combination of legal representation, lengthy trials, expert witnesses, the appeals process, security measures, and emotional support services all contribute to the higher costs associated with prosecuting capital murder cases in Idaho and elsewhere.Also keep in mind that the taxpayers of Idaho are also on the hook for Bryan Kohberger's defense fees.The cost to the state of Idaho, to defend an indigent defendant in a capital murder case can vary widely depending on several factors:Length of Trial: Capital murder cases often involve lengthy trials due to the complexity and seriousness of the charges. The longer the trial, the higher the cost as it involves paying attorneys, expert witnesses, court personnel, and other associated expenses.Legal Representation: Indigent defendants are entitled to legal representation, and in capital cases, this often involves hiring experienced defense attorneys who specialize in such cases. The cost can vary based on the hourly rates of these attorneys or the structure of their fees.Expert Witnesses: Capital cases typically involve the testimony of various expert witnesses, such as forensic experts, psychologists, and medical professionals. These experts often charge high fees for their services, adding to the overall cost of the defense.Investigation Costs: Capital cases require thorough investigation, including gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and conducting forensic analysis. These investigative costs can contribute significantly to the overall expense.Appeals Process: If the defendant is convicted and sentenced to death, the appeals process can extend for many years, adding further costs to the state.Miscellaneous Expenses: Other expenses, such as court fees, administrative costs, and overhead, also contribute to the total cost of defending an indigent defendant in a capital murder case.(commercial at 7:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Millions spent in case against Bryan Kohberger before trial | Idaho Statesman

The cost of justice in Idaho continues to balloon by the day and there many factors at play that are moving the needle towards the red.   Here are two of the issues that are driving costs through the roof as the state of Idaho continues to pursue a conviction against Bryan Kohberger.Capital murder cases typically cost more to prosecute in Idaho, as in many other states, due to several factors:Legal Representation: Capital cases involve complex legal proceedings, often requiring extensive legal representation. Defendants in capital cases are entitled to competent legal representation, which can include hiring experienced attorneys and investigators. The state may also appoint defense counsel, and these attorneys often require additional resources for research, preparation, and presentation of the case.Lengthy Trials: Capital murder trials tend to be longer and more complex than non-capital murder trials. These trials involve more extensive pre-trial motions, jury selection processes, and evidentiary hearings. The trial itself can last for weeks or even months, requiring court personnel, judges, jurors, and legal professionals to dedicate significant time and resources to the case.Expert Witnesses: Capital cases often require expert witnesses to testify on various matters, such as forensic evidence, mental health evaluations, and other specialized areas. Hiring and compensating these expert witnesses can add substantial costs to the prosecution.Appeals Process: Capital cases are subject to mandatory appeals, which can extend over many years. The appeals process involves additional legal expenses, including filing fees, court costs, and expenses related to appellate attorneys and expert witnesses. These costs can accumulate significantly, especially if the case proceeds through multiple levels of appeal, including state and federal courts.Security Measures: Capital cases often require heightened security measures due to the seriousness of the charges and the potential for public attention or emotional reactions. Additional security measures may be necessary to ensure the safety of participants in the trial, including judges, jurors, witnesses, and attorneys. These security measures can involve increased staffing, security personnel, and infrastructure upgrades, all of which contribute to the overall cost of prosecuting the case.Emotional Toll: Capital cases can take an emotional toll on all parties involved, including victims' families, defendants, jurors, and legal professionals. Providing support services, such as counseling and victim assistance programs, adds to the overall cost of prosecuting these cases.The combination of legal representation, lengthy trials, expert witnesses, the appeals process, security measures, and emotional support services all contribute to the higher costs associated with prosecuting capital murder cases in Idaho and elsewhere.Also keep in mind that the taxpayers of Idaho are also on the hook for Bryan Kohberger's defense fees.The cost to the state of Idaho, to defend an indigent defendant in a capital murder case can vary widely depending on several factors:Length of Trial: Capital murder cases often involve lengthy trials due to the complexity and seriousness of the charges. The longer the trial, the higher the cost as it involves paying attorneys, expert witnesses, court personnel, and other associated expenses.Legal Representation: Indigent defendants are entitled to legal representation, and in capital cases, this often involves hiring experienced defense attorneys who specialize in such cases. The cost can vary based on the hourly rates of these attorneys or the structure of their fees.Expert Witnesses: Capital cases typically involve the testimony of various expert witnesses, such as forensic experts, psychologists, and medical professionals. These experts often charge high fees for their services, adding to the overall cost of the defense.Investigation Costs: Capital cases require thorough investigation, including gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and conducting forensic analysis. These investigative costs can contribute significantly to the overall expense.Appeals Process: If the defendant is convicted and sentenced to death, the appeals process can extend for many years, adding further costs to the state.Miscellaneous Expenses: Other expenses, such as court fees, administrative costs, and overhead, also contribute to the total cost of defending an indigent defendant in a capital murder case.(commercial at 7:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Millions spent in case against Bryan Kohberger before trial | Idaho Statesman

Welcome back to Crime Time Inc. In episode 25 of our Charles Manson series, we dive into the dramatic events of the Manson Family trial in November 1970. This episode covers the electrifying proceedings inside Department 104 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, including the unexpected testimonies of Manson's female followers and the disappearance of defense attorney Ronald Hughes. We discuss Manson's bizarre monologue and failed escape attempt, the defense's convoluted strategies, and Prosecutor Vincent Buliosi's final argument. Tune in as we unravel the courtroom chaos and the pivotal moments that defined one of America's most notorious trials.00:00 Introduction to the Charles Manson Trial00:54 The Defendants' Rebellion03:46 Manson Takes the Stand09:33 Ronald Hughes' Mysterious Disappearance15:00 Courtroom Chaos and Disruptions18:15 Manson's Escape Attempt26:52 Defense Strategies Unfold35:49 Prosecution's Final Argument37:33 Buliosi's Counterarguments to Kanarek41:45 Addressing the "Robot" Defense42:21 The Defendants' True Nature43:38 Linda Kasabian's Testimony44:58 Summarizing the Evidence45:39 Helter Skelter Motive46:09 Buliosi's Powerful Conclusion49:32 Jury Deliberations Begin51:26 Expert Analysis: Courtroom Chaos51:50 Reflections on Judicial Control56:18 Defense Tactics and Courtroom Drama01:03:58 Final Thoughts and Upcoming VerdictTom Wood is a former murder squad detective and Deputy Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police in Scotland. Tom worked on many high profile murder cases including Robert Black, Peter Tobin and was part of the team investigating The World's End Murders from day one until 37 years later when the culprit, Angus Sinclair was finally convicted. Tom was latterly the detective in overall charge of The World's End murder investigation. Tom is now retired from the Police and is a successful author.Tom Wood's Books Ruxton: The First Modern Murder https://amzn.eu/d/25k8KqGThe World's End Murders: The Inside Story https://amzn.eu/d/5U9nLoPSimon is a retired Police Officer and the best selling author of The Ten Percent, https://amzn.eu/d/5trz6bs a memoir consisting ofstories from the first part of his career as a police officer. From joining in 1978,being posted in Campbeltown in Argylll, becoming a detective on the Isle ofBute, Scotland, through to the Serious Crime Squad and working in the busy Glasgowstation in Govan.#CharlesManson,#MansonMurders,#truecrimepodcast,#helterskelter,#CrimeHistory,Further reading on Charles Manson which helped influence this podcast:Manson: The Life and Times of Charles Manson by Jeff GuinnHelter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders by Vincent Bugliosi and Curt GentryCharles Manson, the CIA and the Secret History of the Sixties by Tom O'NeillAbout Crime Time Inc.Crime Time Inc. is hosted by Tom and Simon—two ex-cops with decades of frontline experience and zero tolerance for fluff. Tom, a by-the-book former Deputy Chief Constable from Edinburgh, and Simon, a rule-bending ex-undercover cop from Glasgow, bring sharp insight, dark humour, and plenty of East vs. West banter to every episode.Whether they're revisiting cases they worked on, grilling fellow former officers, or picking apart narrated true crime stories, Tom and Simon don't just talk about crime—they've lived it. Real cases. Real cops. Real talk.Our Website: https://crimetimeinc.com/If you like this show please leave a review. It really helps us.Please help us improve our Podcast by completing this survey.http://bit.ly/crimetimeinc-survey Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The cost of justice in Idaho continues to balloon by the day and there many factors at play that are moving the needle towards the red.   Here are two of the issues that are driving costs through the roof as the state of Idaho continues to pursue a conviction against Bryan Kohberger.Capital murder cases typically cost more to prosecute in Idaho, as in many other states, due to several factors:Legal Representation: Capital cases involve complex legal proceedings, often requiring extensive legal representation. Defendants in capital cases are entitled to competent legal representation, which can include hiring experienced attorneys and investigators. The state may also appoint defense counsel, and these attorneys often require additional resources for research, preparation, and presentation of the case.Lengthy Trials: Capital murder trials tend to be longer and more complex than non-capital murder trials. These trials involve more extensive pre-trial motions, jury selection processes, and evidentiary hearings. The trial itself can last for weeks or even months, requiring court personnel, judges, jurors, and legal professionals to dedicate significant time and resources to the case.Expert Witnesses: Capital cases often require expert witnesses to testify on various matters, such as forensic evidence, mental health evaluations, and other specialized areas. Hiring and compensating these expert witnesses can add substantial costs to the prosecution.Appeals Process: Capital cases are subject to mandatory appeals, which can extend over many years. The appeals process involves additional legal expenses, including filing fees, court costs, and expenses related to appellate attorneys and expert witnesses. These costs can accumulate significantly, especially if the case proceeds through multiple levels of appeal, including state and federal courts.Security Measures: Capital cases often require heightened security measures due to the seriousness of the charges and the potential for public attention or emotional reactions. Additional security measures may be necessary to ensure the safety of participants in the trial, including judges, jurors, witnesses, and attorneys. These security measures can involve increased staffing, security personnel, and infrastructure upgrades, all of which contribute to the overall cost of prosecuting the case.Emotional Toll: Capital cases can take an emotional toll on all parties involved, including victims' families, defendants, jurors, and legal professionals. Providing support services, such as counseling and victim assistance programs, adds to the overall cost of prosecuting these cases.The combination of legal representation, lengthy trials, expert witnesses, the appeals process, security measures, and emotional support services all contribute to the higher costs associated with prosecuting capital murder cases in Idaho and elsewhere.Also keep in mind that the taxpayers of Idaho are also on the hook for Bryan Kohberger's defense fees.The cost to the state of Idaho, to defend an indigent defendant in a capital murder case can vary widely depending on several factors:Length of Trial: Capital murder cases often involve lengthy trials due to the complexity and seriousness of the charges. The longer the trial, the higher the cost as it involves paying attorneys, expert witnesses, court personnel, and other associated expenses.Legal Representation: Indigent defendants are entitled to legal representation, and in capital cases, this often involves hiring experienced defense attorneys who specialize in such cases. The cost can vary based on the hourly rates of these attorneys or the structure of their fees.Expert Witnesses: Capital cases typically involve the testimony of various expert witnesses, such as forensic experts, psychologists, and medical professionals. These experts often charge high fees for their services, adding to the overall cost of the defense.Investigation Costs: Capital cases require thorough investigation, including gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and conducting forensic analysis. These investigative costs can contribute significantly to the overall expense.Appeals Process: If the defendant is convicted and sentenced to death, the appeals process can extend for many years, adding further costs to the state.Miscellaneous Expenses: Other expenses, such as court fees, administrative costs, and overhead, also contribute to the total cost of defending an indigent defendant in a capital murder case.(commercial at 7:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Millions spent in case against Bryan Kohberger before trial | Idaho StatesmanBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This happened in the 36th District Court (Detroit). https://www.lehtoslaw.com

AP's Lisa Dwyer reports on a wrongful death suit against a Jan 6th rioter.

In McKinney v. Combs et al., Case No. 24-CV-03931, defendants Sean Combs, along with several associated entities including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Sean John Clothing LLC, and Daddy's House Recordings, Inc., submitted a letter to Judge Buchwald outlining their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The defendants argue that the claims lack substantive legal merit and that procedural deficiencies render the case unsustainable. Representing both Sean Combs and the corporate defendants, they emphasize the insufficiency of the allegations and seek dismissal based on the failure to establish a valid cause of action under applicable laws. The filing complies with the court's procedural requirements and aims to streamline resolution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.40.0.pdf

In McKinney v. Combs et al., Case No. 24-CV-03931, defendants Sean Combs, along with several associated entities including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Sean John Clothing LLC, and Daddy's House Recordings, Inc., submitted a letter to Judge Buchwald outlining their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The defendants argue that the claims lack substantive legal merit and that procedural deficiencies render the case unsustainable. Representing both Sean Combs and the corporate defendants, they emphasize the insufficiency of the allegations and seek dismissal based on the failure to establish a valid cause of action under applicable laws. The filing complies with the court's procedural requirements and aims to streamline resolution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.40.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Dinesh D'Souza, Matt Walsh, Steve Bannon. Treat the L.A. Rioters and Supporters Like J6 Defendants, Mexican Rioters Wage War On America. Dinesh D'Souza- Treat the L.A. Rioters and Supporters Like J6 Defendants, Matt Walsh- LA Descends Into Chaos As Mexican Rioters Wage War On America Steve Bannon- “This Isn't About Peaceful Protests, It's A War On The United States.” Sam Faddis On LA Riots   WE'RE NOT LEAVING Dinesh D'Souza Podcast Watch the entire show at- https://youtu.be/6MUWayR3xrA?si=4rHYQ-3ug_SK5ON8 Dinesh D'Souza 783K subscribers 10,619 views Jun 9, 2025 The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast In this episode, Dinesh makes the case for how Pam Bondi's DOJ can make the LA uprising on behalf of criminal aliens into the Democrats' January 6. Dinesh considers the chances for a mending of fences between Trump and Elon Musk. A graduate of Dartmouth College, he was a senior domestic policy analyst in the Reagan administration. He also served as a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of many bestselling books, including "Illiberal Education," "What's So Great About Christianity," "America: Imagine a World Without Her," "The Roots of Obama's Rage," "Death of a Nation," and "United States of Socialism." His documentary films "2016: Obama's America," "America," "Hillary's America," "Death of a Nation," and "Trump Card" are among the highest-grossing political documentaries of all time. He and his wife Debbie are also executive producers of the acclaimed feature film "Infidel." — Want to connect with Dinesh D'Souza online for more hard-hitting analysis of current events in America? Here's how: Get Dinesh unfiltered, uncensored and unchained on Locals: https://dinesh.locals.com/ Facebook:   / dsouzadinesh   Twitter:   / dineshdsouza   Rumble: https://rumble.com/dineshdsouza Instagram:   / dineshjdsouza   Parler: https://parler.com/user/DineshDSouza GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/dineshdsouza Email: https://dineshdsouza.com/contact-us/ We would like to thank our advertisers for our podcast: https://www.mypillow.com Discount code DINESH https://www.balanceofnature.com Discount code America https://www.birchgold.com text “DINESH” to 989898 https://www.juvent.com promo code DINESH https://Mybrightcore.com/Dinesh 25% Off Kimchi One with code: DINESH at Or dial (888) 927-5980 for up to 50% OFF and Free Shipping – ONLY when you call! https://angel.com/dinesh https://askchapter.org https://myphdweightloss.com/ Give them a call right now at 864-644-1900 Don't forget to mention the word “Dinesh” for a load of savings! Books or guest info: Chrissie Mayr – Stand-Up Comedian https://www.chrissiemayr.com/podcast Vindicating Trump (hard cover) https://www.amazon.com/Vindicating-Tr... The Big Lie (paperback) https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposi... https://dineshdsouza.com https://dinesh.locals.com to join Dinesh's page and support his work!    LA Descends Into Chaos As Mexican Rioters Wage War On America Watch the entire video at-  https://youtu.be/Cd5QaPJhBdE?si=_bI5bqGEfBVz5DEA Matt Walsh 3.23M subscribers 178,136 views Premiered Jun 9, 2025 The Matt Walsh Show Today on the Matt Walsh Show, chaos erupts in Los Angeles as riots break out to protest the deportation of criminal aliens. It's the “Summer of Love” 2.0 — it could get a lot worse, if the terrorists aren't subdued and brought to justice. Also, the Elon vs. Trump feud seems to have died down after just a day or two. But, I have a few thoughts on the subject. And Simone Biles launches a vicious attack against Riley Gaines on behalf of men who want to play women's sports. TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 - 00:28 Opening 02:19 - 23:01 LA Descends Into Chaos As Mexican Rioters Wage War On America 24:37 - 28:55 Mexican Food Is Overrated 28:55 - 36:08 Trump and Elon's Friendship Comes To An End 36:08 - 44:44 Luigi Mangione's Chilling Diaries Revealed In Court 46:36 - 55:55 Simone Biles Is Canceled Ep.1610 Sources: https://x.com/rawsalerts/status/19319... https://imgur.com/a/SnJXuUq https://imgur.com/a/ZKghEB4 https://scontent-atl3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gs7VFLpWk... https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/19... https://x.com/camhigby/status/1931874... https://x.com/camhigby/status/1931911... https://x.com/camhigby/status/1931898... https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/193... https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnew... https://x.com/TVNewsNow/status/193172... https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/193183... https://x.com/nicksortor/status/19317... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gs7hn3_WE... https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/... https://x.com/Simone_Biles/status/193... https://x.com/Simone_Biles/status/193... https://x.com/tiffanyandsadie/status/... https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/19313... https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/19313... https://x.com/NickJointson/status/193... https://x.com/Outkick/status/19315261... https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/193...   “This Isn't About Peaceful Protests, It's A War On The United States.” Sam Faddis On LA Riots https://rumble.com/v6uj3sb-this-isnt-about-peaceful-protests-its-a-war-on-the-united-states.-sam-faddi.html Bannons War Room 1.09M followers   --------------------------------------------------------------------  Check out our ACU Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/ACUPodcast   HELP ACU SPREAD THE WORD!  Please go to Apple Podcasts and give ACU a 5 star rating. Apple canceled us and now we are clawing our way back to the top. Don't let the Leftist win. Do it now! Thanks. Also Rate us on any platform you follow us on. It helps a lot. Forward this show to friends. Ways to subscribe to the American Conservative University Podcast Click here to subscribe via Apple Podcasts Click here to subscribe via RSS You can also subscribe via Stitcher FM Player Podcast Addict Tune-in Podcasts Pandora Look us up on Amazon Prime …And Many Other Podcast Aggregators and sites ACU on Twitter- https://twitter.com/AmerConU . Warning- Explicit and Violent video content.   Please help ACU by submitting your Show ideas. Email us at americanconservativeuniversity@americanconservativeuniversity.com   Endorsed Charities -------------------------------------------------------- Pre-Born! Saving babies and Souls. https://preborn.org/ OUR MISSION To glorify Jesus Christ by leading and equipping pregnancy clinics to save more babies and souls. WHAT WE DO Pre-Born! partners with life-affirming pregnancy clinics all across the nation. We are designed to strategically impact the abortion industry through the following initiatives:… -------------------------------------------------------- Help CSI Stamp Out Slavery In Sudan Join us in our effort to free over 350 slaves. Listeners to the Eric Metaxas Show will remember our annual effort to free Christians who have been enslaved for simply acknowledging Jesus Christ as their Savior. As we celebrate the birth of Christ this Christmas, join us in giving new life to brothers and sisters in Sudan who have enslaved as a result of their faith. https://csi-usa.org/metaxas   https://csi-usa.org/slavery/   Typical Aid for the Enslaved A ration of sorghum, a local nutrient-rich staple food A dairy goat A “Sack of Hope,” a survival kit containing essential items such as tarp for shelter, a cooking pan, a water canister, a mosquito net, a blanket, a handheld sickle, and fishing hooks. Release celebrations include prayer and gathering for a meal, and medical care for those in need. The CSI team provides comfort, encouragement, and a shoulder to lean on while they tell their stories and begin their new lives. Thank you for your compassion  Giving the Gift of Freedom and Hope to the Enslaved South Sudanese -------------------------------------------------------- Food For the Poor https://foodforthepoor.org/ Help us serve the poorest of the poor Food For The Poor began in 1982 in Jamaica. Today, our interdenominational Christian ministry serves the poor in primarily 17 countries throughout the Caribbean and Latin America. Thanks to our faithful donors, we are able to provide food, housing, healthcare, education, fresh water, emergency relief, micro-enterprise solutions and much more. We are proud to have fed millions of people and provided more than 15.7 billion dollars in aid. Our faith inspires us to be an organization built on compassion, and motivated by love. Our mission is to bring relief to the poorest of the poor in the countries where we serve. We strive to reflect God's unconditional love. It's a sacrificial love that embraces all people regardless of race or religion. We believe that we can show His love by serving the “least of these” on this earth as Christ challenged us to do in Matthew 25. We pray that by God's grace, and with your support, we can continue to bring relief to the suffering and hope to the hopeless.   Report on Food For the Poor by Charity Navigator https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/592174510   -------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer from ACU. We try to bring to our students and alumni the World's best Conservative thinkers. All views expressed belong solely to the author and not necessarily to ACU. In all issues and relations, we hope to follow the admonitions of Jesus Christ. While striving to expose, warn and contend with evil, we extend the love of God to all of his children. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

The embarrassment that has become High School graduation ceremonies.Wayzata graduation shooting suspect faces stiffer sentence after prosecutor filingThe Hennepin County Attorney's Office will seek an enhanced sentence against the man suspected of shooting two people following the Wayzata High School graduation ceremony at Mariucci Arena in Minneapolis.Hamza Abdirashid Said, 20, of Coon Rapids, is charged with first-degree assault, second-degree assault, and possessing/operating a machine gun in connection to the May 30 shooting.The Hennepin County Attorney's Office filed a "notice of intent to seek an upward sentencing departure" in the shooting that injured two people outside the Wayzata High School graduation ceremony at Mariucci Arena in Minneapolis.This means prosecutors will seek a legal penalty that goes beyond the state's typical sentencing guidelines. The filing states that the victims in the shooting "were particularly vulnerable based on the location of the incident on a university campus," adding that "the Victims were particularly vulnerable based on the large scale of attendees at the public event, besides the intended Victim there were numerous people present besides the intended victims and Defendant created greater-than-normal danger to the safety of these other people."The document states that the "sentencing departure issues should be decided by the trial jury." The maximum sentence for first-degree assault in Minnesota is 20 years. Trans pitcher hits 2 doubles, throws another complete game to send team to Minnesota state championshipSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.