Podcasts about dismiss

This conversation delves into the strategic intricacies of pre-trial adjudication in civil litigation, focusing on key rules such as Rule 12b (Motions to Dismiss), Rule 12c (Judgment on the Pleadings), Rule 55 (Default Judgments), and Rule 56 (Summary Judgment). The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding these procedural tools, their applications, and the strategic implications for legal practitioners. It highlights the evolution of pleading standards, the significance of evidence in summary judgment, and the broader context of the pre-trial process, including discovery and settlement negotiations.TakeawaysPre-trial adjudication is crucial in determining case outcomes.Rule 12b motions are often the first line of defense for defendants.Understanding the nuances of Rule 12b and 12c is essential for legal success.Default judgments can significantly impact litigation if a defendant fails to respond.Summary judgment shifts the focus from pleadings to actual evidence.The burden of proof and production are critical concepts in summary judgment motions.State courts may have different pleading standards than federal courts.The pre-trial process includes discovery, which is vital for gathering evidence.Settlement negotiations often occur during the pre-trial phase.Understanding procedural rules is key for effective legal strategy. pre-trial adjudication, civil procedure, Rule 12b, Rule 12c, Rule 55, Rule 56, motions to dismiss, summary judgment, legal strategy, litigation

Lawyers for baseball's top star say he was the victim of likeness misuse in a real estate deal and have moved to dismiss a lawsuit. Correspondent Gethin Coolbaugh reports.

Starmer facing calls to dismiss UK's ambassador to the US over his links to Epstein

#0198 The Top 10 Most Important Military Battles of the United States - Further. Every. Day. Top 10 Most Important Military Battles in US History Cut 1 - Introduction Cut 2 - Criteria for creating the list Cut 3 - #1: The Battle of Saratoga Cut 4 - #1: The Battle of Saratoga (Did You Know) Cut 5 - #2: The Battle of Normandy Cut 6 - #2: The Battle of Normandy (Did You Know) Cut 7 - #3: The Battle of Midway Cut 8 - #3: The Battle of Midway (Did You Know) Cut 9 - #4: The Battle of Vicksburg Cut 10 - #4: The Battle of Vicksburg (Did You Know) Cut 11 - #5: The Battle of Inchon Cut 12 - #5: The Battle of Inchon (Did You Know) Cut 13 - #6: The Battle of Atlanta Cut 14 - #6: The Battle of Atlanta (Did You Know) Cut 15 - #7: The Battle of San Juan Hill Cut 16 - #7: The Battle of San Juan Hill (Did You Know) Cut 17 - #8: The Battle of Mexico City Cut 18 - #8: The Battle of Mexico City (Did You Know) Cut 19 - #9: The Battle of Chancelorsville Cut 20 - #9: The Battle of Chancelorsville (Did You Know) Cut 21 - #10: The Battle of Trenton Cut 22 - #10: The Battle of Trenton (Did You Know) Cut 23 - Honorable Mention List Steve's Shenanigans Cut 24 - Introduction (Real or Fake News - The True or False Test) Cut 25 - Today's Topic: Camping Cut 26 - #1: It is illegal to primitive camp on BLM land without a permit. Cut 27 - #1: It is illegal to primitive camp on BLM land without a permit. (Answer) False Cut 28 - #2: National Parks have regulations regarding numbers of persons per campsite. Cut 29 - #2: National Parks have regulations regarding numbers of persons per campsite. (Answer) True Cut 30 - #3: It is legal to take and artifact, rock or plant from a National Parks. Cut 31 - #3: It is legal to take and artifact, rock or plant from a National Parks. (Answer) False Cut 32 - #4: It is illegal to have a campfire in primitive camping area. Cut 33 - #4: It is illegal to have a campfire in primitive camping area. (Answer) False Cut 34 - #5: There are different regulations for National Park camping vs National Forest camping. Cut 35 - #5: There are different regulations for National Park camping vs National Forest camping. (Answer) True Cut 36 - BONUS: Can you name the 5 things that make primitive camping actually primitive? Cut 37 - BONUS ANSWERS: No Established Facilities No Electricity or Cell Service No Marked Campsites or Roads Self-Sufficiency is Required Minimal to No Human Impact The Screwtape Letters: Chapter 3 Cuts 38 - 52 Nicki Knows Facts Cut 53: Introduction to Today's Topic When the Brain Breaks How Injuries Reshape Who We Are WARNING: Some information may be graphic. Dismiss your little ones if this is an issue. Cut 54: Phineas Gauge Cut 55: Labotomy Cut 56: Calendar Calculator Cut 57: Jason Padgett Cut 58: How He Sees Things Cut 59: Musical Talents Cut 60: Artistic Talents Cut 61: Jonathan Wilshire Cut 62: Kim Peeke Cut 63: Daniel Tammet Ryan's Music Review Cut 64: Introduction to the Music Review Cut 65: Be Thou My Vision (Eleanor Hull) Cut 66: Verse 1 Cut 67: Verse 2 Cut 68: Verse 3 Cut 69: Verse 4 Cut 70: Verse 5 Cut 71: Dirt Roads in Heaven Cut 72: Verse 1 Cut 73: Chorus Cut 74: Verse 2 Cut 75: Bridge

Dr. Deb 0:00But the doctor told me it was just anxiety. Three days later, I was in the emergency room having a heart attack. For eight years, they said my symptoms were depression. Turns out it was Lyme disease. These people weren't crazy. They weren't overreacting. They were right all along today on Let's Talk […]

Istrouma Baptist Church (ASC) Sep 7, 2025 ========== September 7 - Field Guide Welcome! We're glad you've joined us today for our Sunday morning worship service! For more information about Istrouma, go to istrouma.org or contact us at info@istrouma.org. We glorify God by making disciples of all nations. ========== Connection Card https://istrouma.org/myinfo Faithful to the Task 1 Timothy 4:1-10 ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭4‬:‭1‬-‭16‬‬ Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. Command and teach these things. Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1. False teachers Progressive Christianity - Reject the inerrancy and authority of the Bible. - Reinterpret sin through the lens of human experience. - Downplay the exclusivity of Christ for salvation. - Downplay the reality of Satan, demons, and hell. - Dismiss biblical sexual parameters and gender distinctions. 2. Faithful teachers 3. Finishing well

Introduction: John 3:36 - whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. Ephesians 2:3 – were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. Enter By the Narrow Gate (Matthew 7:13-14) It's Hard to FIND. (Matt 7:14) John 14:6 – Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Luke 14:33 – So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. It's Hard to WALK. (Matt 7:14) It's Hard to DISMISS. (Matt 7:14) Matthew 11:12 – From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. Sermon Notes (PDF): BLANKHint: Highlight blanks above for answers! Small Group DiscussionRead Matthew 7:13-14What was your big take-away from this passage / message?How would (specifically) you answer this question: How do I know which gate I entered?We are saved by grace. But are things like repentance, counting the cost, and entering the kingdom violently considered “works”? Why or why not?BreakoutPray for one another. AUDIO TRANSCRIPT I'd like you to just bow your heads for a moment,and I'm going to ask that you would please pray for meto be faithful to communicate God's word accurately as I should.And I will pray for you to be ready to receivewhatever it is the Lord wants to teach you today.Alright? Let's pray.Father in heaven, you are greatly glorifiedas transformed people by the power of your Holy Spirit.Our obedient to what you've revealed in your Word.That's all I'm asking for today, Father,for your glory to be on display as we respondto what you've told us in your Word.Manifest your grace and your goodness here today, Father.We ask in Jesus' name, amen.If you haven't already opened up your Bibles to Matthew chapter 7,we're just going to be looking at two verses today.For some of you, these could be the mosttwo important verses you ever hear.When I was a kid growing up in Shakura,we attended the Little Methodist Church.And when you're - I don't know if it's still the case in the Methodist Church,but at that time, when you're 12,you go through confirmation classes.You go to the Methodist Church, and then they teach youabout doctrine and John Wesley and the books of the Bible.But one part of this confirmation class,it took place over several days,but one part was the pastor would take you into the auditorium,just you and him.And I'm assuming that his conversation with the others went as it did with me.I remember the pastor took me to the auditorium and he said,"Jeff, you don't want to go to hell, do you?"And I'm like, "You mean today?Because mom's expecting me home for dinner."He's like, "You don't want to go to hell, do you?"And I was just like, "No."He goes, "Well, then you want to accept Jesus Christas your Lord and Savior, right?"And I'm like, "Okay.""Great."And he sent me back with the other kids.And then every time this pastor saw me after that,he would say, "I remember the day you gave your life to Jesus.""Oh, Jeff, I remember the day you gave your life to Jesus."And I was like, "Yeah, that was awesome."Is that what it means to follow Jesus?You see, since February we've been going through the Sermon on the Mount,the greatest sermon ever preached.And over the next four weeks, we're looking at how Jesus closesthe greatest sermon ever preached.All of the content leads to this.Over the past several months, we've looked at the heart of the discipleand the beatitudes.This is what a Jesus follower looks like.We talked about the heart of the law.Jesus didn't come to get rid of the Old Testament.He said, "I came to fulfill it."We talked about the heart of religion.Look, it's not about doing things for showto get a pat on the back from people.We talked about the heart towards the world.How should we interact in this world with money and stuff and people?And now we get to the close of Jesus' sermon, and here he's saying,"Now what are you going to do about it?"Now that you know what I call you to,is your heart ready for judgment?Look at verses 13 and 14.Jesus says, "Enter by the narrow gate, for the gate is wide,and the way is easy, that leads to destruction,and those who enter by it are many.For the gate is narrow, and the way is hard,that leads to life, and those who find it are few."Everybody's heading to eternity.I don't need to sell anyone on that, do I?Everyone's heading for eternity,and Jesus said there are two gates.There's exactly two options,and here Jesus is calling for an urgent choice.He commands, that's the first sentence in verse 13,"Enter by the narrow gate."That's a choice literally between heaven and hell.Jesus says, "Make your choice."Who would choose hell?I mean, really.Who would choose hell?I mean, yeah, I've shared the Gospel with a lot of people over the years,and I've met the guy, probably you have to.It's like, "Well, I'm going to hell,and I know I'm going to hell, and I don't really care,because all my buddies will be there."But I'm like, "You are clueless."You meet that joker.But who would really, honestly, seriously choose hell?Why wouldn't you choose heaven?I mean, really.See, my friends, that's the thing.That's why this message is so urgent,because no one thinks they are choosing hell.Everyone thinks that they are going to end up in heaven.Somehow, some way, I'm going to end up in heaven.Everyone thinks that.Everyone is, according to Jesus.In fact, it's even worse than we think it is.As we saw in the video, we have this mindset that most of us are good,and we're going to heaven, and there's a few really bad people that are going to hell.Jesus didn't say that.Notice Jesus said the exact opposite.He said many are going to hell, to destruction,and he said few are going to heaven.Few find life.So do you know what you have to do to go to hell?Do you know?Nothing.You don't have to do a thing.And that's where you'll end up.John 3.36 says,"Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life."Look at this."But the wrath of God remains on him."How do you get the wrath of God?He's already on you.Paul says the same thing in Ephesians 2-3.He says, "We were by nature children of wrath,like the rest of mankind."That was our default mode.And I want you to notice in these two verses,Jesus didn't say, "Choose which gate."He didn't say that.You already did choose a gate.There's no language here that says,"Well, tell me, how do I go through the wide gate?"You already did.Notice with the narrow gate, look at the very last phrase in verse 14.Jesus said, "Those who find it are few."The wide gate is something that has to be found.The wide gate, Jesus never said you had to find the wide gate.It's wide.It's easy.And you're already on it.Heading to destruction.So what we have here in these verses is a command.It's a command to enter the narrow gate.Look at verse 13 again.Enter by the narrow gate.It's a command. It's a call to action.Meaning it doesn't happen by accident.It's worth noting that Jesus,we're going to see this in these upcoming messages as well,there are people that are going to be shockedthat they're going to hell.But you know, the Bible never says that there are peoplethat are shocked that they end up in heaven.That guy doesn't exist.That guy doesn't exist where Jesus says,"Come on in to glory."Like, wow, I didn't know I was coming here.Wow.That guy doesn't exist.The gospel is a command.Listen, it's a command.It's not just an invitation.It's not just a suggestion.You really ought to think about maybe turning to Jesus.It is a command.Look at the words that are used to describe coming to Christ.They're all commands.Words like "repent."You're commanded to repent.Believe.Receive.Believe.Here, the command is "enter."This is the big takeaway from the Sermon on the Mountaccording to Jesus.Because of everything that He said,going back to the Beatitudes,leading to this point,Jesus commands us to choose narrow.It's not enough to listen to sermons about the narrow gate.It's not enough to study the narrow gate.It's not enough to even kind of like the narrow gate.Jesus said, "You have to make the choice to enter the narrow gate."Have you made that choice?I want you to jot some things downon your outline.This is the command, "Enter by the narrow gate."What does our Lord say about it?First of all, number one, write this down.It's hard to find.It's hard to find.Again, in verse 14, Jesus says,"For the gate is narrow, and the way is hard that leads to life.And those who find it are few."It's hard to find.It's narrow.What exactly do you mean it's narrow?Well, one thing that it means, that it's being narrow,is that it's the only way to be saved.Jesus made that claim.The Bible makes that claim over and over and over.In John 14.6, Jesus said,"I am the way and the truth and the life.No one comes to the Father except through me."The gate is narrow because it's the only way to be saved.Not every road leads to heaven.That doesn't even work in the physical world, does it?If you came to me after service and you're like,"Pastor Jeff, I really want to go to Cleveland.How do I get there?"First of all, I'm not sure you really do want to go there.But if you have to listen, you know how to get to Cleveland?Just pick a road. It doesn't matter.Get in your car and just pick a road.As long as you believe in your heart's that that road will take you to Cleveland,then you will get to Cleveland.Would that work?People are like, "I think I'll ask Pastor Taylor."Right?I mean, that's foolishness.So why do we think that any road is going to get us to heaven?Not every road will take you there.Because your problem is sin before a holy God,and the only way that that sin can be forgivenis through Jesus Christ, because He's the only onewho paid the penalty to take away your sin.It's narrow because it's the only way to be saved.It's narrow also because you're called to leave some things behind.You get a picture of this narrow gate almost like a turnstile,like walking into Kennywood.If you're going through that turnstile, you've got to leave some stuff behind.Like leave what behind?Your sin?Your self-centeredness?Your rights?Your pride?You've got to leave your old self behind,because listen, you're both not going to fit through the turnstile.You both won't fit through the narrow gate.Jesus said it costs to enter this gate.We don't have time today, but just write down Matthew 10, Luke 14.Jesus said there's a cost to entering the gate.Leave stuff behind.Like, well, what's the cost?Jesus said you have to love Him more than you love your own family.Jesus said you have to deny yourself.Jesus said you have to consider yourself a slave to Him.Oh, and you have to consider yourself a slave to everyone else.Jesus said things like you have to take up your cross.You have to be willing to lay down your life for Him.Listen, if you're unwilling to do any of that,then you're not going to get through the gate at all.To sum it up, Luke 14.33, look what Jesus says.Not the most secret, sensitive way to address a crowd.Jesus said, "So therefore any one of you who does not renounce all that He hascannot be my disciple."You willing to do that?You're like, "I don't know."Okay, then you're not going through the narrow gate.Back when I was in college, I had several jobs.Here's where two of them overlapped.I was pastoring a little country church,and I was also a magazine vendor for two Walmarts and two K-Marts.Is K-Marts still a thing?It was back then.But I would go in third shift to these stores,and I would stock the magazines.And at the one K-Mart, I got to be friends with some of the employees there.There were a couple cashiers that I invited to church.I'll never forget this.The one cashier, her name was Gina.And she came to church for probably three or four weeks,and then stopped.Well, the next time I saw her at K-Mart,I said, "Hey, I haven't seen you in church."I'll never forget what she said.She said, "I can't go to churchand live the kind of life that I want to live."It's sad.She got it.She got the fact that the gate is narrow.She got the fact that she can't come into the kingdom of heavenwhile carrying all her sin in with her.I don't want to talk about Gina though. I want to talk about you.What have you left behind to follow Jesus?Would you say that there's been a tremendous cost to youin deciding to follow Jesus?And if your answer is, "Well, you know,I haven't really given up that much to follow Jesus,really now that I think about it,I really haven't given up very much."Well, then you haven't found the narrow gate.It's hard to find.Secondly, write this down.Not only is it hard to find,it's hard to walk.It's hard to walk.The gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life.The way is hard that leads to life.You see what Jesus is saying?If you find it, and even when it's truly found,it's hard to enter.And when you enter it, it's hard to walk.And right now somebody's like, "Hard? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,hang on, hang on, hang on."I thought coming to Jesus was just belief.Just believe in Jesus.What are you talking about? Hard.It's just believe, right?Well, I would ask you,what do you mean by believe?Do you know how Jesus described what it means to believe?The Sermon on the Mount.This is how Jesus described what it means to believe.He described it with the beatitudes.When you're broken over your sin and you're meekand you desire righteousness and purity more than anything,you're a peacemaker.And then, if you're really living it, people hate you.That's what it means to believe.Jesus said believing is being salt and light.That means you're different than the world.You stand out because of what you believe.Is that what you mean by believe?Jesus said believing is turning from anger, turning from lust.Jesus said believing is a person who always keeps their word.Jesus said believing is never retaliating.Jesus said believing is when you love your enemies.Jesus said believing is when you choose to giveand to pray and to fast privately.So only God knows.Jesus says believing is giving to Godso that you lay up treasure in heaven.Jesus said believing is never worrying.Not being anxious for anything.Jesus said believing is not being critical of othersbut doing to others what you wish they would do to you.Now, you tell me what's easy about any of that.It's hard to walk.If you've been with us in any part of this journeythrough the Sermon on the Mount,has there been any of these sections that you've pointed atand went, "Oh, that's easy. I got that nailed down."Or have you been more like me every weektaken to the woodshed?Tour up?Or have you been more like meevery week taken to the woodshed?Or have you been more like me?Difficult is the standard.We're told on the front end,when you live different than the world,you're going to have people after you.You're going to suffer.It's hard to walk.That's why a lot of people bail, by the way.They weren't expecting it to be hard.They were believing in gospel that Jesus never taught.Because believing in the gospel,despite the lame way we want to package itin American churches,believing in the gospel is more than just acknowledging facts.And it's even way more than just agreeing with the facts.Believing in the gospel is having a faith in Jesus Christthat makes your decisions for you.Your life should be marked by this.Constantly saying, "You know what?I do this because of what Jesus said.This is why I do that."Your life should be marked by things you say,"You know what? I never do thisbecause God said I should never do that.My life makes my decisions for me."That's what it means to believe.In churches, dishonor the gospeland do a disservice to peoplewhen we make it easy to follow Jesus.Shame on us.We make it so easy for the peoplethat walk in the door and say,"Look, I just want to attend.I just want to come in on Sunday,in late, out early.I just want to attend.I don't want to get involved.I don't want to help out with the kids ministry.I don't want to be on the worship team.I don't want to give to the church.I don't want to do any of that.Look, just make it easy."Where did Jesus say the easy way leads?I want to talk about you again.You find it easy to follow Jesus?Maybe at 9 a.m. on Sunday.I want to ask about your Monday through Saturday.Is it easy for you to follow Jesus?And if your answer is, you know what?I don't know what he's talking about,but I haven't really found it to be that hardbeing a Christian.Then you haven't found the narrow gate.Because Jesus said it's hard.Enter by the narrow gate.It's hard to find.It's hard to walk.Number three, it's hard to dismiss.It's hard to dismiss.The gate is narrow.And the way is hard that leads to life.Man, this sounds like being a Christian is hard.Yeah, it is.So why would I enter the narrow gate at all then?Because of where it leads.And whoever doesn't think aboutwhere the path they are on is taking them is a fool.Throughout this section, throughout these verses,we looked at today Jesus said there's only two.There's two gates.There's two ways. There's two crowds.And there's two destinations.You're going to want to...Destruction and it's life.What's destruction?We've talked about that. That's hell.Yes, destruction here and now in this life,I've yet to meet the guy that has really benefited from their sin.But instead has experienced destruction in this life,ultimately it's destruction in hell.Why is hell referred to as destruction?Because it's eternally being destroyed,but never actually being destroyed.It's burning without being consumed.That's what hell is.And that's where the easy way leads.So if following Jesus sounds too hard for you,you have the option of having it a little easierin this life for 15 minutes,and spending eternity suffering.Not my opinion, Jesus' words.The other destination is life.Life, eternal, glorious life in heaven.Yes, of course, but also life here and now.Eternal life for the Christian isn't something that you get someday.It's something you experience now,and you take with you into eternity.This hard way is the way that Jesus took.And if we choose to follow in His footsteps,we will not only get heaven,but we will experience lifeas it was meant to be lived here and now.And that's hard to dismiss,just because it's difficult.It's over and over in the Gospels.Jesus challenged potential followers to count the cost.You have to count the cost of entering the narrow gatebecause there is a cost.But you also have to count the cost of not entering the narrow gate.You could leave here today and say,"I choose to stay on the wide gateway."What have you gained?What have you gained by staying on the wide gateway?An easier life here for however long that lasts.But what have you lost?You've lost eternity.So right now you need to ask yourself,"What way am I on?"Listen, you can't answer thatbased on something that happened in the past.That's what I mean for some people.It's like, are you a follower of Jesus?Well, I got baptized 30 years ago.That's not the test.The test is, how are we living right now?Are you seeking Jesus now?Are you turning from sin now?Are you denying yourself now?Your life right now proves what way you are on.I'd like to invite the worship team to come back up.We're going to have some folks join us up here.I'd like to invite them up too.We're going to have some people up here to pray,some elders, some members from our prayer team.I'd like you folks to make your way up here as well.In just a moment, the worship team is going to sing a song over you.But before we do that, I want us to consider one more verse.It's Matthew 11 and verse 12.Another staggering statement from our Lord.Jesus said, "From the days of John the Baptist until now,the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence."Look at his last phrase.He says, "And the violence, take it by force."Listen, because the gate is narrow,and because the way is hard,salvation is something that you have to go after violently.It's not, well, just put a check mark on this card and you're saved.Just bow your head and raise your hand and you're saved.Just repeat this prayer after me and you're saved.That's not it.It's something that you have to go after violently.Like why violently?Because the gospel calls you to forsake yourself.You have to go after that violently.Jesus calls you to give up your sin.It's not for weaklings.I'm going to give you a chance.I'm going to give you a chance to prove that you're not a weakling.I'm going to give you a chance today to do something violent.I'd like you to bow your heads, please,because what we're going to dois have a good old-fashioned, much-needed altar call.Bow your heads.Today needs to enter the narrow gate.Maybe there's somebody that walked in here todaythat said, "I know I'm not following Jesus,and I've been meaning to get around to it.Today's the day that you're going to go after this violently."Or maybe there's somebody here that's like,"Well, I don't really know if I follow Jesus."Then that means you don't.Because you can't have a relationship with the God of the universeand not know it.Because it's something you have to go after violently.Or maybe there's somebody here that says,"You know, I made a decision once upon a time,but whether I'm backslidden,or whether I was deceived or confused,I'm not really sure where I stand right nowbecause I'm so stuck in sin."You need to go after this violently.As an act of faith, as the worship team sings over you,we want to invite you to come up and pray.There is still someone here, someone else here,that wants to do business with God.I strongly encourage you not to leave until you do.You shrink back now.It's going to be way easier to shrink back the next timethat you feel called to follow Jesus.Father in heaven,we're not here to put on a show for anybody but you.We want to be sincere.We don't want to settle for some watered-down,sugar-coated version of the Gospelthat so many in our culture have made it.Father, let us go after you violentlywith the urgency that your Son has called us to.We do need to count the costs.I'm asking Father that you would give us the faith that we need.All glory and honor and praise and power be unto your name.We pray in Jesus' name.Amen.

Joshua 7, Acts 9, Luke 6August 31st, 2025—Never short sell an immeasurably more God.Never underestimate the power of a simple prayer offered on behalf of a complex situation.Never dismiss the impact of obedience (or disobedience).A core problem of disobedience is its near-sightedness. Disobedience sees the tree but misses the forest. Obedience is 20/20 faith in an immeasurable more God. Joshua 6:15-19 (NIV) 15 On the seventh day, they got up at daybreak and marched around the city seven times in the same manner, except that on that day they circled the city seven times. 16 The seventh time around, when the priests sounded the trumpet blast, Joshua commanded the army, “Shout! For the Lord has given you the city! 17 The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the Lord. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent. 18 But keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it. 19 All the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the Lord and must go into his treasury.”A fundamental element of obedience is God goes first. When God gets our first, God gives us His best. Joshua 7:1 (NIV) But the Israelites were unfaithful in regard to the devoted things; Achan son of Karmi, the son of Zimri, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of them. So, the Lord's anger burned against Israel.Joshua 7:10-12 (NIV) 10 The Lord said to Joshua, “Stand up! What are you doing down on your face? 11 Israel has sinned; they have violated my covenant, which I commanded them to keep. They have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen, they have lied, they have put them with their own possessions. 12 That is why the Israelites cannot stand against their enemies; they turn their backs and run because they have been made liable to destruction. I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction.Satan is forever trying to convince us that God is not enough for us. That God doesn't have our best in His mind. God doesn't “get it” or me. God doesn't understand this moment. I have to take matters into your own hands. Sin always wants to hide, it never wants submit, surrender or be exposed. Romans 6:23a “the wages of sin is death”. Romans 6:23b but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord! Never dismiss the death in disobedience. Never dismiss the life in obedience.Acts 9:10-19 (NIV) 10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!” “Yes, Lord,” he answered. 11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.” 13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” 15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.” 17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength.Luke 6:46 “46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? Disobedience bubbles up from 3 lingering impacts of our sin nature.Independence. Mistrust. Fear. What is Obedience?Obedience is a daily transfer of ownership. Obedience is faith in action in the love and goodness of God. Obedience is empowered actions.6 Disobedience Tipoffs“No one will ever find out.”“This really isn't that big of a deal.”“I deserve this.”“This won't impact anyone but me.” “Just this one time.” “This will be the last time.”All disobedience isn't a separating sin. All disobedience is self-limiting and a relational speed bump. All obedience is relationship building. All obedience empowers life with God's glorious riches. All obedience leads to life in us and others, more and better life than we could have ever imagined.Matthew 25:21,23 (NIV) “Well done my good and faithful servant. You have been faithful with a few things, I will make you ruler of many things. Come and share in your master's happiness.” What does it mean for God to find us faithful? I believe our faithfulness will be measured less by big outcomes and more by consistent daily obedience.

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank's standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank's standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank's standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank's standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank's standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank's standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Thoughts have power, but they're still only thoughts. We must ever remind ourselves that we are the watchmen at the gate. We have authority over what we choose to think and what thoughts we will entertain. This is crucial because the thoughts we entertain build momentum with corresponding feelings. When that occurs our material circumstances will correspond as well. In metaphysics it's said,“Feelings aren't facts, they're indicators”. When we're feeling bad its root can be traced to a discouraging thought. We can't prevent the thoughts that come into our mind, but we do have the power to dismiss the discouraging ones as they arise. That's exercising discipline in the true sense of the word which means, “to go in a good way”. On this episode, Darrell and Ed encourage listeners to mind their minds. Dismiss discouraging thoughts and entertain the positive ones. Remind yourself that a discouraging thought is just a sentence in your head that can easy erased and replaced. And, during the second segment, guest Kea Meyers Duggan gets things cooking with today's reading, “A Dependable Recipe”. Join the Prospering Patreon Community and support the message getting out there: www.Patreon.com/FunniestThing

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the Gaming Hut we look at ways to run prelude scenes in scenarios, set before its main objective becomes apparent. The Word Hut gets judgmental as we look at archaic, obscure and rarely used words and decide which of them deserves to enter the general lexicon. Our Cinema Hut Fantasy Film Essentials Series covers […]

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Hey Friend, Have you ever walked out of a doctor's office feeling more confused—or dismissed—than when you walked in? You're tired. Moody. Foggy. Hormones feel off. But the doctor says your labs are “normal” and you're “fine.” If that frustration sounds familiar, you're not alone—and you're not crazy. In this week's episode of Functional Medicine for Christian Women, I'm sharing:

It's easy to say you're “too busy” or “too tired” because of the job. But what if the truth is… you're hiding? In this episode of the Tactical Living Podcast, Coach Ashlie Walton and Sergeant Clint Walton dive into the hard truth about how the uniform can become emotional armor—and how some first responders use it to avoid dealing with what's going on at home (Amazon Affiliate), in relationships, and within themselves.

The lawsuit claims that Jews for Jesus intentionally associated this Jewish teacher with Bible distributions in the wake of the October 7 attacks. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.  

The government has voted to dismiss Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. Prominent law professor Mordechai Kremnitzer says he expects the High Court to overturn the dismissal of the attorney general. Speaking to KAN's Mark Weiss he said we already cannot describe Israel as a substantive democracy. (Photo:Flash90)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“We can't let the public see this.” But what if keeping it all behind the curtain is doing more harm than good? In this episode of the Tactical Living Podcast, Coach Ashlie Walton and Sergeant Clint Walton dive into the uncomfortable reality of over-sanitizing the job—and how hiding the full weight of what first responders experience may be limiting public understanding, trust, and genuine support.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may soon dismiss the members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an advisory panel of primary care experts, raising "deep concern" from the American Medical Association and other top medical groups. NPR's Pien Huang reports. Support NPR and hear every episode of Trump's Terms sponsor-free with NPR+. Sign up at plus.npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Day 2 with the new guy, Patsy receives glowing compliments on her glam look, and Alex learns about the "WLG" as Patsy's husband Chris has some constructive feedback for him.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.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.

Weeks after being found not guilty of murdering her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O’Keefe, Karen Read has taken steps to dismiss the civil lawsuit filed against her by the O’Keefe family.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy 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 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

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

Last night, shortly after a loss to Boston that completed a weekend sweep, the Nationals parted ways with GM Mike Rizzo and manager Dave Martinez. Six years ago, Rizzo and Martinez were at the helm for the Nats' World Series title. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Investigative journalists and co-hosts of True Sunlight Podcast Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell and attorney Eric Bland discuss the heinous details contained in court documents about what suspended South Carolina Representative RJ May has been accused of doing and why it was important for the U.S. Attorney's Office to get so graphic.  Over the course of five days in 2024, RJ May is accused of sharing 220 different child-sex abuse videos — including videos of babies being raped, bestiality with children and sex acts between toddlers and grown women and men. He shared those videos 479 times with other “like-minded pedophiles,” according to court records.  Even more stunning is that while the FBI conducted its investigation, RJ May remained a lawmaker and even got re-elected — despite the powers that be allegedly being aware of the nature of that investigation. RJ May's case should serve as a wake-up call for everyone.  Also on the show, Michael Colucci's retrial is this week. Mandy, Liz and Eric talk about the incredible accusations made in the motion to dismiss that Colucci's team filed Friday, accusing SLED and South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson's Office of sitting on “conclusive evidence” that Michael's wife, Sara-Lynn Colucci — whom Michael is accused of killing — had plans to hang herself.  ☕ Cups Up! ⚖️ Episode References “Will RJ May be expelled from SC House? Here's what would need to happen” - The State, June 13, 2025 Mandy's FB post on RJ May's federal indictment “Retrial begins for Summerville jeweler charged with murder in wife's 2015 death” - ABC 4 News, Updated June 16, 2025 The Colucci Case Spotify Playlist Premium Resources Robert May - June 12, 2025 - Federal Brief Supporting Detention⁠ ⁠Michael Colucci's Motion to Dismiss for Government Misconduct - June 13, 2025 Soundbites On Colucci - A Recap Episode Stay Tuned, Stay Pesky and Stay in the Sunlight...☀️ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Premium Members⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ also get access to episode videos, case files, live trial coverage and exclusive live experiences with our hosts. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CLICK HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to learn more and join with Promo Code "COJ25" for your first month free! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3BdUtOE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Check out Luna Shark Merch With a Mission shop at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lunasharkmerch.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ What We're Buying... ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Quince⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - Give yourself the luxury you deserve with Quince! Go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Quince.com/COJ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns Here's a link to some of our favorite things: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://amzn.to/4cJ0eVn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Find us on social media: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠bsky.app/profile/mandy-matney.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   |   ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠bsky.app/profile/elizfarrell.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   |   ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠bsky.app/profile/theericbland.bsky.social⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter.com/mandymatney⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter.com/elizfarrell⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter.com/theericbland⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/cupofjustice/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/cojpod/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TIKTOK⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUNscribe⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to our⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ free email list⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to get alerts on bonus episodes, calls to action, new shows and updates. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CLICK HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to learn more:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://bit.ly/3KBM⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ *** Alert: If you ever notice audio errors in the pod, email ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠info@lunasharkmedia.com ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and we'll send fun merch to the first listener that finds something that needs to be adjusted! *** *The views expressed on the Cup of Justice episodes do not constitute legal advice. Listeners desiring legal advice for any particular legal matter are urged to consult an attorney of their choosing who can provide legal advice based upon a full understanding of the facts and circumstances of their claim. The views expressed on the Cup of Justice episodes also do not express the views or opinions of Bland Richter, LLP, or its attorneys. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices