Podcasts about dismiss

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.

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 this filing, UMG Recordings, Inc. submitted a motion to dismiss the civil complaint brought by Sara Rivers (formerly known as Sara Stokes), who has accused Sean Combs and a wide array of associated individuals and entities—including UMG—of enabling and participating in a long-running campaign of abuse, exploitation, and retaliation during her time as a performer and reality television star. UMG argues that the complaint fails to establish any direct legal basis for liability against the label, emphasizing that Rivers' allegations are either too vague, time-barred, or do not meet the threshold of actionable conduct under applicable laws. UMG maintains that there is no specific connection between the company and the alleged wrongdoing, particularly as it relates to claims of trafficking, conspiracy, and emotional distress.UMG also contends that its name is improperly included in a sprawling list of defendants that spans individuals from the music and television industries, Combs-affiliated companies, and even the estates of deceased producers. The label asserts that it had no supervisory role or direct business relationship with Rivers, and therefore cannot be held accountable for actions allegedly committed by other parties years ago. Furthermore, UMG requests oral argument to clarify and reinforce its position that it should be dismissed from the case entirely, framing its inclusion as speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence or legal grounding.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637776.133.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this filing, UMG Recordings, Inc. submitted a motion to dismiss the civil complaint brought by Sara Rivers (formerly known as Sara Stokes), who has accused Sean Combs and a wide array of associated individuals and entities—including UMG—of enabling and participating in a long-running campaign of abuse, exploitation, and retaliation during her time as a performer and reality television star. UMG argues that the complaint fails to establish any direct legal basis for liability against the label, emphasizing that Rivers' allegations are either too vague, time-barred, or do not meet the threshold of actionable conduct under applicable laws. UMG maintains that there is no specific connection between the company and the alleged wrongdoing, particularly as it relates to claims of trafficking, conspiracy, and emotional distress.UMG also contends that its name is improperly included in a sprawling list of defendants that spans individuals from the music and television industries, Combs-affiliated companies, and even the estates of deceased producers. The label asserts that it had no supervisory role or direct business relationship with Rivers, and therefore cannot be held accountable for actions allegedly committed by other parties years ago. Furthermore, UMG requests oral argument to clarify and reinforce its position that it should be dismissed from the case entirely, framing its inclusion as speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence or legal grounding.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637776.133.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the memorandum of law filed in Case No. 25-cv-00996, the Combs Defendants—consisting of Sean Combs and several affiliated Bad Boy entities—move to dismiss the complaint brought by a plaintiff identified as John Doe. The defense argues that the complaint fails to meet the basic legal standards required for litigation, lacking specific factual allegations that would establish a plausible claim for relief. They contend that the complaint is overly broad, relies on conclusory assertions, and does not clearly link the named defendants to any actionable conduct. The motion emphasizes that Doe's claims are insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) and should not survive judicial scrutiny.Additionally, the Combs Defendants argue that the complaint improperly lumps together numerous corporate entities and unidentified “Doe” defendants without distinguishing their individual roles or responsibilities, making it impossible to determine who allegedly did what. They maintain that this generalized approach violates federal pleading standards and fails to provide the clarity needed for a meaningful legal defense. The memorandum ultimately requests that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice, asserting that further amendments would be futile given the lack of concrete factual support.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.636272.44.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the memorandum of law filed in Case No. 25-cv-00996, the Combs Defendants—consisting of Sean Combs and several affiliated Bad Boy entities—move to dismiss the complaint brought by a plaintiff identified as John Doe. The defense argues that the complaint fails to meet the basic legal standards required for litigation, lacking specific factual allegations that would establish a plausible claim for relief. They contend that the complaint is overly broad, relies on conclusory assertions, and does not clearly link the named defendants to any actionable conduct. The motion emphasizes that Doe's claims are insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) and should not survive judicial scrutiny.Additionally, the Combs Defendants argue that the complaint improperly lumps together numerous corporate entities and unidentified “Doe” defendants without distinguishing their individual roles or responsibilities, making it impossible to determine who allegedly did what. They maintain that this generalized approach violates federal pleading standards and fails to provide the clarity needed for a meaningful legal defense. The memorandum ultimately requests that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice, asserting that further amendments would be futile given the lack of concrete factual support.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.636272.44.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the memorandum of law filed in Case No. 25-cv-00996, the Combs Defendants—consisting of Sean Combs and several affiliated Bad Boy entities—move to dismiss the complaint brought by a plaintiff identified as John Doe. The defense argues that the complaint fails to meet the basic legal standards required for litigation, lacking specific factual allegations that would establish a plausible claim for relief. They contend that the complaint is overly broad, relies on conclusory assertions, and does not clearly link the named defendants to any actionable conduct. The motion emphasizes that Doe's claims are insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) and should not survive judicial scrutiny.Additionally, the Combs Defendants argue that the complaint improperly lumps together numerous corporate entities and unidentified “Doe” defendants without distinguishing their individual roles or responsibilities, making it impossible to determine who allegedly did what. They maintain that this generalized approach violates federal pleading standards and fails to provide the clarity needed for a meaningful legal defense. The memorandum ultimately requests that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice, asserting that further amendments would be futile given the lack of concrete factual support.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.636272.44.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the memorandum of law filed in Case No. 25-cv-00996, the Combs Defendants—consisting of Sean Combs and several affiliated Bad Boy entities—move to dismiss the complaint brought by a plaintiff identified as John Doe. The defense argues that the complaint fails to meet the basic legal standards required for litigation, lacking specific factual allegations that would establish a plausible claim for relief. They contend that the complaint is overly broad, relies on conclusory assertions, and does not clearly link the named defendants to any actionable conduct. The motion emphasizes that Doe's claims are insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6) and should not survive judicial scrutiny.Additionally, the Combs Defendants argue that the complaint improperly lumps together numerous corporate entities and unidentified “Doe” defendants without distinguishing their individual roles or responsibilities, making it impossible to determine who allegedly did what. They maintain that this generalized approach violates federal pleading standards and fails to provide the clarity needed for a meaningful legal defense. The memorandum ultimately requests that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety and with prejudice, asserting that further amendments would be futile given the lack of concrete factual support.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.636272.44.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

“Am I overreacting, or is something really wrong?”“How do I protect my peace without starting a fight?”Many women second-guess their own warning bells—especially when others don't understand their sensitivity. Whether it's emotional triggers, past trauma, or just needing quiet in a loud world, you know when something feels off.In this episode of Memoirs of an LDS Servant Teacher, we explore the subtle intrusion of what Maurice calls “the third person in the room”—the influence that turns moments upside down without warning. Learn how to recognize those intrusions, build deliberate responses, and stop labeling your instincts as overreactions.Topics include:How to identify spiritual vs. fear-based reactionsWhy your first impulse to “talk it out” might backfireWhat it really means to defend your personal space with loveThe importance of rehearsing your response before the momentWhy unique triggers (even “uncommon” ones) still deserve respectHow honoring your spiritual space sets the tone for your homeThis episode is your reminder: your alarm isn't broken. It's trying to protect you.You're not “too sensitive”—you're learning how to stand strong in your sacred space.Want to read more about this topic? ⁠⁠https://www.lifechangingservices.org/finding-balance-managing-stress-and-apathy-in-life/Rather Watch Something? ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgKC-_nHGmECheck out Life Changing Services: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.lifechangingservices.org/

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.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 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 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.

What if your team's best innovation is stuck behind a lie - like “I'm not creative”? In this episode, Nicole Greer sits down with Melissa Dinwiddie, author of The Creative Sandbox Way: Your Path to a Full-Color Life, to smash that myth and uncover the truth: creativity is your birthright—and it's the key to building a vibrant, energized culture.Melissa shares her personal journey from self-doubt to singing jazz, thriving as an artist in Silicon Valley, and coaching leaders at Google, Facebook, and Salesforce. She introduces her 10 transformative guideposts to unlock innovation, break through fear, and help people across all industries build their own “Creative Sandbox.” Whether you lead a team, launch ideas, or build culture, this episode will give you the tools—and the mindset—to turn possibility into reality.Vibrant Highlights:[00:06:54] – The lie of “I'm not creative”—and how most people are wounded out of creativity in childhood.[00:25:48] – “Think Quantity, Not Quality”: Why messy first drafts and crappy pots are the secret to innovation.[00:29:38] – Tiny and daily wins: how 15 minutes a day changed Melissa's creative life—and can spark your next big thing.[00:33:21] – “Take the riskier path” — If you're not risking, you're not innovating. Even Coca-Cola took big swings![00:36:57] – Dismiss the Gremlins: How to spot the sneaky voices of fear and self-doubt—and send them off for a pedicure.[00:43:22] – Self-awareness + self-compassion = the key to everything good. (Golden formula alert!)Melissa's Book: https://a.co/d/76rgugOFREE Download -  Impact Innovation Checklist: https://bit.ly/bvcpthankyouConnect with Melissa:Website: https://melissadinwiddie.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/melissadinwiddie/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@MelissaDinwiddieInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/a_creative_life/Also mentioned in this episode:Art & Fear by David Bayles & Ted Orland: https://a.co/d/bJJ5Q9YTaming Your Gremlin by Rick Carson: https://a.co/d/arACGUqThe Human Condition by Thomas Keating: https://a.co/d/6wNXGqUSelf-Compassion by Kristin Neff: https://a.co/d/4tyG8IeListen at vibrantculture.com/podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts! Learn more about Nicole Greer, The Vibrant Coach, at vibrantculture.com

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

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.

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state's shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdf

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state's shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdf

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state's shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdf

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state's shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdf

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state's shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdf

In the memorandum supporting their consolidated motion to dismiss, the defendants in the case of Dawn Angelique Richard v. Sean Combs et al. argue that the plaintiff's claims are largely time-barred under New York's statutes of limitations. They contend that the state's shorter limitation periods should apply, rendering many of the plaintiff's causes of action untimely. Specifically, they assert that claims related to assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trafficking, forced labor, and various employment-related allegations fall outside the permissible time frames. The defendants also challenge the applicability of revival statutes, arguing that the Gender-Motivated Violence Law (GMVL) revival provision conflicts with existing laws like the Child Victims Act (CVA) and Adult Survivors Act (ASA), and thus cannot retroactively apply to the defendants.Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claims against various entities associated with Sean Combs, such as the "Bad Boy" and "Combs" entities, rely on improper group pleadings without specific allegations against each entity. They assert that the GMVL claim fails because the law did not apply to certain defendants at the relevant times and that the plaintiff does not sufficiently allege a gender-motivated crime of violence. Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff fails to state valid claims for forced labor, sex trafficking, discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, right of publicity, and unjust enrichment. They argue that these claims are either inadequately pled or legally baseless, and in some cases, barred by applicable statutes of limitations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.154.0.pdf

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