Podcasts about District court

Sean "Diddy" Combs, a prominent music mogul and entrepreneur, has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault spanning several decades. One such allegation involves a woman identified as Jane Doe, who claims she was assaulted by Combs during an event related to the MTV reality show Making the Band.BackgroundIn 2004, Jane Doe, then 19 years old, was a college student in Brooklyn. She met Combs during a promotional event for Making the Band, a reality show he produced that aimed to form a new music group.According to Jane Doe's lawsuit:Invitation to Hotel Room: Combs invited her and a friend to his hotel room in Manhattan under the pretense of discussing potential opportunities in the music industry.Unwanted Advances: Once in the room, Combs allegedly made unsolicited sexual advances, including inappropriate touching and attempts to kiss her.Physical Resistance: Jane Doe resisted his advances, leading to a physical struggle where she was reportedly pushed onto the bed.Assault: She alleges that Combs then sexually assaulted her despite her protests.Following the alleged incident, Jane Doe states she experienced significant emotional distress, including feelings of shame and humiliation. She also claims to have faced professional setbacks as a result of the assault.Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Combs, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged assault. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkThis allegation is part of a series of accusations against Combs, with multiple individuals coming forward with claims of sexual assault and misconduct. Combs has denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that he intends to defend himself against these claims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:combs-da-band-photoshoot-complaint.pdf

Sean "Diddy" Combs, a prominent music mogul and entrepreneur, has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault spanning several decades. One such allegation involves a woman identified as Jane Doe, who claims she was assaulted by Combs during an event related to the MTV reality show Making the Band.BackgroundIn 2004, Jane Doe, then 19 years old, was a college student in Brooklyn. She met Combs during a promotional event for Making the Band, a reality show he produced that aimed to form a new music group.According to Jane Doe's lawsuit:Invitation to Hotel Room: Combs invited her and a friend to his hotel room in Manhattan under the pretense of discussing potential opportunities in the music industry.Unwanted Advances: Once in the room, Combs allegedly made unsolicited sexual advances, including inappropriate touching and attempts to kiss her.Physical Resistance: Jane Doe resisted his advances, leading to a physical struggle where she was reportedly pushed onto the bed.Assault: She alleges that Combs then sexually assaulted her despite her protests.Following the alleged incident, Jane Doe states she experienced significant emotional distress, including feelings of shame and humiliation. She also claims to have faced professional setbacks as a result of the assault.Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Combs, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged assault. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkThis allegation is part of a series of accusations against Combs, with multiple individuals coming forward with claims of sexual assault and misconduct. Combs has denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that he intends to defend himself against these claims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:combs-da-band-photoshoot-complaint.pdf

Sean "Diddy" Combs, a prominent music mogul and entrepreneur, has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault spanning several decades. One such allegation involves a woman identified as Jane Doe, who claims she was assaulted by Combs during an event related to the MTV reality show Making the Band.BackgroundIn 2004, Jane Doe, then 19 years old, was a college student in Brooklyn. She met Combs during a promotional event for Making the Band, a reality show he produced that aimed to form a new music group.According to Jane Doe's lawsuit:Invitation to Hotel Room: Combs invited her and a friend to his hotel room in Manhattan under the pretense of discussing potential opportunities in the music industry.Unwanted Advances: Once in the room, Combs allegedly made unsolicited sexual advances, including inappropriate touching and attempts to kiss her.Physical Resistance: Jane Doe resisted his advances, leading to a physical struggle where she was reportedly pushed onto the bed.Assault: She alleges that Combs then sexually assaulted her despite her protests.Following the alleged incident, Jane Doe states she experienced significant emotional distress, including feelings of shame and humiliation. She also claims to have faced professional setbacks as a result of the assault.Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Combs, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged assault. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkThis allegation is part of a series of accusations against Combs, with multiple individuals coming forward with claims of sexual assault and misconduct. Combs has denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that he intends to defend himself against these claims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:combs-da-band-photoshoot-complaint.pdf

I've been writing about the judiciary for more than 20 years, and in my opinion, the current time is the most difficult I've seen for serving as a federal judge. This is especially true in courts where a disproportionate number of cases challenging actions of the current administration have been filed, such as the U.S. District Courts for Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) and the District of Columbia (D.D.C.).Judges in these districts face heavy dockets, and high-profile cases involving the administration present special challenges. They often involve requests for urgent forms of relief, such as preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, that must be heard on short timetables. Many of the cases present novel and knotty legal issues. And depending on how a judge rules, the judge could face strong criticism, from either the right or the left—and sometimes even more than that, such as impeachment efforts or even threats, whether to themselves or their families.What is it like to be a judge at the eye of this storm, trying to calmly uphold values like the rule of law and judicial independence during tumultuous times? To find out, I interviewed Judge Ana Reyes, who was appointed to the D.D.C. by President Biden in 2023. Although she's been on the bench for only two and a half years, Judge Reyes has already handled a number of headline-making cases—and while we could not and did not discuss any specific matters still pending before her, she spoke honestly and directly about many fascinating subjects, including her overall approach to judging, the rule of law and judicial independence, how she treats the lawyers appearing before her, media coverage of the judiciary, and more.Thanks to Judge Reyes for a great conversation—and thanks to her and her fellow judges for the crucial work that they do. While observers of the courts, myself included, might disagree with specific rulings, I suspect I'm not alone in believing that on the whole, the federal judiciary is holding up well during an unusually stressful time.Show Notes:* Judge Ana C. Reyes bio, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia* Judge Ana C. Reyes bio, Wikipedia* A D.C. lawyer learned English as a child from a teacher who tutored her each day. She found her to say thank you, by Sydney Page for The Washington PostPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

In this memorandum, the plaintiff, identified as John Doe, petitions the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for permission to proceed under a pseudonym in his civil lawsuit against defendant Sean Combs. The plaintiff argues that revealing his identity publicly would expose him to significant harm, including threats to his safety, emotional distress, professional repercussions, and potential retaliation—particularly due to the sensitive nature of the allegations involved, which include sexual assault and other forms of abuse. He asserts that the privacy concerns outweigh any prejudice to the defendant, who already knows the plaintiff's true identity and would not be hindered in preparing a defense.The memorandum also references legal precedents supporting pseudonymous filings in cases involving deeply personal matters, especially those concerning sexual misconduct. The plaintiff's counsel emphasizes that allowing the use of a pseudonym aligns with the court's obligation to balance public interest against the plaintiff's right to privacy and protection. Additionally, the motion argues that granting anonymity is in the public interest, as it encourages survivors of abuse to come forward without fear of public exposure or further trauma. The plaintiff respectfully requests that the court permit him to proceed under the pseudonym "John Doe" for the duration of the proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.24.0.pdf

In this memorandum, the plaintiff, identified as John Doe, petitions the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for permission to proceed under a pseudonym in his civil lawsuit against defendant Sean Combs. The plaintiff argues that revealing his identity publicly would expose him to significant harm, including threats to his safety, emotional distress, professional repercussions, and potential retaliation—particularly due to the sensitive nature of the allegations involved, which include sexual assault and other forms of abuse. He asserts that the privacy concerns outweigh any prejudice to the defendant, who already knows the plaintiff's true identity and would not be hindered in preparing a defense.The memorandum also references legal precedents supporting pseudonymous filings in cases involving deeply personal matters, especially those concerning sexual misconduct. The plaintiff's counsel emphasizes that allowing the use of a pseudonym aligns with the court's obligation to balance public interest against the plaintiff's right to privacy and protection. Additionally, the motion argues that granting anonymity is in the public interest, as it encourages survivors of abuse to come forward without fear of public exposure or further trauma. The plaintiff respectfully requests that the court permit him to proceed under the pseudonym "John Doe" for the duration of the proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.24.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This Day in Legal History: JuneteenthOn this day in legal history, June 19, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, and issued General Order No. 3, announcing that all enslaved people in Texas were free. This day, now known as Juneteenth, marked the effective end of slavery in the United States—coming more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The delay was due in large part to the limited presence of Union troops in Texas to enforce the proclamation.Granger's announcement informed Texas residents that “all slaves are free,” a declaration that redefined the legal and social landscape of the state and solidified the federal government's authority over the Confederacy's last holdout. While the Emancipation Proclamation had declared freedom for slaves in Confederate states, it did not immediately end slavery everywhere, nor did it provide enforcement mechanisms beyond Union military power. Juneteenth represents the day when emancipation finally reached the furthest corners of the Confederacy through legal and military authority.In the years following, Juneteenth became a symbol of African American freedom and resilience, celebrated with community gatherings, education, and reflection. Texas made Juneteenth a state holiday in 1980, the first state to do so. On June 17, 2021, it became a federal holiday when President Joe Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law. The legal significance of Juneteenth lies in its embodiment of both the promise and the delay of justice, highlighting the gap between the law's proclamation and its realization.A conservative legal group, Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP), has sued the Michigan Law Review and its affiliated leadership, claiming that its member selection process illegally favors women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ applicants. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the complaint alleges that personal statements and holistic review metrics are evaluated using race and sex preferences, violating both federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The group contends that conservative students, especially those associated with the Federalist Society, are excluded from review committees due to their presumed opposition to the practice.FASORP is backed by attorney Jonathan Mitchell and America First Legal, led by former Trump official Stephen Miller. The organization has brought similar legal challenges against NYU and Northwestern, and its suit aligns with broader attacks on diversity policies at elite institutions. It seeks an injunction, damages, and court oversight of a revised selection process for the journal, along with a halt to federal funding until changes are made.The group claims violations of Title VI and Title IX, as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause. The review's five-part selection process—including essays and grades—has no fixed evaluation formula, which FASORP argues opens the door to discriminatory discretion. Judge Judith E. Levy is assigned to the case.Conservative Group Accuses Michigan Law Review of Selection BiasA federal judge in Texas has struck down a Biden administration rule aimed at protecting the privacy of patients seeking abortions and gender-affirming care. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) overstepped its authority when it adopted the rule, which barred healthcare providers and insurers from disclosing information about legal abortions to state law enforcement. The decision halts enforcement of the rule nationwide.Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, argued that HHS lacked explicit congressional approval to implement heightened protections for procedures viewed as politically sensitive. The rule was introduced in 2024 following the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, as part of the Biden administration's efforts to defend reproductive healthcare access.The lawsuit was brought by Texas physician Carmen Purl, represented by the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which claimed the rule misused privacy laws unrelated to abortion or gender identity. Previously, Kacsmaryk had temporarily blocked enforcement of the rule against Purl, but this week's decision broadens that to all states.HHS has not responded publicly to the ruling, and a separate legal challenge to the same rule remains active in another Texas federal court. The case underscores ongoing tensions between federal privacy regulations and state-level abortion restrictions in the post-Roe legal environment.US judge invalidates Biden rule protecting privacy for abortions | ReutersXlear, a hygiene product company, has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), challenging the agency's authority to require “substantiation” for product claims under its false advertising rules. The suit, filed in federal court in Utah, follows the FTC's recent decision to drop a case it had pursued since 2021, which alleged that Xlear falsely advertised its saline nasal spray as a COVID-19 prevention and treatment product.Xlear argues that the FTC is exceeding its legal mandate by demanding scientific backing for advertising claims, stating that the FTC Act does not explicitly authorize such a requirement. The company's legal team is leaning on the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limited the deference courts must give to federal agencies when interpreting statutes—a significant departure from the longstanding Chevron doctrine.The company seeks a court ruling that merely making claims without substantiation does not violate FTC rules. Xlear has also criticized the agency for engaging in what it calls “vexatious litigation,” claiming it spent over $3 million defending itself before the FTC abandoned its lawsuit without explanation.The FTC has not yet commented or made a court appearance in this new case. The challenge could set important precedent on the scope of agency power over advertising standards in the wake of the Supreme Court's shift on judicial deference.Lawsuit challenges FTC authority over 'unsubstantiated' advertising claims | ReutersA federal judge in Rhode Island signaled skepticism toward the Trump administration's attempt to tie federal transportation funding to state cooperation with immigration enforcement. During a hearing, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell questioned whether U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy had legal authority to impose immigration-related conditions on grants meant for infrastructure projects. McConnell, an Obama appointee, challenged the relevance of immigration enforcement to the Transportation Department's mission, drawing a parallel to whether the department could also withhold funds based on abortion laws.The case involves 20 Democratic-led states opposing the April 24 directive, which conditions billions in infrastructure grants on compliance with federal immigration law, including cooperation with ICE. The states argue the requirement is unconstitutional, vague, and attempts to coerce state governments into enforcing federal immigration policy without clear legislative authorization.Justice Department lawyers defended the policy as aligned with national safety concerns, but struggled under McConnell's probing. He noted that the administration's broad language and public stance on sanctuary jurisdictions could not be ignored and appeared to support the states' argument that the directive lacks clarity and statutory grounding.The judge is expected to issue a ruling by Friday, before the states' grant application deadline. This lawsuit is part of a broader legal and political battle as Trump pushes sanctuary cities and states to aid in mass deportations.US judge skeptical of Trump plan tying states' transportation funds to immigration | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Sean "Diddy" Combs, a prominent music mogul and entrepreneur, has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault spanning several decades. One such allegation involves a woman identified as Jane Doe, who claims she was assaulted by Combs during an event related to the MTV reality show Making the Band.BackgroundIn 2004, Jane Doe, then 19 years old, was a college student in Brooklyn. She met Combs during a promotional event for Making the Band, a reality show he produced that aimed to form a new music group.According to Jane Doe's lawsuit:Invitation to Hotel Room: Combs invited her and a friend to his hotel room in Manhattan under the pretense of discussing potential opportunities in the music industry.Unwanted Advances: Once in the room, Combs allegedly made unsolicited sexual advances, including inappropriate touching and attempts to kiss her.Physical Resistance: Jane Doe resisted his advances, leading to a physical struggle where she was reportedly pushed onto the bed.Assault: She alleges that Combs then sexually assaulted her despite her protests.Following the alleged incident, Jane Doe states she experienced significant emotional distress, including feelings of shame and humiliation. She also claims to have faced professional setbacks as a result of the assault.Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Combs, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged assault. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New YorkThis allegation is part of a series of accusations against Combs, with multiple individuals coming forward with claims of sexual assault and misconduct. Combs has denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that he intends to defend himself against these claims.(commercial at 7:30)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:combs-da-band-photoshoot-complaint.pdf

In Ogletree Deakins' new podcast series Litigation Lens, Shareholder Michael Nail (Greenville) will discuss and analyze real employment law cases and outcomes to provide listeners with practical takeaways and insights. In the inaugural episode, Michael is joined by Sarah Zucco (of counsel, New York) to discuss a recent summary judgment opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas regarding a case involving a supervisor who was allegedly “forced” to retire for failing to report a sexual harassment complaint, as required by company policy. The plaintiff alleged that he was the victim of age discrimination; however, the court found the employer's decision was legitimate and not pretextual. This episode provides practical tips for employers on how to handle similar situations.

In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court granted the accuser in a high-profile lawsuit against Jay-Z the ability to remain anonymous. The accuser, identified only as "Jane Doe," had filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault by the rapper and business mogul. Judge Torres acknowledged the significant public interest in the case but determined that the plaintiff's privacy and safety outweighed the need for public disclosure of her identity. The order emphasized the potential risks of harassment, intimidation, and stigma that could arise if her identity were revealed, particularly given Jay-Z's prominence and the heightened media scrutiny surrounding the case.The ruling does not impact the progression of the legal proceedings, as the court will ensure both parties have access to necessary information for a fair trial. However, it sets an important precedent in balancing the rights of accusers in sensitive cases with public transparency. Judge Torres underscored that allowing Jane Doe to proceed anonymously would not prejudice Jay-Z's defense or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.(commercial at 8:42)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.53.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison served as the U.S. Ambassador to NATO from 2017-2021. From 1993-2013, she represented Texas in the U.S. Senate. Join us for a conversation about her life and career.Featuring: Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO; Former U.S. Senator, TexasModerator: Nitin Nainani, Judicial Law Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Daily Scoop listeners and readers of FedScoop will recall the shocking news earlier this year when 18F, a decade-old digital services consultancy in the General Services Administration, was shuttered by the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency. Members of the team have banded together since their termination to keep an active presence online through 18F.org in the wake of their dismantling. But the group isn't going out without a fight. Several senior members of 18F in late May filed a class action appeal to the Merit System Protection Board claiming that GSA lacked a “valid reason” for firing them and targeted them as an act of “retaliation” for their political beliefs. In the appeal, they call for a hearing and to have their removal reversed. Lindsay Young is the former executive director of 18F and one of the name appellants representing the class in the appeal. She joins the podcast for a conversation about how the “deletion” of 18F went down, what she and her team have been doing since, and what they hope to accomplish with the appeal. U.S. officials violated federal privacy law and flouted cybersecurity protocol in sharing Office of Personnel Management records with DOGE affiliates, a federal district court judge in New York ruled Monday, granting a request for a preliminary injunction against the administration. In a 99-page order, Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that federal worker and union plaintiffs had shown that the government defendants in the challenge shared OPM records with “individuals who had no legal right of access to those records” in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 and cybersecurity standards. “This was a breach of law and of trust,” Cote said in the order. “Tens of millions of Americans depend on the Government to safeguard records that reveal their most private and sensitive affairs.” The ruling is the latest in a challenge to DOGE's data access at OPM brought by a coalition of federal unions and current and former government employees or contractors. A new executive order from President Donald Trump aims to boost drone manufacturing in the United States, an effort the administration hopes will spur productivity and technological development and secure the country's industrial base. Meanwhile, a second executive order aims to combat the risk that, as drone usage proliferates, the technology could also be used to threaten public safety and endanger critical infrastructure. The “Unleashing American Drone Dominance” and “Restoring American Airspace Sovereignty” executive orders, both signed last Friday, come amid growing concerns about the operation of the National Airspace System, the airspace the Federal Aviation Administration monitors for commercial flights, space launches, and other aerial activity. Drones, sometimes called unmanned aerial systems, are also used to smuggle drugs and assist in criminal activity. Unauthorized UASs have increasingly shown up near some nuclear facilities, military bases, and commercial airports, raising concerns, too. The new executive order on airspace sovereignty aims to combat the problem, broadly charging federal agencies to detect drone activity, which will require the use of tracking and identification technology. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

In November 2024, an individual identified as "John Doe" filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several of his affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Records LLC and Daddy's House Recordings Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:24-cv-08852-JPC). The plaintiff alleges that in 2022, during a house party in New York City, Combs drugged him with Rohypnol, causing him to lose consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, Doe claims he found Combs sexually assaulting him. The lawsuit includes charges of sexual assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, with Doe seeking compensatory and punitive damages.(commercial at 7:44)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632109.1.0_1.pdf

In November 2024, an individual identified as "John Doe" filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several of his affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Records LLC and Daddy's House Recordings Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:24-cv-08852-JPC). The plaintiff alleges that in 2022, during a house party in New York City, Combs drugged him with Rohypnol, causing him to lose consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, Doe claims he found Combs sexually assaulting him. The lawsuit includes charges of sexual assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, with Doe seeking compensatory and punitive damages.(commercial at 7:44)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632109.1.0_1.pdf

In November 2024, an individual identified as "John Doe" filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs and several of his affiliated companies, including Bad Boy Records LLC and Daddy's House Recordings Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:24-cv-08852-JPC). The plaintiff alleges that in 2022, during a house party in New York City, Combs drugged him with Rohypnol, causing him to lose consciousness. Upon regaining consciousness, Doe claims he found Combs sexually assaulting him. The lawsuit includes charges of sexual assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, with Doe seeking compensatory and punitive damages.(commercial at 7:44)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632109.1.0_1.pdf

Tonight's rundown: Hey BillOReilly.com Premium and Concierge Members, welcome to the No Spin News for Wednesday, June 4, 2025. Stand Up for Your Country.  Talking Points Memo: Bill looks into U.S. Judge Royce Lamberth's ruling requiring prisons to provide gender-affirming care for transgender individuals. What Elon Musk said about President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill. John McLaughlin, CEO and Partner at McLaughlin & Associates, enters the No Spin Zone to break down the latest polling data on Donald Trump's approval ratings. A U.S. District Court judge has dismissed California's lawsuit over Trump's tariffs.  The latest on the two Chinese nationals charged with smuggling a fungus linked to agroterrorism into the U.S. Final Thought: The Dumb Zone. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With foreign student visas at Harvard and elsewhere in the news, today's episode of Parsing Immigration Policy features Andrew Arthur, the Center for Immigration Studies fellow in law and policy, providing a crash course on the subject. He explains the foreign student admissions process, the responsibilities of schools certified to enroll foreign students, and recent policy issues. With over one million foreign students studying (and working) in America, this episode covers the national security implications of not having proper knowledge of who is being brought in and what they are doing while in the U.S.Key topics covered:Admissions OverviewThe role of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)Student's Application to SEVP-certified institutions.Issuance of Form I-20 upon acceptance.Visa application at U.S. consulates.Which branch controls visa issuance?Role of Designated School Officials (DSOs)A DSO plays the role of a "deputized immigration officer."Monitoring student status via SEVIS.Reporting changes in enrollment or course of study.Conflict of interest? Balancing institutional responsibilities with immigration compliance.Optional Practical Training (OPT)Students working under the OPT program are still on student visas.Will these students lose their ability to be employed as cheap labor?Policy ChallengesWhy did the Trump administration revoke Harvard University's SEVP certification?Potential impact/lack of impact of the District Court's temporary restraining order (TRO).Impact on other schools.In today's commentary, Mark Krikorian, podcast host and executive director of the Center, highlights today's main illegal immigration challenge: visa overstays. He cites the recent Colorado attack committed by a visa overstayer as an example of the importance of action and describes some of the solutions which are in the reconciliation bill.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestAndrew Arthur is the Resident Fellow of Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.RelatedDHS Pulls Harvard's Student-Visa Certification Authority Controversial DHS Program Allows Foreign Students to Train in Sensitive Fields There Are 1.5 Million Foreign Students in the United States (and Over a Third Have Work Authorization) Not all illegal-alien criminals are border-jumpersIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this timely roundtable, Lisa and Hemma sit down with Mary Inman and Liz Soltan, two powerhouse advocates in the whistleblower legal space, to unpack the DOJ's newly revised Corporate Whistleblower Awards (CWA) Pilot Program and its implications for the compliance community.  We also explore what makes whistleblowing work, how to support internal and external reporters, and why this moment may mark a turning point for global whistleblower engagement. Highlights: Mary and Liz break down the newly added DOJ priority areas How the CWA Pilot Program could evolve into a DOJ equivalent of the SEC whistleblower program Why organizational justice and psychological safety must be embedded into internal reporting systems. How tips must result in asset forfeiture to trigger awards Why we need a speak-up culture, not just a hotline Resources  DOJ's May 2025 Criminal Division White-Collar Enforcement Plan Revised DOJ Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program: DOJ Announcement Speech by Matthew R. Galeotti at the SIFMA AML and Financial Crimes Conference Link to speech Whistleblowing Study by Stephen Stubbens and Kyle Welch Whistleblower Partners LLP: Mary Inman, Liz Soltan Biographies   Mary Inman Partner, Whistleblower Partners LLP Mary Inman is a seasoned attorney with over 30 years of experience representing whistleblowers under various U.S. programs, including the False Claims Act, SEC, CFTC, IRS, FinCEN, and NHTSA/DOT. After spending three years in London, she now focuses on international whistleblowers exposing misconduct with ties to the U.S.. She assists clients in bringing claims to foreign regulators such as the Ontario Securities Commission and the Canada Revenue Agency. Mary is renowned for her expertise in healthcare, tech, and financial services fraud. She has represented high-profile whistleblowers like Frances Haugen (Facebook) and Tyler Shultz (Theranos), and co-authored The Tech Workers' Handbook, a guide for tech industry whistleblowers. Her advocacy extends to testifying before global governmental bodies, including the European Commission and UK Parliament, championing the effectiveness of U.S. whistleblower programs. Mary holds a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School and has clerked for judges in both the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals. Outside of her legal work, she enjoys participating in her husband's YouTube channel and spending time in northern Maine. Liz Soltan Associate, Whistleblower Partners LLP Liz Soltan is an associate at Whistleblower Partners LLP, focusing on cases involving financial fraud, anti-money laundering, and sanctions evasion. Her notable work includes representing a foreign whistleblower in a FinCEN sanctions violation case concerning illegal sales to Russia. Liz also contributed to the landmark Medicare Advantage risk adjustment fraud case, United States ex rel. Poehling v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. Before joining Whistleblower Partners, Liz served as a Skadden Fellow at Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, where she was part of a team that secured $712 million in emergency food stamp benefits for 650,000 households during the COVID-19 pandemic. She earned her J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School, where she led the Wage and Hour Practice Group at the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau and successfully argued a workers' rights case before Massachusetts' highest court. Liz completed her undergraduate studies at Cornell University, graduating summa cum laude with a major in History and a minor in Spanish. Residing in Brooklyn, Liz maintains strong ties to her Philadelphia roots. She enjoys participating in a fiction-only book club, exploring historical sites, and spending time with her husband, son, and their two cats, Alex Trebek and Vanna White.

This Day in Legal History: 19th Amendment Passed in SenateOn June 4, 1919, the U.S. Congress passed the 19th Amendment, marking a turning point in American constitutional and civil rights history. The amendment stated simply that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged... on account of sex," legally enfranchising millions of women. The road to this moment was long and contentious, spanning more than seven decades of organized activism. Early suffragists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony laid the groundwork in the 19th century, while a new generation, including Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party, employed more confrontational tactics in the 1910s.Although the House of Representatives had passed the amendment earlier in the year, the Senate had repeatedly failed to approve it. The June 4 vote in the Senate—passing by just over the required two-thirds majority—was the final congressional hurdle. The legislative victory came amid shifting national sentiment, in part due to women's contributions during World War I and growing pressure from suffrage organizations.The amendment was then sent to the states, needing ratification by three-fourths to become law. That process concluded over a year later with Tennessee's pivotal ratification on August 18, 1920. The 19th Amendment was certified on August 26, finally making women's suffrage the law of the land. This day marks not just a legal transformation but the culmination of one of the most significant civil rights struggles in U.S. history.Disbarred attorney Tom Girardi was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison for stealing $15 million in settlement funds from his clients. U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton also imposed a $35,000 fine and ordered Girardi to pay over $2.3 million in restitution. The sentence followed his August 2024 conviction on four counts of wire fraud. Girardi, who turned 86 on the day of his sentencing, had sought leniency due to age, liver issues, and dementia claims, but the court found him competent and sided with prosecutors who sought a significant term.Girardi's legacy was once tied to his successful pollution suit against Pacific Gas and Electric—dramatized in the film Erin Brockovich. However, his downfall involved stealing settlement funds in various personal injury cases, including millions owed to families of victims of the 2018 Boeing 737 MAX crash. A federal judge in Chicago recently dismissed related charges, citing the active California case, though the prosecution of Girardi's son-in-law, David Lira, is still set to proceed there. Lira denies wrongdoing.At trial, Girardi blamed the fraud on Christopher Kamon, his firm's former CFO, who has already been sentenced to over ten years after pleading guilty. Girardi's attorneys continue to claim cognitive decline, but the court maintained that he was mentally fit to face justice.Lawyer Tom Girardi sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud | ReutersA federal appeals court is set to hear its first case reviewing the constitutionality of Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Seattle as the Trump administration appeals a nationwide injunction issued by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who called the order “blatantly unconstitutional.” The directive, signed by Trump on January 20, his first day back in office, seeks to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children whose parents are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.Critics—including 22 Democratic attorneys general and immigrant advocacy groups—argue the order violates the 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly anyone born on U.S. soil. Federal judges in Massachusetts and Maryland have also issued rulings blocking the order. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, which heard related arguments on May 15, is considering whether to limit lower courts' power to issue nationwide injunctions rather than deciding on the constitutionality of the policy itself.If implemented, the order could deny citizenship to over 150,000 newborns annually, according to the plaintiffs. The lawsuit before the 9th Circuit was filed by several states and individual pregnant women. The three-judge panel includes two Clinton-era appointees and one Trump appointee, potentially shaping the outcome. The administration maintains that birthright citizenship doesn't apply to children of undocumented or temporary-status immigrants, a stance at odds with long-standing interpretations of the 14th Amendment.To be clear, this case revolves around the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. This clause states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens of the United States,” forming the basis of birthright citizenship. The case centers on how this clause should be interpreted, making it the key constitutional question in this challenge. On the side of birthright citizenship is, frankly, the plain language of the amendment. On the side of the executive order are racists and racist people without basic reading comprehension – full stop. There is no “other side” here, and there is no real debate. Ultimately the courts may decide to pretend there is some nuance, but that changes nothing about the clear language of the amendment. Trump's birthright citizenship order to face first US appeals court reviewA group of former U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) employees has filed a class action lawsuit against HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Elon Musk, alleging that their departments used flawed data to justify the firing of 10,000 federal workers. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claims that HHS and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which Musk leads, violated the 1974 Privacy Act by using inaccurate personnel records during a mass reduction in force (RIF).The plaintiffs argue that the agencies relied on data riddled with errors, including incorrect performance reviews, job descriptions, and office locations. One named plaintiff, Catherine Jackson, reportedly received an RIF notice based on false performance ratings. Another, Melissa Adams, was allegedly terminated by officials who didn't even know her work location.The lawsuit seeks at least $1,000 in damages per affected employee and a court declaration that the government's actions were unlawful. The complaint also suggests that the terminations were ideologically driven, referencing a troubling incident where an FDA employee was warned by a man invoking DOGE shortly before receiving her RIF notice.The mass firings, which began April 1, impacted key HHS agencies like the CDC, FDA, and NIH. Kennedy defended the cuts as part of a broader reorganization to address chronic disease. The plaintiffs, however, see the action as a politically motivated purge that disregarded legal safeguards.By way of brief background, the Privacy Act of 1974 mandates that federal agencies maintain accurate records when making decisions that adversely affect individuals. It is central to the lawsuit because the plaintiffs claim their terminations were based on data that was factually wrong, violating this statutory requirement.RFK Jr., Musk Accused of Using Faulty Data in Firing HHS WorkersA new conflict over federal spending power is emerging between the Trump White House and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), centered on a $5 billion electric vehicle infrastructure program. The GAO recently concluded that the Trump administration's pause of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) grants—originally authorized under President Biden's 2021 infrastructure law—violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which prohibits presidents from withholding funds for policy reasons. In response, the White House issued a sharply worded memo instructing the Department of Transportation to disregard the GAO's opinion entirely.The memo, written by OMB general counsel Mark Paoletta, accuses the GAO of partisan bias and undermining President Trump's “historic and lawful spending reforms.” It signals a broader strategy to challenge the authority of congressional watchdogs and reframe presidential control over budget implementation. This dispute could serve as the first legal test of Trump's intent to challenge the constitutionality of the Impoundment Act itself.The delay in EV funding is part of a broader rollback of Biden-era policy priorities, including guidance on equity and charger placement. Meanwhile, the administration has proposed over $9 billion in spending rescissions, aimed at areas like public broadcasting and foreign aid, under Trump's Department of Government Efficiency initiative. Advisors have floated a tactic called “pocket rescission,” a timing strategy that critics argue violates legal requirements for obligating federal funds.This isn't the first time a president has clashed with GAO over spending powers—Trump and Biden both previously faced scrutiny for pauses in Ukraine aid and border wall funds, respectively. However, the White House's open defiance of GAO marks a significant escalation in an ongoing constitutional debate over who ultimately controls the federal purse.More specifically, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts the executive branch from withholding or delaying funds Congress has appropriated unless explicitly authorized. It plays a central role in this dispute, as the GAO argues Trump's delay of NEVI grants constitutes an illegal impoundment, while the administration disputes the law's constitutionality and GAO's oversight role.White House Memo on EV Grants Sets Up Fight Over Spending Power - Bloomberg This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week, we cover the striking down of abortion protections for workers and LGBTQ harassment guidance, as well as the beginning of a brief EEO-1 reporting season (concluding on June 24). Abortion Protections for Workers Struck Down A Louisiana federal judge vacated portions of a rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that defined abortion as a medical condition and required accommodations. Federal Court Vacates LGBTQ Harassment Guidance The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has moved to strike portions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC's) guidance on workplace harassment against LGBTQ employees. The court ruled that the Biden-era EEOC guidance expanded “the scope of sex beyond the biological binary.” EEO-1 Reporting Opens with a Tight Deadline The EEO-1 reporting period is now open. All private employers in the United States with 100 or more employees are required to file, as are federal contractors with 50 or more employees that meet certain criteria. The deadline to file is just weeks away—June 24—so employers are moving quickly. — Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw392 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Federal authorities took into custody the wife and all five children of Egyptian national and anti-Israel terrorist Mohamed Sabry Soliman, who firebombed pro-Israel demonstrators after overstaying his visa during the Biden era. Federal authorities arrested two Chinese nationals after they were accused of attempting to smuggle a potential bioweapon into the United States, claiming they wanted to use it to conduct research at the University of Michigan. A 37-year-old illegal immigrant man was arrested for allegedly sexually abusing at least one teen girl who the federal government sent to live with him as part of the Biden administration's scheme to place “unaccompanied alien children” in the homes of unrelated, loosely vetted “sponsors.” Senior Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a request from a group of trans-identifying prisoners for a temporary restraining order against a ban on hormone therapy. President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20 that banned federal funds for treatments provided “for the purpose of conforming an inmate's appearance to that of the opposite sex.” One of Hunter Biden's favorite prostitutes and drug buddies was charged with manslaughter in Nevada this year after allegedly bringing drugs into a jail, leading to another inmate's death.Become a supporter of Tapp into the Truth: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tapp-into-the-truth--556114/support Tapp into the Truth on Rumble. Follow, watch the older shows, and join the live streams.“Remember Pop Rocks? Now, imagine they gave you superpowers.” Please let me introduce you to Energy Rocks! Born from the grit and ambition of a competitive athlete who wanted a better, cleaner way to fuel the body and mind, without the hassle of mixing powders, messy bottles, or caffeine crashes. Energy Rocks is a reimagining of energy into something fun, functional, and fantastically effective. A delicious popping candy energy supplement that delivers a rapid boost of clean energy and focus — anytime, anywhere. No water. No mixing. No bulky bottles. Just open, pop it in your mouth, and get ready to rock. Making any time the right time to “Get in the Zone, One Pop at a Time.”If you love high-quality jerky, you need to check out Jerky Snob. They deliver small-batch, artisan jerky straight to your door every month—no MSG, no nitrates, just premium cuts and bold flavors. You can choose from 2, 4, or 8-bag subscriptions, and every delivery brings something new and delicious. One of my favorite things is the variety—spicy, smoky, sweet, all from different craft makers. It's like a jerky-tasting adventure every month. Plus, it makes an awesome gift! Grab your subscription at tappintofood.com and treat yourself to better jerky. Take This Quiz To Find Out The Best & Worst Foods To Avoid For Joint Pain!Do you wake up in the morning with stiff joints or pain in your hips, back, knees, or elbows? Then, chances are you're feeling the effects of chronic inflammation taking its toll on your body. The good news is that it is NEVER too late to help get this under control. And the best part is certain foods help you do this naturally, without the need for prescription medications.If recent events have proven anything, you need to be as prepared as possible for when things go sideways. You certainly can't count on the government for help. True liberty requires self-reliance. My Patriot SupplyDiversify and protect your hard-earned wealth. Use America's Premiere Conservative Gold Company, Harvard Gold Group. Use promo code TAPP.Support American jobs! Support the show! Get great products at great prices! Go to My Pillow and use promo code TAPP to save! Visit patriotmobile.com or Call (817) 380-9081 to take advantage of a FREE Month of service when you switch using promo code TAPP! Morning Kick is a revolutionary new daily drink from Roundhouse Provisions that combines ultra-potent greens like spirulina and kale with probiotics, prebiotics, collagen, and even ashwagandha. Just mix with water, stir, and enjoy!Follow Tapp into the Truth on Locals Follow Tapp into the Truth on SubstackHero SoapPatriot DepotBlue CoolersKoa CoffeeBrainMDDiamond CBDSauce Bae2nd SkullEinstokBeanstoxBelle IsleMomento AIHoneyFund"Homegrown" Boone's BourbonBlackout Coffee Co.Full Circle Brewing Co.Pasmosa Sangria  

CIT, CAFC, and District Court action on IEEPA tariffs. Listen for details on today's Two Minutes in Trade. 

A U.S. District Court judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration not to make any changes to Harvard's student visa program. That's after Justice Department attorneys said in a notice that the government will give Harvard University 30 days to provide evidence in response to the White House's move to strip the Ivy League college of its ability to enroll foreign students.The Trump administration filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after a federal trade court ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority by using emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners.

The Supreme Court faulted the district judge in A.A.R.P. v. Trump for refusing to grant the Venezuelan alleged Tren de Aragua members' injunction. But on remand, Judge Ho comes to the judge's defense: after all, the judge only had 42 minutes' notice. And to conclude that the judge had had some 14 hours, Judge Ho noted, the Supreme Court must have started counting at 12:30 a.m. Last time we checked, Congress has not provisioned courts a budget to operate 24 hours. “This is a district court,” Judge Ho reminds, “not a Denny's.”The Supreme Court doesn't have appellate jurisdiction without an actual order on the injunction motion. Tim agrees with Judge Ho that the Supreme Court played a little roughshod with the otherwise fussy jurisdictional rules.But the Court is losing patience with the Trump Administration's legal tactics, Jeff suspects, which is why the Court is willing to stretch past the limits on its power.What do you think? Is the Court's move defensible exercising power arguably beyond its jurisdiction? Does it hold faith with Marbury, which famously established judicial power by not exercising it?We also discuss the one-sentence letdown in the high-stakes religious charter school case, Oklahoma Charter Board v. Drummond. And we share CALP alum Chris Schandevel's appellate lessons from a hard-fought loss: how to serve your client when the Court doesn't serve you the decision you fought for.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

The Supreme Court temporarily stayed two lower court orders Friday that mandated the production of documents and other information from the Department of Government Efficiency. In a brief order from Chief Justice John Roberts, the high court stayed the discovery process in the public records lawsuit against DOGE pending another order by the court. The now-stayed orders from Judge Christopher Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had granted an expedited discovery schedule that required DOGE to turn over information about its inner workings and have its administrator, Amy Gleason, give a deposition. The decision, for now, allows the Trump administration to withhold information about the Elon Musk-associated efficiency arm while the justices review the government's appeal. On Wednesday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the high court for emergency relief in the case, arguing that Cooper's decision turned the Freedom of Information Act “on its head.” At the heart of the case, which was brought by the government watchdog nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is the question of whether DOGE constitutes an “agency” for the purposes of FOIA. While the administration says that DOGE is exempt from public records laws as a presidential advisory body, the nonprofit argues that the efficiency team has wielded “substantial independent authority” and as such is subject to FOIA and the Federal Records Act, which requires preservation of records. Staff at the Department of Homeland Security are no longer allowed to use commercial generative artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT and Claude, according to a memo sent to employees this month. The move is a reversal of a previous policy — which had conditionally allowed the use of commercial systems — and a pivot toward technology developed in-house. Earlier this month, DHS's chief information officer, Antoine McCord, sent a memo directing component tech offices to begin “restricting” the use of generative AI systems and pointing employees to internal tools. Older guidance, which the CIO described as “outdated” and “too narrowly” focused on commercial generative AI, was also removed from an online list of IT management directives. The decision comes as federal agencies weigh various pathways toward integrating generative AI into their workflows, a priority of both the Biden and Trump administrations. While some government agencies initially blocked generative AI systems, CIOs have slowly started to develop usage policies. Some agencies, like DHS and the General Services Administration, have now built their own platforms based on commercial technologies, while others have opted to use products like ChatGPT Gov through government cloud systems. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

In the next episode of the Council of Firsts, Amanda Arriaga, first Latina president of the Austin Bar talks to Sandra Avila Ramirez, First Latina Judge of the 98th Civil District Court.Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/SReZ7uu8KUQ

In the civil case Doe v. Combs et al., filed on February 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-00996-JLR), the plaintiff, identified as John Doe, brings forth multiple allegations against defendants Sean Combs and Bad Boy Records. The claims include human trafficking, sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Doe asserts that from approximately 2007 to 2012, Combs engaged in non-consensual sexual acts, including forcible anal penetration, and subjected him to physical confinement in various locations, including hotel rooms and Combs' residence. Additionally, Doe alleges that Combs' continuous death threats and coercion prevented him from asserting his rights within the statutory period, leading to claims under the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act and other related statutes.The complaint further contends that Bad Boy Records benefited from and facilitated Combs' alleged misconduct by maintaining an environment that enabled these actions. Doe claims that the defendants' actions have caused him significant monetary damages, physical injury, and severe psychological distress. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. The lawsuit emphasizes that due to the alleged continuous threats and coercion by Combs, Doe was compelled to delay filing the action, and it argues that the defendants should be estopped from invoking the statute of limitations as a defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the civil case Doe v. Combs et al., filed on February 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-00996-JLR), the plaintiff, identified as John Doe, brings forth multiple allegations against defendants Sean Combs and Bad Boy Records. The claims include human trafficking, sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Doe asserts that from approximately 2007 to 2012, Combs engaged in non-consensual sexual acts, including forcible anal penetration, and subjected him to physical confinement in various locations, including hotel rooms and Combs' residence. Additionally, Doe alleges that Combs' continuous death threats and coercion prevented him from asserting his rights within the statutory period, leading to claims under the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act and other related statutes.The complaint further contends that Bad Boy Records benefited from and facilitated Combs' alleged misconduct by maintaining an environment that enabled these actions. Doe claims that the defendants' actions have caused him significant monetary damages, physical injury, and severe psychological distress. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. The lawsuit emphasizes that due to the alleged continuous threats and coercion by Combs, Doe was compelled to delay filing the action, and it argues that the defendants should be estopped from invoking the statute of limitations as a defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the civil case Doe v. Combs et al., filed on February 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-00996-JLR), the plaintiff, identified as John Doe, brings forth multiple allegations against defendants Sean Combs and Bad Boy Records. The claims include human trafficking, sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Doe asserts that from approximately 2007 to 2012, Combs engaged in non-consensual sexual acts, including forcible anal penetration, and subjected him to physical confinement in various locations, including hotel rooms and Combs' residence. Additionally, Doe alleges that Combs' continuous death threats and coercion prevented him from asserting his rights within the statutory period, leading to claims under the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act and other related statutes.The complaint further contends that Bad Boy Records benefited from and facilitated Combs' alleged misconduct by maintaining an environment that enabled these actions. Doe claims that the defendants' actions have caused him significant monetary damages, physical injury, and severe psychological distress. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. The lawsuit emphasizes that due to the alleged continuous threats and coercion by Combs, Doe was compelled to delay filing the action, and it argues that the defendants should be estopped from invoking the statute of limitations as a defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the civil case Doe v. Combs et al., filed on February 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-00996-JLR), the plaintiff, identified as John Doe, brings forth multiple allegations against defendants Sean Combs and Bad Boy Records. The claims include human trafficking, sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Doe asserts that from approximately 2007 to 2012, Combs engaged in non-consensual sexual acts, including forcible anal penetration, and subjected him to physical confinement in various locations, including hotel rooms and Combs' residence. Additionally, Doe alleges that Combs' continuous death threats and coercion prevented him from asserting his rights within the statutory period, leading to claims under the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act and other related statutes.The complaint further contends that Bad Boy Records benefited from and facilitated Combs' alleged misconduct by maintaining an environment that enabled these actions. Doe claims that the defendants' actions have caused him significant monetary damages, physical injury, and severe psychological distress. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. The lawsuit emphasizes that due to the alleged continuous threats and coercion by Combs, Doe was compelled to delay filing the action, and it argues that the defendants should be estopped from invoking the statute of limitations as a defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the civil case Doe v. Combs et al., filed on February 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-00996-JLR), the plaintiff, identified as John Doe, brings forth multiple allegations against defendants Sean Combs and Bad Boy Records. The claims include human trafficking, sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Doe asserts that from approximately 2007 to 2012, Combs engaged in non-consensual sexual acts, including forcible anal penetration, and subjected him to physical confinement in various locations, including hotel rooms and Combs' residence. Additionally, Doe alleges that Combs' continuous death threats and coercion prevented him from asserting his rights within the statutory period, leading to claims under the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act and other related statutes.The complaint further contends that Bad Boy Records benefited from and facilitated Combs' alleged misconduct by maintaining an environment that enabled these actions. Doe claims that the defendants' actions have caused him significant monetary damages, physical injury, and severe psychological distress. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. The lawsuit emphasizes that due to the alleged continuous threats and coercion by Combs, Doe was compelled to delay filing the action, and it argues that the defendants should be estopped from invoking the statute of limitations as a defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the civil case Doe v. Combs et al., filed on February 4, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-00996-JLR), the plaintiff, identified as John Doe, brings forth multiple allegations against defendants Sean Combs and Bad Boy Records. The claims include human trafficking, sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Doe asserts that from approximately 2007 to 2012, Combs engaged in non-consensual sexual acts, including forcible anal penetration, and subjected him to physical confinement in various locations, including hotel rooms and Combs' residence. Additionally, Doe alleges that Combs' continuous death threats and coercion prevented him from asserting his rights within the statutory period, leading to claims under the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act and other related statutes.The complaint further contends that Bad Boy Records benefited from and facilitated Combs' alleged misconduct by maintaining an environment that enabled these actions. Doe claims that the defendants' actions have caused him significant monetary damages, physical injury, and severe psychological distress. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. The lawsuit emphasizes that due to the alleged continuous threats and coercion by Combs, Doe was compelled to delay filing the action, and it argues that the defendants should be estopped from invoking the statute of limitations as a defense.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When a beautiful young wife goes missing, police take a closer look at her older husband's past relationships.Sources: 1. Dowling, Paul. Forensic Files. 2002.2. “Emelita Villa Reeves (1968-1994) - Find a Grave Memorial.” Find a Grave - Millions of Cemetery Records, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/223146547/emelita-reeves. Accessed 30 Apr. 2025.3. “Jack Wayne Reeves v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County :: 1996 :: Texas Court of Appeals, Tenth District Decisions :: Texas Case Law :: Texas Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia.” Justia Law, https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/tenth-court-of-appeals/1996/7004.html. Accessed 30 Apr. 2025.4. “Myong Hui Chong Reeves (1957-1986) - Find a Grave Memorial.” Find a Grave - Millions of Cemetery Records, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/113353686/myong-hui-reeves. Accessed 1 May 2025.5. “Sharon DeLane Vaughn Reeves (1944-1978) - Find a Grave Memorial.” Find a Grave - Millions of Cemetery Records, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/63748251/sharon_delane-reeves. Accessed 26 Apr. 2025.6. Springer, Patricia. Mail Order Murder. Pinnacle Books, 1999.7. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 5 Oct. 1995.8. Sulphur Times-Democrat, 19 May 1960.9. Sulphur Times-Democrat, 18 Apr. 1963.10. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 20 Aug. 1996.This Week's Episode is Brought To You By:MasterClass - Learn from the best to be your best - 15% off an annual membership https://masterclass.com/lovemurderFind LOVE MURDER online:Website: lovemurder.loveInstagram: @lovemurderpodTwitter: @lovemurderpodFacebook: LoveMrdrPodTikTok: @LoveMurderPodPatreon: /LoveMurderPodCredits: Love Murder is hosted by Jessie Pray and Andie Cassette, researched by Sarah Lynn Robinson and researched and written by Jessie Pray, produced by Nathaniel Whittemore and edited by Kyle Barbour-HoffmanSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government has appealed all of these, and the question of whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' preliminary injunctions (except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states) was argued on May 15. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its argument before the Supreme Court, and the broader issues at play.Featuring:Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West VirginiaModerator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP--To register, click the link above.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government has appealed all of these, and the question of whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' preliminary injunctions (except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states) is now set to be argued on May 15. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case and the broader issues at play, including its implications for the separation of powers.Featuring:Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West VirginiaModerator: Elbert Lin, Partner and Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

Good morning, I'm reporting live on this Monday, May 19, 2025, with the latest developments in Donald Trump's legal battles.Just three days ago, on May 16, the Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, vacating a Fifth Circuit judgment and remanding the case back for further consideration. The Court has temporarily enjoined the government from removing named plaintiffs or putative class members under the AEA pending the Fifth Circuit's order. This stems from President Trump's March 14th Proclamation, which has been legally challenged on multiple fronts.Earlier this month, on May 5th, we saw movement in Pacito v. Trump, where a District Court ordered a compliance framework forcing the government to follow preliminary injunction orders related to refugees. This case directly challenges Trump's controversial suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which has left thousands in limbo since his return to office.The legal calendar for Trump remains packed across multiple jurisdictions. His classified documents case continues to work through the appeals process after Judge Cannon granted his motion to dismiss the superseding indictment last July. The government promptly appealed to the 11th Circuit.Meanwhile, former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has taken his Georgia criminal case all the way to the Supreme Court, seeking to move it to federal court. In New York, Trump and his co-defendants are appealing Justice Engoron's decisions in the civil fraud case, with Attorney General Letitia James successfully consolidating these appeals.In Georgia, several defendants are appealing Judge McAfee's order regarding motions to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis, with oral arguments for all appellants scheduled to be heard together.Trump also continues his efforts to remove Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to federal court, despite previous rejections. His opening brief to the Second Circuit was due last October.What's particularly striking about these developments is how they've unfolded against the backdrop of Trump's second term. The Supreme Court's recent ruling signals their willingness to place at least temporary limits on executive authority, even with Trump back in the White House.As these cases continue to wind through the courts, they're testing the boundaries of presidential power and setting precedents that will shape our democracy for generations. The coming weeks promise more significant legal developments as the courts grapple with these complex constitutional questions.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in A.A.R.P. v Trump.  The case was decided on May 16, 2025.To summarize, the President invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to remove Venezuelan nationals identified as members of the Tren de Aragua (T-d-a), a designated foreign terrorist organization. Two detainees, along with a putative class of similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas, sought injunctive relief against their summary removal under the AEA. The detainees were being held in U.S. detention facilities and were notified of their imminent removal.The District Court denied the detainees' motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against their removal. The detainees then moved for an emergency TRO, which was not promptly addressed by the District Court. Consequently, they appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which dismissed their appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied their motion for an injunction pending appeal, citing insufficient time given to the district court to act. The detainees also applied to the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and found that the Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the District Court's inaction had the practical effect of refusing an injunction, given the extreme urgency and high risk of irreparable harm faced by the detainees. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court emphasized that due process requires adequate notice and time for detainees to seek habeas relief before removal. The Government was enjoined from removing the detainees under the AEA pending further proceedings and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted.

Maura Fay, RTÉ reporter

On November 19, 2024, a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe filed a personal injury lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Sean Combs and several associated entities, including Bad Boy Entertainment and Daddy's House Recordings Inc. The case, docketed as 1:24-cv-08813 and presided over by Judge John G. Koeltl, involves allegations of personal injury under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The plaintiff has requested permission to proceed anonymously, filing a motion to use the pseudonym "Jane Doe." Judge Koeltl has deferred briefing on this motion until the defendants have been served.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632029.1.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On November 19, 2024, a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe filed a personal injury lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Sean Combs and several associated entities, including Bad Boy Entertainment and Daddy's House Recordings Inc. The case, docketed as 1:24-cv-08813 and presided over by Judge John G. Koeltl, involves allegations of personal injury under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The plaintiff has requested permission to proceed anonymously, filing a motion to use the pseudonym "Jane Doe." Judge Koeltl has deferred briefing on this motion until the defendants have been served.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632029.1.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On November 19, 2024, a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe filed a personal injury lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Sean Combs and several associated entities, including Bad Boy Entertainment and Daddy's House Recordings Inc. The case, docketed as 1:24-cv-08813 and presided over by Judge John G. Koeltl, involves allegations of personal injury under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The plaintiff has requested permission to proceed anonymously, filing a motion to use the pseudonym "Jane Doe." Judge Koeltl has deferred briefing on this motion until the defendants have been served.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632029.1.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

AFP editors Crystal Graham and Chris Graham have been hard at work this week tracking down the details of three ongoing controversies involving the Augusta County Sheriff's Office. In our Friday podcast, #TeamAFP breaks down: Augusta County: Family of man who died in police custody wants answers The family of a Staunton man who died in the back of an Augusta County Sheriff's Office patrol car on May 5 is trying to get answers. “There is real injustice here, and I truly feel like Stefan was assaulted to the point of his death,” Wade Gerencser, the brother of Stefan Gerencser, 39, wrote on social media, in a post brought to our attention by a family friend, Gary Bone, who served in the Marine Corps with the Gerencser brothers. Former deputy files $5.35M suit against Augusta County sheriff over forced resignation The $5.35 million federal civil rights lawsuit filed against Augusta County Sheriff Donald Smith that is making news today might need to be taken with a grain of salt. The reason I'm starting there: the allegations in the suit, Reynolds v. Smith, filed in the Harrisonburg Division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, filed on behalf of a former sheriff's deputy, Dennis Reynolds, were first peddled to me in 2023 by people who I know to be sworn political enemies of Smith, whose original sin was running for sheriff in 2015 against the handpicked candidate of the local political machine, and then winning. Augusta County sheriff reprimands Black deputy over lighthearted TikTok Augusta County Sheriff Donald Smith still hasn't commented on the lawsuit alleging that he sexually harassed a former male employee, but he found time on Thursday to publicly reprimand a Black deputy for comments she made on a TikTok video. In case you're wondering, yes, this was another instance of your sheriff letting himself get played on a public stage.

A Missoula District Court judge ruled that a ban on gender-affirming care for youths is unconstitutional. Republicans in the state Legislature passed the law in 2023, saying they need to protect youths from experimental treatment.

In this explosive segment, concerns are raised over Senator Thom Tillis' role in blocking prosecutor Ed Martin, potentially enabling a Democrat-led legal strategy to jail Trump allies. The discussion outlines a three-part plan to protect the deep state through control of the FBI, DOJ, and especially the D.C. District Court, with warnings of a looming constitutional crisis and political weaponization of the justice system.

Document 315 in the case of United States v. Sean Combs is a juror questionnaire issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This document is designed to screen and evaluate prospective jurors in advance of in-person voir dire. It includes detailed preliminary instructions reminding potential jurors not to include their names—only their juror numbers—and to answer all questions truthfully and thoroughly. The court emphasizes that some questions have multiple parts and must be fully completed. These instructions aim to preserve anonymity while allowing the court and attorneys to assess potential biases, prior knowledge, media exposure, and suitability for a trial expected to involve graphic allegations and significant media attention.The questionnaire likely includes sections on jurors' personal backgrounds, experiences with law enforcement or the legal system, opinions on celebrity, exposure to the case through media, and potential conflicts that could prevent impartiality. Such documents are routine in high-profile federal cases, especially those involving allegations as serious as racketeering and sex trafficking. The responses help attorneys for both the prosecution and defense to determine which individuals may harbor biases—positive or negative—toward the defendant, the justice system, or the nature of the charges. In this case, the questionnaire is a critical step in selecting the panel that will ultimately decide the fate of Sean Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.315.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On April 17, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that Google violated antitrust law through the monopolization of digital advertisement. Google’s “exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google's publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” said the Court. This is the second case in which the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division has scored a win against Google, the first having come in August 2024 and relating to Google’s monopoly of “general search.” Google has vowed that they will appeal both cases. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss the case and its possible future effects.Featuring:Prof. Rebecca Haw Allensworth, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolBilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedomJoel Thayer, President, Digital Progress InstituteModerator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce--To register, click the link above.

SEASON 3 EPISODE 123: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:45) SPECIAL COMMENT: Don't be silly, Stephen Miller - you're taking the fall. For contempt of court in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Rogue Deportation Flight cases. The target to at least be fined, maybe jailed, for contempt of court has got to be Stephen Miller. The picture is clarifying slowly, the focus is sharpening painstakingly, but it seems evident now that contempt cases being built by District Judges Jeb Boasberg and Paula Xinis – the effort to get depositions about, and charge somebody with, contempt of court in the abduction of Mr. Abrego Garcia AND the renditioning of dozens of others to El Salvador after Boasberg ordered the plane to NOT take off – the slow, methodical attempt to finally, at long last, about damn time, hold SOMEBODY in the Trump Crime Administration responsible for SOMETHING… this whole move to put somebody behind bars, is, in both courts, targeting… Stephen Miller. Based on reporting by NBC, by the Akron Law Journal, by Brian Beutler in "Off Message" and otters: the finding by Judge Boasberg of probable cause for contempt citations against the Trump Gang, and these depositions scheduled by Judge XINIS are apparently designed to confirm what Miller and the other Trumpian monsters are boasting about in private – Miller is the architect of the deportation scheme and especially its baseline component of cruelty. The man who has allegedly hated Hispanics since a girl he asked out in high school turned him down, is also the architect of the scheme to disobey the District Court orders to bring Abrego Garcia home AND to disobey the Supreme Court in the process. The man who greets every warning from a court or an attorney or a human with a conscience to stop now before it is too late for him, by getting louder, and angrier, and more monstrous, the man behind whatever step towards Ethnic Cleansing is next, is Stephen Miller. And it sure looks like Judges Boasberg and Xinis want to put the man Beutler refers to as the "monstrous twerp-fascist" behind bars. AND TRUMP GETS CRAZIER: Literally wants 11-year olds to give up their dolls and pencils for the sake of his delusion, and doesn't know if he has to uphold the constitution and has just infuriated all the Veterans by re-naming Veterans Day "Victory In World War 1 Day" and creating a "Victory In World War 2 Day" on the anniversary of a day when... World War 2 wasn't won. B-Block (34:30) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Trump clowns Labor Secretary Lori DeRemer-Chavez and Secretary of Lies Karoline Leavitt tie with some whoppers. Jesse Watters goes into a cave with Elon Musk. And a pretend reporter named Myles gets told to Eff Off by Ilhan Omar. (41:17) SPORTSBALLCENTER: Tomorrow is the 71st anniversary of the day in 1954 when Roger Bannister became the first to ever run a mile in less than four minutes. Except that he WASN'T the first to ever run a mile in less than four minutes. He wasn't even the first in England, where it had been done 200 years earlier. Never mind, say, in Kenya. (59:30) SPORTSBALL CENTER, CONTINUED: The reason all Bannister's predecessors are unknown is: they were erased from the records by the self-appointed "Amateur Authorities" of the 19th Century who wanted to make sure only "Gentlemen" held the honors. Gentlemen - and White People.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mon, 05 May 2025 20:30:00 GMT http://relay.fm/upgrade/562 http://relay.fm/upgrade/562 Let's Break the Law 562 Jason Snell and Myke Hurley We break down Apple's failure in U.S. District Court and what it means for the future of Apple's policies, corporate culture, corporate executives, and bottom line. Also (awkward!) we discuss Apple's quarterly financial results. We break down Apple's failure in U.S. District Court and what it means for the future of Apple's policies, corporate culture, corporate executives, and bottom line. Also (awkward!) we discuss Apple's quarterly financial results. clean 6349 We break down Apple's failure in U.S. District Court and what it means for the future of Apple's policies, corporate culture, corporate executives, and bottom line. Also (awkward!) we discuss Apple's quarterly financial results. This episode of Upgrade is sponsored by: Oracle: Oracle Cloud Infrastructure is a single platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI needs. Squarespace: Save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code UPGRADE. DeleteMe: Get 20% off your plan when you use this link and code UPGRADE20. Links and Show Notes: Apple results theme by Lex Friedman. Get Upgrade+. More content, no ads. Submit Feedback The Mira Pro Color is Boox's first color E Ink monitor | The Verge Apple Plans Split iPhone Launch Strategy: Pro and Foldable in Fall 2026, Standard in Spring 2027 - MacRumors The Episode 400 Draft Scorecard A judge just blew up Apple's control of the App Store | The Verge Apple files appeal to wrest back control of its App Store | The Verge Apple updates App Store Guidelines to allow links to external payments - 9to5Mac The hammer falls on Apple's malicious-compliance scheme – Six Colors A Breach of Trust: Apple Held in Contempt Over App Store Rules - MacStories David Smith: "I've been mulling over the App…" - Mastodon Developers and Platforms React as App Store Rules Change in the U.S. - MacStories Apple Q2 2025 results and charts: $95.4B revenue – Six Colors This is Tim: Complete transcript of Apple's Q2 2025 financial call – Six Colors Beware the tariffs! Inside Apple's latest fina

Montgomery Blair Sibley : Defending Deborah Palfrey, "DC Madam"Montgomery Blair Sibley (Born October 14, 1956) is a former American lawyer who had his Florida Bar license suspended in 2008, and is best known for defending Deborah Palfrey, the "DC Madam", in 2007-2008.[1][2]Blair wrote a book about Palfrey, and his defense of her, entitled Why Just Her: The Judicial Lynching of the D.C. Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey.[2] Henry Vinson, author of Confessions of a D.C. Madam, wrote that Sibley "had to contend with the feds judicial chicanery and sleight of hand."[3]In 2008, The Florida Bar suspended Sibley's right to practice law in that state for three years.[4] Sibley was later determined to be a vexatious litigator.[5]In 2012, Sibley unsuccessfully sued President Barack Obama, alleging that he was not a natural-born citizen.[6][7]2016 Presidential ElectionIn 2016, Sibley, who claims to have Palfrey's phone records, unsuccessfully attempted to have her records unsealed.[8] Sibley claims the information they contain would be highly relevant to voters in the upcoming 2016 presidential election.[6][7]In February 2016, Sibley sued then-Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts, and his clerk, for failing to file his motion to lift the restraining order (gag order) that prevents Sibley from releasing her records.[9][10]Sibley then requested that the U.S. Supreme Court release him from the lower court's restraining order, stating: "To be clear, if Sibley is not allowed to file his Motion to Modify the Restraining Order and thereafter does not promptly receive a fair and impartial hearing on that Motion, he will justifiably consider the Restraining Order void as a result of being denied such a hearing by the District Court, the D.C. Circuit Court and now this Court."[11][12]The U.S. Supreme Court denied Sibley's application.[13][14][15][16][17][18]Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Montgomery Blair Sibley : Defending Deborah Palfrey, "DC Madam"Montgomery Blair Sibley (Born October 14, 1956) is a former American lawyer who had his Florida Bar license suspended in 2008, and is best known for defending Deborah Palfrey, the "DC Madam", in 2007-2008.[1][2]Blair wrote a book about Palfrey, and his defense of her, entitled Why Just Her: The Judicial Lynching of the D.C. Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey.[2] Henry Vinson, author of Confessions of a D.C. Madam, wrote that Sibley "had to contend with the feds judicial chicanery and sleight of hand."[3]In 2008, The Florida Bar suspended Sibley's right to practice law in that state for three years.[4] Sibley was later determined to be a vexatious litigator.[5]In 2012, Sibley unsuccessfully sued President Barack Obama, alleging that he was not a natural-born citizen.[6][7]2016 Presidential ElectionIn 2016, Sibley, who claims to have Palfrey's phone records, unsuccessfully attempted to have her records unsealed.[8] Sibley claims the information they contain would be highly relevant to voters in the upcoming 2016 presidential election.[6][7]In February 2016, Sibley sued then-Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts, and his clerk, for failing to file his motion to lift the restraining order (gag order) that prevents Sibley from releasing her records.[9][10]Sibley then requested that the U.S. Supreme Court release him from the lower court's restraining order, stating: "To be clear, if Sibley is not allowed to file his Motion to Modify the Restraining Order and thereafter does not promptly receive a fair and impartial hearing on that Motion, he will justifiably consider the Restraining Order void as a result of being denied such a hearing by the District Court, the D.C. Circuit Court and now this Court."[11][12]The U.S. Supreme Court denied Sibley's application.[13][14][15][16][17][18]Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.