Podcasts about District court

In a letter dated July 11, 2019, defense attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein wrote to Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to formally request pretrial release for Epstein. They referenced the criminal case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 19-490, and sought to justify bail by presenting a proposed package of conditions they argued would mitigate both flight risk and any potential danger Epstein was alleged to pose to the public.The letter asserted that the proposed terms of release would be stringent and comprehensive, designed specifically to ensure Epstein's full compliance with court orders. While the details of those conditions were to follow in the broader bail application, this initial correspondence served to lay the foundation for Epstein's legal team to argue that incarceration prior to trial was unnecessary, and that he could safely remain in the community under strict supervision.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-bail.pdf

In a letter dated July 11, 2019, defense attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein wrote to Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to formally request pretrial release for Epstein. They referenced the criminal case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 19-490, and sought to justify bail by presenting a proposed package of conditions they argued would mitigate both flight risk and any potential danger Epstein was alleged to pose to the public.The letter asserted that the proposed terms of release would be stringent and comprehensive, designed specifically to ensure Epstein's full compliance with court orders. While the details of those conditions were to follow in the broader bail application, this initial correspondence served to lay the foundation for Epstein's legal team to argue that incarceration prior to trial was unnecessary, and that he could safely remain in the community under strict supervision.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-bail.pdf

In a letter dated July 11, 2019, defense attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein wrote to Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to formally request pretrial release for Epstein. They referenced the criminal case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 19-490, and sought to justify bail by presenting a proposed package of conditions they argued would mitigate both flight risk and any potential danger Epstein was alleged to pose to the public.The letter asserted that the proposed terms of release would be stringent and comprehensive, designed specifically to ensure Epstein's full compliance with court orders. While the details of those conditions were to follow in the broader bail application, this initial correspondence served to lay the foundation for Epstein's legal team to argue that incarceration prior to trial was unnecessary, and that he could safely remain in the community under strict supervision.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-bail.pdf

​Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegedly failing to comply with multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests concerning Jeffrey Epstein's associates and clients. The conservative watchdog group submitted four FOIA requests between February and March 2025 to various DOJ components, including the Office of Information Policy, the Criminal Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the FBI. These requests sought records related to Epstein's activities and communications involving Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel regarding the handling and potential release of Epstein-related documents. Despite acknowledgments and assigned tracking numbers, Judicial Watch claims the DOJ has failed to provide the requested information or justify any withholdings, prompting the lawsuit filed on April 8, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.The lawsuit references a February 24, 2025, Fox News report in which Attorney General Bondi stated that Epstein's client list was "sitting on [her] desk." However, a subsequent DOJ document release on February 27, 2025, was criticized for lacking substantive revelations, as it primarily listed already known associates of Epstein. Judicial Watch argues that the DOJ's actions violate FOIA and hinder public transparency regarding Epstein's network. The organization seeks a court order compelling the DOJ to conduct thorough searches for responsive records, produce all non-exempt documents, and provide explanations for any withholdings. Additionally, Judicial Watch requests that the court enjoin the DOJ from further withholding non-exempt records and award attorney's fees and litigation costs incurred due to the DOJ's non-compliance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ allegedly violating FOIA over Jeffrey Epstein files

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 appealed all of these, and the Supreme Court took the case in order to decide the issue of whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” The Court granted the government’s applications for a partial stay of these injunctions, “but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and future implications.Featuring:Ed Wenger, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLCModerator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP --To register, click the link above.

​Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegedly failing to comply with multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests concerning Jeffrey Epstein's associates and clients. The conservative watchdog group submitted four FOIA requests between February and March 2025 to various DOJ components, including the Office of Information Policy, the Criminal Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the FBI. These requests sought records related to Epstein's activities and communications involving Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel regarding the handling and potential release of Epstein-related documents. Despite acknowledgments and assigned tracking numbers, Judicial Watch claims the DOJ has failed to provide the requested information or justify any withholdings, prompting the lawsuit filed on April 8, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.The lawsuit references a February 24, 2025, Fox News report in which Attorney General Bondi stated that Epstein's client list was "sitting on [her] desk." However, a subsequent DOJ document release on February 27, 2025, was criticized for lacking substantive revelations, as it primarily listed already known associates of Epstein. Judicial Watch argues that the DOJ's actions violate FOIA and hinder public transparency regarding Epstein's network. The organization seeks a court order compelling the DOJ to conduct thorough searches for responsive records, produce all non-exempt documents, and provide explanations for any withholdings. Additionally, Judicial Watch requests that the court enjoin the DOJ from further withholding non-exempt records and award attorney's fees and litigation costs incurred due to the DOJ's non-compliance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ allegedly violating FOIA over Jeffrey Epstein filesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for June 13, 2025Apparent Racial Gerrymandering in Tarrant County, TX Draws Condemnation and a VRA Lawsuit.  The County's Reply?  It's OK. It was for Political Reasons.Tarrant County, Texas county commissioners approved a new county redistricting map June 3rd diluting the votes of Black and Hispanic voters, but commissioners claim the gerrymandering was for “political”, not racial reasons.  The map likely eliminates a majority minority district, and has drawn widespread condemnation and a Voting Rights Act lawsuit.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:Texas Tribune - (2021) Historically red Tarrant County diversified in the last decade. Now Republicans are trying to divide up its voters of color.Tarrant County - Tarrant County Redistricting 2025Fort Worth Telegram - Are Tarrant's proposed redistricting maps racial gerrymanders? We asked expertsUCLA Voting Rights Project - Tarrant County AnalysisKDFW Fox 4 News - SMU researcher says proposed Tarrant County redistricting 'diminishes' voting powerU.S. District Court (via Democracy Docket) - Complaint in Jackson v. Tarrant CountyCBS News Texas -  Tarrant County citizens file lawsuit against new redistricting mapKERA - (Update) Tarrant County approves $250K contract with law firm to fight racial gerrymandering lawsuit Groups Taking Action:Common Cause TX,  Lone Star ProjectRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Texas #TarrantCounty #RacialGerrymandering #FairMaps #VRA

Hugo Blankingship III is a highly respected attorney based in Washington, D.C., specializing in identity theft and false credit reporting issues. With over 30 years of experience, he has built a strong reputation for advocating on behalf of consumers who are struggling with inaccurate credit information. His mission is to help clients get incorrect data removed from their credit reports, allowing them to move forward with their financial lives. A graduate of the University of Virginia (B.A., 1982) and the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at the College of William & Mary (J.D., 1986), Hugo began his career as a law clerk to the Honorable Albert V. Bryan, Jr., former chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This foundation shaped his career and led him to become a passionate consumer rights advocate. Throughout his career, Hugo has fought tirelessly against major credit reporting agencies like Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax, ensuring they adhere to the rules. In 2004, he argued the case Nigh v. Koons Buick Pontiac GMC before the U.S. Supreme Court, and has represented clients before the Supreme Court of Virginia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Hugo's clients know him as a tenacious attorney who won't back down in the pursuit of justice. Thomas B. Christiano received a B.A. from the University of Virginia in 1993 and a J.D. from the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at the College of William & Mary in 1999. Mr. Christiano has handled numerous consumer protection cases and specializes in cases involving inaccurate credit reporting under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He has reviewed the credit reporting procedure process from the major credit reporting agencies and the dispute investigation procedures of many banks who have furnished inaccurate credit information. As an experienced credit report lawyer, he can identify the actual damages associated with credit report problems, including emotional distress damages, the loss of employment opportunities, inability to obtain a mortgage, and loss of use of credit., Mr. Christiano also publishes a blog at yourfaircreditreportlawyernow.com, which is an excellent informational resource on the subject. Thomas B. Christiano has decades of experience helping clients who have been the victim of credit fraud and identity theft. Discover how he can help you!   During the show we discussed: Common credit report errors and their impact on consumers Effects of identity theft on credit and first steps to take Challenges in disputing false credit report information Overview of the dispute process with credit bureaus How bureaus respond to disputes and what to do if ignored Consumer rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Role of Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion in disputes What to do when bureaus don't fix errors and how attorneys help Issues with mixed/merged credit files and how to resolve them Fraud tactics in credit manipulation and identity theft prevention Importance of checking credit reports and common review mistakes Steps to fix credit scores after finding report errors How bad credit affects loans, housing, and employment Benefits of working with a credit report attorney vs. doing it alone   Resources: https://www.yourfaircreditlawyer.com/  

In this episode of Campus Technology Insider Podcast Shorts, Rhea Kelly highlights recent developments in higher education technology, including Backslash Security's discovery of vulnerabilities in the Model Context Protocol, a U.S. District Court's ruling on Anthropic's use of copyrighted books, and Google DeepMind's launch of the lightweight AI model, Gemma 3n. Learn about the Neighbor Jack flaw, the OS injection vulnerability, and how these situations impact AI and security. Additionally, stay updated on Anthropic's legal challenges and the features of Google's latest AI innovation designed for mobile and edge devices. 00:00 Introduction to Campus Technology Insider Podcast 00:16 Security Vulnerabilities in Model Context Protocol 00:54 Anthropic's Copyright Ruling and Legal Challenges 01:26 Google DeepMind's Gemma 3n AI Model Launch 02:05 Conclusion and Further Resources Source links: Report: Agentic AI Protocol Is Vulnerable to Cyber Attacks Federal Court Rules AI Training with Copyrighted Books Fair Use Google Launches Lightweight Gemma 3n, Expanding Edge AI Efforts Campus Technology Insider Podcast Shorts are curated by humans and narrated by AI.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Texas death-row inmate have standing to sue the state over its refusal to grant access to DNA testing under a law that allows such testing only when the person can demonstrate that exculpatory results would have prevented their conviction?The case was decided on June 26, 2025. The Supreme Court held that Petitioner Ruben Gutierrez has standing to bring his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim challenging Texas's postconviction DNA testing procedures under the Due Process Clause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the majority opinion of the Court.Prisoners convicted in state court have a liberty interest in demonstrating their innocence with new evidence under state law. When states create postconviction procedures, they can create rights to other procedures essential to realizing those rights. Under Skinner v Switzer, a prisoner may bring a § 1983 due process claim alleging that a state's DNA testing statute unconstitutionally prevents him from obtaining testing, even though he cannot directly challenge state court denials of his testing motions. To bring such a suit, the prisoner must demonstrate judicial standing to sue.The standing analysis follows Reed v Goertz, which requires three elements. First, Gutierrez adequately alleged an injury: the prosecutor's denial of access to DNA evidence. Second, prosecutor Saenz caused this injury by refusing to release evidence in his custody for testing. Third, if a federal court declares Texas's procedures unconstitutional, that judgment would eliminate Saenz's justification for denying testing, thereby removing the barrier between Gutierrez and the evidence. The declaratory judgment would change the parties' legal status and redress Gutierrez's injury by eliminating the allegedly unlawful basis for the denial.The Fifth Circuit erred in two fundamental ways. First, it improperly focused on the limited declaratory judgment the District Court ultimately issued rather than on Gutierrez's broader complaint. Gutierrez's complaint challenged not just Article 64's limitation to actual innocence claims, but multiple barriers the statute creates—including its virtually insurmountable standard for parties to crimes, its refusal to consider new evidence, and its prohibition on testing solely to challenge death eligibility. Standing depends on the allegations in the complaint, not on the particular relief a district court later grants.Second, the Fifth Circuit wrongly transformed the redressability inquiry into speculation about whether the prosecutor would ultimately provide the evidence. Under Reed, a declaratory judgment need only eliminate the prosecutor's reliance on the challenged provision as a justification for denying testing. The Court rejected the notion that redressability requires certainty about the ultimate outcome. That a prosecutor might find other reasons to deny testing—just as the prosecutor in Reed had multiple grounds for denial—does not defeat standing to challenge specific reasons as unconstitutional. Courts regularly allow plaintiffs to challenge improper legal grounds for discretionary decisions even when the decision-maker might reach the same result for different reasons.

The District Court has refused an application by Killorglin publicans for an exemption which would allow them remain open until 3am at Puck Fair next month. Jerry spoke to Fianna Fáil TD Michael Cahill.

The Department of Justice has taken the rare step of suing all of the federal District Court judges in Maryland, after the Maryland court issued a 48-hour pause in every case where an immigrant was challenging their removal from the United States. We examine why this lawsuit is so unusual and how it fits into the Trump Administration's larger attitude toward the judicial branch.This episode: political correspondent Ashley Lopez, Justice correspondent Carrie Johnson, and senior national political correspondent Mara Liasson.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell & Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Whether AI training and generation is a fair use under copyright law puts two important American business sectors in opposition, and each looks to the various branches of the federal government for answers. Fundamentally, essentially all training of AI models involves copying of copyrighted materials, and many outputs from AI systems also may be substantially similar to copyrighted material and thus infringing if they are not fair uses.On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released a pre-publication version of the third and final part of its report on Copyright and AI, focused on Generative AI Training. The report concludes that some is fair use but some is not, and urges that existing efforts to engage in licensing of copyrighted content continue. Meanwhile, over forty cases on the issue are ongoing in the United States alone, with cases ongoing in another eight nations as well. The District Court in Delaware has ruled that at least one such case was not a fair use, and further rulings are expected soon from around the country. Meanwhile the White House has indicated an interest in AI policy and may have its own prerogatives.Leading experts will discuss the issue and answer questions on this fast-moving and important issue.Featuring:Meredith Rose, Senior Policy Counsel, Public KnowledgeRegan Smith, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, News/Media AllianceModerator: Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law

The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a district court order that prevented multiple federal agencies from carrying out reductions-in-force, clearing the way for those actions to resume. In an unsigned opinion, a majority of the justices granted the government's request for a stay of the lower court ruling, concluding that it will likely be successful on its argument that President Donald Trump's executive order directing agencies to make plans for RIFs and corresponding guidance from the White House were lawful. The justices, however, also emphasized that their ruling doesn't express a view on the legality of RIF or reorganization plans under that order and memo. The district court's preliminary injunction hinged on that court's view that Trump's order and the Office of Management and Budget's memo were unlawful and not on any of the plans specifically. Under the injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a wide array of federal agencies were required to halt their RIF plans — which included the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of State, Department of Commerce, and many more. It also prompted OMB to pause reviewing or discussing those plans with agencies, per FedScoop reporting. While other legal challenges are moving forward on agency RIFs, the Supreme Court's ruling, at least for now, means they can begin those actions again. Anthropic is making the enterprise version of its chatbot Claude available to the entire staff of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, the artificial intelligence company announced Wednesday. The expansion comes as generative AI companies look to deepen their relationship with the federal government's national lab system — and amid growing interest in agencies' use of the technology. Anthropic said the expansion comes after a pilot, as well as an event in March that allowed thousands of scientists based at the California lab to learn about the technology. The company said the program, which involves its Claude for Enterprise product, constitutes one of the most significant lab deployments of AI at the Energy Department. As many as ten thousand national lab employees will now be able to use generative AI for their work. Lawrence Livermore will eventually have access to a forthcoming FedRAMP High service, once it's approved and accredited, meaning lab scientists will be able to use Claude on unclassified data that requires that level of accreditation. 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.

The following defendants were among those listed on recent dockets for the 81st District Court in Wilson County: •Trynda B. Popham, 31, of Floresville was originally sentenced in March 2023 to two years in a Texas Department of Criminal Justice facility, suspended to five years of community supervision, after a charge of theft of a vehicle worth between ,500 and ,000 in March 2020. She was also sentenced in March 2023 to five years in a Texas Department of Criminal Justice facility, suspended to five years of community service for a charge of engaging in organized criminal activity, and two...Article Link

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

Karen Stevenson, Chief Magistrate Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, shares her path to the bench and to the law, including a stint at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. She also describes how her experience living abroad expanded her perspective as a person and enhanced her judicial skills later on. Judge Stevenson exemplifies her motto: "Do it. Do it right. Do it now."

Registered Sex Offender Admits to Murder-for-Hire Plot Against 12-Year-Old He Lured and Assaulted PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A 30-year-old Rhode Island man has pleaded guilty in federal court to luring a 12-year-old girl from her middle school, sexually assaulting her, and then attempting to hire a hitman from prison to silence her. Chandler J. Cardente, already a registered sex offender, entered the plea Thursday to three charges: enticement of a minor, committing a felony while required to register, and interstate murder-for-hire, Acting U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom announced. Online deception and abduction Investigators say Cardente posed as a 17-year-old on social media to befriend the Burrillville Middle School student in the fall of 2021. On Dec. 10, after classes let out, the girl walked across a soccer field, through nearby woods, and climbed into Cardente's car on Route 102. When the child was reported missing, Burrillville police tracked her online messages and identified Cardente as the man she was with. Realizing officers were closing in, he pushed the girl from the vehicle on Jefferson Boulevard in Warwick. Warwick police soon found her curled up on the roadside; she told officers she had been assaulted. Plot hatched behind bars Cardente was arrested later that day in Cranston and booked into the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI). While awaiting trial, he phoned what he believed was a go-between for a contract killer, offering $200 cash and about $1,500 in equipment to ensure the girl “ended up dead” because, he said, she was “a witness.” The “contractor” was actually an undercover police officer recording the call. Prior record and penalties Cardente had previously been convicted in state court of child molestation and was under lifetime registration requirements when he committed the new crimes. Federal prosecutors say he now faces a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison on the enticement count alone, with potential decades more because of the murder-for-hire scheme and his status as a registered offender. He remains held without bail at the ACI. Sentencing is scheduled for April 23 in U.S. District Court, where Cardente also faces separate state charges stemming from the assault and abduction. Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872  

Registered Sex Offender Admits to Murder-for-Hire Plot Against 12-Year-Old He Lured and Assaulted PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A 30-year-old Rhode Island man has pleaded guilty in federal court to luring a 12-year-old girl from her middle school, sexually assaulting her, and then attempting to hire a hitman from prison to silence her. Chandler J. Cardente, already a registered sex offender, entered the plea Thursday to three charges: enticement of a minor, committing a felony while required to register, and interstate murder-for-hire, Acting U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom announced. Online deception and abduction Investigators say Cardente posed as a 17-year-old on social media to befriend the Burrillville Middle School student in the fall of 2021. On Dec. 10, after classes let out, the girl walked across a soccer field, through nearby woods, and climbed into Cardente's car on Route 102. When the child was reported missing, Burrillville police tracked her online messages and identified Cardente as the man she was with. Realizing officers were closing in, he pushed the girl from the vehicle on Jefferson Boulevard in Warwick. Warwick police soon found her curled up on the roadside; she told officers she had been assaulted. Plot hatched behind bars Cardente was arrested later that day in Cranston and booked into the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI). While awaiting trial, he phoned what he believed was a go-between for a contract killer, offering $200 cash and about $1,500 in equipment to ensure the girl “ended up dead” because, he said, she was “a witness.” The “contractor” was actually an undercover police officer recording the call. Prior record and penalties Cardente had previously been convicted in state court of child molestation and was under lifetime registration requirements when he committed the new crimes. Federal prosecutors say he now faces a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison on the enticement count alone, with potential decades more because of the murder-for-hire scheme and his status as a registered offender. He remains held without bail at the ACI. Sentencing is scheduled for April 23 in U.S. District Court, where Cardente also faces separate state charges stemming from the assault and abduction. Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The case Doe v. Combs, Case No.: 23-cv-10628 (JGLC) involves a civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe against Sean "Diddy" Combs, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, and other entities. The lawsuit alleges sexual assault, coercion, and other forms of abuse dating back several years. The claims are part of a larger set of accusations against Combs involving misconduct at parties, often referred to as "freak-offs."Jane Doe asserts that she was sexually assaulted by Combs and his associates when she was a minor. She is now in her late 30s, and her complaint argues that she suffered significant harm during these events. The case also touches on other previous legal actions involving Combs, including allegations made by Cassie, another former associate. The defense has raised concerns about the fairness of the proceedings due to Jane Doe's anonymity, arguing that it hampers their ability to investigate and defend against the claims.This lawsuit is part of a wave of legal challenges against Combs, with over 120 alleged victims coming forward, many of whom claim they were minors at the time of the abuse. The case continues to develop as more evidence is gathered, including videos and witness statements that could play a crucial role in the proceedings. Combs and his legal team have denied all allegations and are preparing for trial​.(commercial at 7:43)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.64.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sean Combs, also known as Puffy, P. Diddy, or simply Diddy, is once again making headlines across the nation. This week, jurors in his highly publicized federal trial delivered a partial verdict on four out of the five major criminal counts he faces, while deadlocking on the most serious charge, racketeering conspiracy. The proceedings, which began in lower Manhattan's U.S. District Court, involve allegations unsealed in September 2024, accusing Combs of racketeering, two counts of sex trafficking, and two counts of transportation for the purpose of prostitution. Prosecutors argue that Combs built a criminal enterprise using his business empire, and over seven weeks of testimony, more than 30 witnesses outlined what they described as a pattern of violence, coercion, and abuse within his inner circle. Combs pleaded not guilty to all charges, and his defense team chose not to call any witnesses—including Combs himself—arguing that the government had not proven its case. If convicted, the 55-year-old mogul faces the possibility of life in prison.Jurors reached a unanimous verdict on four counts but were unable to agree on the racketeering conspiracy charge, leading Judge Arun Subramanian to order further deliberations. At one point, jurors requested clarification regarding drug distribution, signaling ongoing debate on the core allegations of organized crime connections. Legal analysts suggest that the racketeering charge was always the most challenging, given the sweeping nature of the government's theory linking Combs's diverse business ventures to criminal activity.These legal troubles come as documentaries and media coverage continue to revisit Combs's impact on music, business, and pop culture. The 2025 release of the documentary Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy on Peacock and the Investigation Discovery docuseries Fall of Diddy have both reignited public dialogue about his legacy and controversies. In February, Combs's legal team responded by filing a defamation lawsuit against the documentary producers, arguing that the film contained defamatory statements about his life and career.Despite the intense scrutiny, Combs's influence on entertainment and entrepreneurial circles remains undeniable. From founding Bad Boy Records to helming ventures in fashion, liquor, and media, he helped define an era of hip-hop-driven cultural dominance and became a symbol of business innovation. However, as the trial continues and the verdict on the racketeering conspiracy charge remains pending, the future of one of music's most recognizable figures hangs in the balance. For listeners following the case, this chapter will determine if Combs's legacy will be remembered for his business prowess or overshadowed by the allegations now before a federal court.

In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District issued a redacted memorandum decision and order regarding the defense's motion to continue the trial. Kohberger's legal team filed a motion requesting a delay in the trial schedule, citing the need for additional time to review discovery, conduct investigations, and adequately prepare a defense in a case of significant complexity and public scrutiny. The defense argued that proceeding without a continuance would compromise Kohberger's right to a fair trial, particularly given the volume of evidence and expert materials involved.The court, in its memorandum, acknowledged the high-profile nature of the case and the seriousness of the charges, but ultimately denied the defense's request to delay the trial. The judge emphasized the court's responsibility to balance the defendant's rights with the public's interest in a speedy trial and judicial efficiency. While recognizing the burdens faced by defense counsel, the court concluded that the current schedule provided adequate time for preparation and noted that prior delays had already accommodated many of the defense's logistical concerns. As a result, the trial is expected to proceed on its current timeline, barring any unforeseen developments.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062625+REDACTED+Memorandum+Decision+and+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf

In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District issued a redacted memorandum decision and order regarding the defense's motion to continue the trial. Kohberger's legal team filed a motion requesting a delay in the trial schedule, citing the need for additional time to review discovery, conduct investigations, and adequately prepare a defense in a case of significant complexity and public scrutiny. The defense argued that proceeding without a continuance would compromise Kohberger's right to a fair trial, particularly given the volume of evidence and expert materials involved.The court, in its memorandum, acknowledged the high-profile nature of the case and the seriousness of the charges, but ultimately denied the defense's request to delay the trial. The judge emphasized the court's responsibility to balance the defendant's rights with the public's interest in a speedy trial and judicial efficiency. While recognizing the burdens faced by defense counsel, the court concluded that the current schedule provided adequate time for preparation and noted that prior delays had already accommodated many of the defense's logistical concerns. As a result, the trial is expected to proceed on its current timeline, barring any unforeseen developments.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062625+REDACTED+Memorandum+Decision+and+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf

In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District issued a redacted memorandum decision and order regarding the defense's motion to continue the trial. Kohberger's legal team filed a motion requesting a delay in the trial schedule, citing the need for additional time to review discovery, conduct investigations, and adequately prepare a defense in a case of significant complexity and public scrutiny. The defense argued that proceeding without a continuance would compromise Kohberger's right to a fair trial, particularly given the volume of evidence and expert materials involved.The court, in its memorandum, acknowledged the high-profile nature of the case and the seriousness of the charges, but ultimately denied the defense's request to delay the trial. The judge emphasized the court's responsibility to balance the defendant's rights with the public's interest in a speedy trial and judicial efficiency. While recognizing the burdens faced by defense counsel, the court concluded that the current schedule provided adequate time for preparation and noted that prior delays had already accommodated many of the defense's logistical concerns. As a result, the trial is expected to proceed on its current timeline, barring any unforeseen developments.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062625+REDACTED+Memorandum+Decision+and+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District issued a redacted memorandum decision and order regarding the defense's motion to continue the trial. Kohberger's legal team filed a motion requesting a delay in the trial schedule, citing the need for additional time to review discovery, conduct investigations, and adequately prepare a defense in a case of significant complexity and public scrutiny. The defense argued that proceeding without a continuance would compromise Kohberger's right to a fair trial, particularly given the volume of evidence and expert materials involved.The court, in its memorandum, acknowledged the high-profile nature of the case and the seriousness of the charges, but ultimately denied the defense's request to delay the trial. The judge emphasized the court's responsibility to balance the defendant's rights with the public's interest in a speedy trial and judicial efficiency. While recognizing the burdens faced by defense counsel, the court concluded that the current schedule provided adequate time for preparation and noted that prior delays had already accommodated many of the defense's logistical concerns. As a result, the trial is expected to proceed on its current timeline, barring any unforeseen developments.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062625+REDACTED+Memorandum+Decision+and+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Greg Belfrage talks with listeners about the Supreme Court's decision on the authority of district judges and the birthright citezenship.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.