Podcasts about District court

Donald Trump's court battles have dominated national headlines this past week, unfolding across multiple jurisdictions and touching on core questions about presidential power and American democracy. I'm here to take you through the whirlwind developments, connecting the dots so you get the full picture.Let's begin with the most high-profile outcome: the historic New York case, The People for the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. After a months-long trial, Donald Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in Manhattan. That guilty verdict was delivered back in May of 2024, but what many found surprising was Justice Juan Merchan's sentencing decision in January. Trump faced the possibility of jail time, but ultimately received an unconditional discharge. That means, despite the felony convictions, no jail, fines, or probation—a legal oddity that analysts say was influenced by both the unprecedented nature of the case and its proximity to the 2024 election.Meanwhile, in the Southern District of Florida, things took a sharp turn regarding Trump's handling of classified documents. Originally, the indictment included 32 counts of retaining national defense information and several other obstruction-related charges. However, on July 15, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the indictment altogether, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Department of Justice did try to appeal, but by early 2025, those efforts had quietly ended, leaving Trump unscathed in that federal case.Georgia's Fulton County has also played host to legal drama. Trump and 18 others were indicted, accused of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results. While this sprawling RICO case has moved slowly, it remains one of the most closely watched state efforts.On a separate legal front, there's been fresh turmoil over Trump's executive actions. This week, Chief Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. ordered the Trump administration to answer tough questions about how they implemented Executive Order 14248, which mandates proof of citizenship for federal voting, restricts mail-in ballots, and ties election funding to compliance. Plaintiffs, which include the Democratic Party and civil rights groups, argue the order threatens to disenfranchise millions. The administration now faces a tight August 15 deadline to provide answers. This is happening as Trump's team also appeals a court order that blocked key provisions of the same order, keeping uncertainty swirling around future voting rules.And it's not just voting rights on the docket. The Trump administration's new policy authorizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest people attending mandatory court hearings has triggered an urgent lawsuit. Groups like the New York Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU are fighting this policy, calling it an unprecedented assault on due process and immigrant rights.It's a dizzying array of legal fights involving not just Donald Trump himself but the very machinery of his administration—the outcomes of which could fundamentally reshape the legal landscape and the 2026 election season.Thank you for tuning in to this court update. Come back next week for more insights and breaking developments. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

The Department of Justice has filed an ethics complaint against the Chief Judge of the District Court in DC, James Boasberg, and we've enlisted Kel McClanahan to help us figure out what (if any) evidence the Trump administration has to support its claims. Plus, Liz and Andrew listened to the Federal Circuit's oral argument over Trump's tariffs. And what does a disgraced former superlawyer have to do to get a pierogi in Martha's Vineyard?? For our subscribers, we chortle with glee at the return of the Super Best Election Lawyer in All the Land!   Links:   Boasberg Judicial Misconduct Complaint via Courthouse News https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FINAL-Misconduct-Complaint-7.28.pdf EXCLUSIVE: Memo Reveals D.C. Judges Are Predisposed Against Trump Administration https://thefederalist.com/2025/07/16/exclusive-memo-reveals-d-c-judges-are-predisposed-against-trump-administration/   Newsom v. Trump [docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70496361/newsom-v-trump/?order_by=desc Biden v. Byrne [docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67990012/robert-hunter-biden-v-patrick-m-byrne/ Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, 18 U.S. Code § 1385 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385 VOS v. Trump (tariffs - US Court of International Trade) [via Court Listener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17080/gov.uscourts.cit.17080.55.0.pdf   VOS v. Trump (tariffs - Federal Circuit) - admin stay [via Court Listener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105.7.0.pdf Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

In this newscast: Juneau residents will see a hike in their utility rates beginning in August; A Juneau man was medevaced to Seattle this week after being slammed into the ground by a Juneau police officer; Monday was the first chance for residents to testify to the Juneau Assembly about whether to implement a ranked choice voting system for local elections; The impending glacial outburst flood in Juneau's Mendenhall Valley is raising tensions; Alaska's U.S. District Court should have three judges to hear cases but for the past year, it's had just one. But Sen. Lisa Murkowski says there's been progress on the process to select new candidates for the court

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdf

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdf

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In June 2022, Maxwell's legal team submitted a 77-page sentencing memorandum to the U.S. District Court in Manhattan requesting a significant downward variance from both the Probation Department's recommendation and the federal Sentencing Guidelines. While the probation office had proposed a 20-year sentence (240 months), Maxwell's attorneys argued she should receive only 51 to 63 months in prison. They maintained that Maxwell should not be punished as a proxy for Jeffrey Epstein, emphasizing he was the principal orchestrator of the crimes and that Maxwell had never before been charged with wrongdoing until her association with him resurfaced. Her defense also cited her difficult and traumatic childhood, abusive father, and the death threats she continues to face as aggravating circumstances warranting leniency.Prosecutors forcefully opposed the request, urging the court instead to impose a prison term within the Guidelines range—between 30 to 55 years—based on Maxwell's “pivotal role” in grooming and recruiting vulnerable young girls for Epstein. They highlighted her lack of remorse, failure to accept responsibility, and the profound and enduring harm caused to numerous victims. The prosecutors made clear that Maxwell's privileged background offered no mitigation given the extreme gravity of her crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/ghislaine-maxwell-sex-trafficking-sentence

A U.S. District Court judge rejected an investment fund's bid to force the Federal Reserve to open to the public a meeting on setting interest rates. Jerome Powell will still have plenty to discuss at the Fed meeting tomorrow.00:00 Intro00:19 Prediction markets01:30 Goldman Sachs: What will Powell say?03:00 Trueflation03:25 Goldman Sachs on Fed cut rates05:10 Paul's prediction06:17 Stock market concentration07:55 CNBC: Are the markets not pricing in Tariffs?11:32 BitMine buyback13:10 SharpLink x Linea14:40 ETH ETFs14:50 Matt Hougan: ETH is creating an alt season16:50 Corporations have acquired 1% of Ether18:10 Outro#Crypto #federalreserve #fedmeeting ~Rate Cut Predictions

Justice Brad Hart earned his undergraduate degree from Baylor University in 1993 and his J.D. from South Texas College of Law in 1997. After law school, he was a trial prosecutor in the Harris County District Attorney's office for 16 years, even being honored as "Prosecutor of the Year" by the Texas Narcotics Officers' Association in 2011. He was appointed Judge of the 230th District Court in 2013 and was recognized as "Judge of the Year" by the Texas Gang Investigators' Association in 2018. Following, he served as the Chief of the General Felony Trial Division at the Fort Bend County District Attorney's office before being elected to the 14th Court of Appeals in 2024. Brad makes his home in Houston, Texas.

Public lands in Utah are back in the spotlight. A 3rd District Court judge just dismissed a lawsuit from an environmental group trying to block the state from suing for control of federal lands. Greg and Holly discuss.

9:05 - 9:20 - 11:05 - A 'sea change' or a storm brewing? Inside President Trump's executive order to address homelessness A new executive order from President Trump aims to move homeless individuals into treatment facilities. One lawmaker is calling this a "sea change" in the right direction, saying it is 'like turning around the titanic'… but critics say this move is uncaring and an 'unfunded mandate'. Greg and Holly unpack the issue with Utah Representative Tyler Clancy and Bill Tibbitts, deputy executive director of the Crossroads Urban Center about whether the plan has real momentum.   9:35 - Fire destroys two Millcreek apartment buildings, dozens displaced A lawnmower left dozens of people without homes after a fire destroyed two apartment buildings in Millcreek. Unified Fire Authority, Captain Tony Barker joins the show to discuss what happened and a new poll that shows Utahns are divided on firework restrictions.   9:50 - The Monroe Canyon Fire Greg drove through smoke from the Monroe Canyon fire this weekend. It doubled in size on Friday and shows no sign of slowing down. The hosts discuss the latest developments and the impact of this fire.    10:05 - The legal battleground of Utah's public lands Public lands in Utah are back in the spotlight. A 3rd District Court judge just dismissed a lawsuit from an environmental group trying to block the state from suing for control of federal lands. Greg and Holly discuss.   10:20 - Funding flip-flop: Summer & after-school dollars restored Utah schools are feeling a little bit of whiplash with on, off and now back on federal funding for after school and summer programs...  Greg and Holly discuss the latest and speak with Ben Trentelman Executive Director of the Utah Afterschool Network about his reaction and the issue as a whole.   10:35 - Signed, sealed and soaring: America's national debt crisis The big budget bill is behind us — but the national debt is still climbing. When will Congress finally get serious about reducing the debt? and Americans care anymore? Greg and Holly dig into the numbers, the politics, and what’s really at stake with Deseret News Opinion Editor Jay Evensen.   10:50 - U.S. and U.K to build food centers in Gaza to address rising starvation Pictures of starving children are focusing the world on what's happening in Gaza right now. Israel says they will pause fighting to allow aid to enter - but is it too little too late? Greg and Holly discuss the issue and the announcement that the U.S. and U.K. will be building food centers in Gaza.   11:20 - Americans Disabilities Act turns 35: What it means for families today It might feel like the US has always had a policy supportive of people with disabilities, but in fact, the Americans with Disabilities Act just turned 35. That's after Holly became a mom to a child with disabilities. Holly shares what the ADA has meant to her family.   11:35 - Caregiving crisis: Over 63 million Americans now care for family member with complex medical needs Over 63 million Americans now care for a family member with complex medical needs. And,  it's getting harder, according to a new report from AARP. Greg and Holly discuss the report and what looming Medicaid cuts could mean for caregivers.   11:50 - Cottage cheese craze: How TikTok broke the dairy aisle Cottage cheese recipes have become so viral on TikTok… producers of the product are struggling to keep up!  Greg and Holly speak with KSL NewsRadio Producer Caitlyn Johnston about what she has seen on the curd craze and some of the popular recipes circulating online.. Holly shares her fun facts of the day.

An update on the victims of the stabbing rampage at a northern Michigan Walmart. Munson Healthcare says they have one patient remaining in serious condition today -- while five more are in fair condition, and two are in good condition. One person has been treated and released. Two others were transferred to another facility. WWJ's Tony Ortiz and Tracey McCaskill have the afternoon's top news stories. (Photo credit: 86th District Court)

In this civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 31, 2010, the plaintiff—identified by the initials C.L.—accuses Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse and related misconduct. C.L., a resident of Palm Beach County at the time of the alleged incidents, brings this complaint based on events that occurred when she was underage and in vulnerable circumstances. The complaint outlines Epstein's pattern of grooming and exploiting young girls in the Palm Beach area, suggesting that C.L. was one of his many victims targeted during a period when Epstein operated a network designed to recruit and abuse minors under the guise of offering financial help or mentorship.The suit claims Epstein engaged in a deliberate and manipulative scheme to solicit C.L. for sexually exploitative acts and that these acts resulted in significant emotional and psychological trauma. The complaint seeks damages for the abuse endured and accuses Epstein of violating both civil and statutory obligations designed to protect minors. Although this is just the first page, the document is consistent with the broader pattern of civil actions filed against Epstein in the wake of his non-prosecution agreement and subsequent revelations about his long-running sex trafficking operation.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 31, 2010, the plaintiff—identified by the initials C.L.—accuses Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse and related misconduct. C.L., a resident of Palm Beach County at the time of the alleged incidents, brings this complaint based on events that occurred when she was underage and in vulnerable circumstances. The complaint outlines Epstein's pattern of grooming and exploiting young girls in the Palm Beach area, suggesting that C.L. was one of his many victims targeted during a period when Epstein operated a network designed to recruit and abuse minors under the guise of offering financial help or mentorship.The suit claims Epstein engaged in a deliberate and manipulative scheme to solicit C.L. for sexually exploitative acts and that these acts resulted in significant emotional and psychological trauma. The complaint seeks damages for the abuse endured and accuses Epstein of violating both civil and statutory obligations designed to protect minors. Although this is just the first page, the document is consistent with the broader pattern of civil actions filed against Epstein in the wake of his non-prosecution agreement and subsequent revelations about his long-running sex trafficking operation.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a lawsuit pitting former Creighton Prep football player Jack Hasz against the NCAA, the U.S. District Court in Omaha ruled against Hasz's motion for preliminary injunction. Senior District Judge Joseph Battaillon submitted the ruling Thursday.

The outcome of FTC v. Meta could reshape the social media landscape as well as U.S. merger policy. For the first time, the government is seeking to unwind two acquisitions more than a decade old, Facebook's purchase of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. In its complaint, the Federal Trade Commission alleges that Facebook sought to eliminate threats to its social networking monopoly and ultimately harmed consumers through increased user ad loads and decreased quality and user privacy. Meta argues that the social media market is flush with competitors, including X, Snapchat, and TikTok, and that its investments helped both Instagram and WhatsApp expand rapidly. The trial concluded on May 27, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and a decision is expected anytime. Join this FedSoc Forum as we discuss the case and its potential impact.Featuring:Slade Bond, Chair, Public Policy and Legislative Affairs Practice, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLPJennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato InstituteProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce--To register, click the link above.

Clark County is seeking applicants to fill two upcoming District Court vacancies. Judges Sonya Langsdorf and Kelli E. Osler are set to retire later this year. Applications are due by Aug. 8. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/county-seeks-applicants-to-fill-two-open-district-court-seats/ #ClarkCounty #DistrictCourt #JudicialVacancy #LegalAppointments #JudgeRetirement #CountyCouncil #WashingtonLaw

Jack Hasz wants one more year. The former Creighton Prep offensive lineman is suing the NCAA, in hopes of playing one more season of college football.

Dodo Sheahan, chair of Killorglin Vintners, spoke to Jerry about their legal victory. Publicans were successful in their challenge to a decision in the District Court earlier this month which refused to allow pubs stay open until 3am during Puck Fair. Puck Fair takes place from August 10th to 12th.

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.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632109.1.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

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.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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