Podcasts about Docket

Legal Team, this week Cesie's flying solo while Angela's in trial, and we're diving deep into the highly requested divorce drama between Drew Sidora and Ralph Pittman from Real Housewives of Atlanta. We break down the sealed (then unsealed, then sealed again?!) court records, go through their petitions which include Drew's claims of infidelity, and Ralph's motion for sanctions against Drew for allegedly violating Court orders. Plus, why Ralph's plea for privacy has us side-eyeing him and why Cesie thinks he might just slide into the Bravo Docket DMs after this one drops.   What's on the docket?  A look at Drew and Ralph's relationship timeline and how their split unfolded publicly.  Breakdown of what each party filed in their divorce petitions and how their claims differ.  Drew accuses Ralph of infidelity and says his mistresses sent her explicit messages.  The mutual restraining order from 2021 raises questions about the timing of their filings.  Ralph claims Drew violated the order and responds with a motion for sanctions.  Ralph's claims that Drew is keeping money from him.   Access additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠            The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.            Thank you to our incredible sponsors!     Graza - Head to Graza.co and use DOCKET to get 10% off of TRIO which includes Sizzle, Frizzle and Drizzle, and get to cookin' your next chef-quality meal!    Quince: Visit ⁠⁠Quince.com/docket⁠⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.        Rula: Head on over to ⁠⁠Rula.com/bravodocket⁠⁠ to get started today. After you sign up they ask you where you heard about them. PLEASE support our show and tell them our show sent you.  L-Nutra Prolon: Visit ⁠⁠ProlonLife.com/DOCKET⁠⁠ to claim your 15% discount and your $40 bonus gift.        CashApp: Download Cash App Today: ⁠⁠https://capl.onelink.me/vFut/rtvdo27r⁠⁠ #CashAppPod *Referral Reward Disclaimer: As a Cash App partner, I may earn a commission when you sign up for a Cash App account.     Wayfair: Shop the best selection of home improvement online. Get renovating with Wayfair. Head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Wayfair.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ right now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bob and Ali are once again joined by Mark Bederow to discuss the Karen Read trial. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the final installment of our (Hurricane) Leah McSweeney legal breakdown, we unpack what the judge ultimately decided in her case. We walk through which claims were dismissed—including those related to gender and religion discrimination and hostile work environment—and which are moving forward. We also dig into the court's analysis of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and that infamous letter from Andy Cohen. Plus, how the First Amendment continues to serve as a powerful shield for reality TV—especially in this case.      What's on the docket?   A deep dive into how the court responded to each of Leah's claims   How First Amendment protections shield Bravo's casting decisions   Which claims were tossed—and which ones are moving forward   Why the judge says Andy Cohen's infamous letter doesn't qualify as retaliation   Why Leah's RICO claim didn't hold up   Where the case stands now—and Leah's latest move to amend her complaint    Access additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠⁠⁠⁠          The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.          Thank you to our incredible sponsors!   Ollie: Take the online quiz and introduce Ollie to your pet. Visit https://ollie.com/DOCKET today for 60% off your first box of meals!     Quince: Visit ⁠Quince.com/docket⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.      Rula: Head on over to ⁠Rula.com/bravodocket⁠ to get started today. After you sign up they ask you where you heard about them. PLEASE support our show and tell them our show sent you.      L-Nutra Prolon: Visit ⁠ProlonLife.com/DOCKET⁠ to claim your 15% discount and your $40 bonus gift.      CashApp: Download Cash App Today using code BRAVODOCKET #CashAppPod      Wayfair: Shop the best selection of home improvement online. Get renovating with Wayfair. Head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠Wayfair.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ right now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Isaiah, Chef and Dan as they dive into the latest Philadelphia Flyers developments and the NHL's Stanley Cup Conference Finals. This episode breaks down Rick Tocchet's introductory press conference as the Flyers' new head coach, Brad Shaw's exit, Matvei Michkov's recent comments and off-ice incident, Lehigh Valley Phantoms' signings, potential Flyers trade and free-agent targets, and more. Plus, the hosts analyze the ongoing Conference Finals matchups as the Stanley Cup chase heats up.   Follow the show on social media X and Bluesky: @oandbpuck GETTR: @oandbpuckcast YouTube: https://youtube.com/@obpuckcast4794?si=hNETQYvbte8vPvG8   Subscribe to our show on Apple, Spotify, iHeart, Tune In, Deezer, Amazon Audible+ (5 star ratings on Apple are always appreciated

The Drive HR3 5.19.25: "The Docket" by Fanrun Radio

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary's supervision.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution's supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent "bad faith or gross misjudgment" standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim involving "retired pay" under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents' religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents' religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings depending on a prisoner's success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act's any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state's charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment's religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress's conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC's delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency's denial actions are "nationally applicable" or, alternatively, are "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect."  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature"s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED: On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. This order reflects the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Welcome back, Legal Team! In part three of our Leah McSweeney coverage, we're unpacking the motion to dismiss hearing and how NBC, Bravo, and Andy Cohen are relying on First Amendment protections to defend against Leah's claims. We break down the key arguments from both sides, including how a landmark lawsuit against The Bachelor is being used to set precedent for reality TV casting and production decisions. Plenty of legal drama this week — and even more ahead!      What's on the docket?   Defendants (NBC/Bravo/Andy Cohen) present their arguments on their motion to dismiss  Transcript highlights from the hearing held on November 14, 2024   Arguments in defense of Andy Cohen regarding drug use and sexist discrimination allegations   Leah's attorney responds to the motion   Detailed overview of The Bachelor lawsuit and how it's being used as precedent to defend creative and casting decisions in Leah's case  Access additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠⁠⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠⁠⁠        The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.        Thank you to our incredible sponsors!  iRestore: Our listeners are getting a HUGE discount on the iRestore Elite when you use code BRAVODOCKET at iRestore.com    Oneskin: You can try OneSkin with 15% off using code BRAVODOCKET at oneskin.co.    Quince: Visit Quince.com/docket for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.    Rula: Head on over to Rula.com/bravodocket to get started today. After you sign up they ask you where you heard about them. PLEASE support our show and tell them our show sent you.    L-Nutra Prolon: Visit ProlonLife.com/DOCKET to claim your 15% discount and your $40 bonus gift.    CashApp: Download Cash App Today using code BRAVODOCKET #CashAppPod   Wayfair: Shop the best selection of home improvement online. Get renovating with Wayfair. Head to ⁠⁠⁠Wayfair.com⁠⁠⁠ right now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's part two of Hurricane Leah! This week, we're continuing our breakdown of Leah McSweeney's lawsuit against Bravo, NBCUniversal, and Andy Cohen—this time focusing on her alcohol-related claims and requests for accommodations. From her allegations about being pushed to relapse on Ultimate Girls Trip to Bravo's alleged pattern of firing rather than accommodating cast members, we're unpacking the rest of her complaint. Next, we'll see what the judge has to say about Leah's claims.  What's on the docket?   Leah's alcohol use disorder and related claims against Bravo and production  Allegations that Bravo encouraged relapse during Ultimate Girls Trip  Leah's requests for reasonable accommodations — and what the law says about them  Claims that Bravo has a pattern of firing cast members rather than offering accommodations  Examples of other Bravo stars who maintained employment after getting sober    Access additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠⁠        The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.        Thank you to our incredible sponsors!  Wild Grain: Wildgrain is offering our listeners $30 off the first box - PLUS free Croissants in every box - when you go to Wildgrain.com/BRAVODOCKET to start your subscription.    Quince: Visit Quince.com/docket for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.    Wayfair: Shop the best selection of home improvement online. Get renovating with Wayfair. Head to ⁠⁠Wayfair.com⁠⁠ right now.      Rula: Head on over to Rula.com/ bravodocket to get started today. After you sign up they ask you where you heard about them. PLEASE support our show and tell them our show sent you.    L-Nutra Prolon: Visit ProlonLife.com/DOCKET to claim your 15% discount and your $40 bonus gift.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With the upcoming National Motor Freight Classification (NMFC) system changes — Docket 2025-1 — poised to boost carrier efficiency and potentially lower shipping costs, this discussion examines past classification challenges and outlines the future benefits, along with crucial preparation resources for shippers.   Host Samantha Jones of SJ Consulting is joined by Seth Bauer, Director of Traffic Services at Old Dominion Freight Line, and Keith Peterson, Director of Operations for the National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA).   Key Takeaways: ·       Why did the NMFTA change to density-based pricing? [5:54] ·       How will updates to the National Motor Freight Classification system impact shippers? [8:48] ·       Benefits and challenges of the NMFC Docket 2025-1 changes. [17:11] ·       Resources and tools that help shippers prepare for the upcoming changes to the NMFC system. [20:31]    Shareables: ·       “Freight today, a lot of it is on pallets so it makes sense to look at it from a density-base. You need the dimensions and the weight. It just keeps it nice and simple and uniform across the board.” — Keith Peterson, Director of Operations, NMFTA ·       “From a classification standpoint, simplification is going to be great. And it's going to create a better experience for the customer.” — Seth Bauer, Director of Traffic Services, ODFL ·       “We want a pallet that is composed well. It's never been incumbent on the shipper in the past to make sure they are stacking their pallets so they are filling all the spaces.” — Seth Bauer, Director of Traffic Services, ODFL ·       “I don't know any carrier that doesn't appreciate getting the dimensions so they know what to plan for as far as picking up.” — Keith Peterson, Director of Operations, NMFTA ·       “From a carrier perspective, the best resource we have is the Solutions Specialist.” — Seth Bauer, Director of Traffic Services, ODFL   Resources ·       Connect with Samantha Jones ·       OD's NMFTA Resource Page ·       OD Outlook ·       ODFL.com ·       NMFCChanges.com ·       Cargo Shorts podcast ·       Shippers can direct freight-related questions to marketing@ODFL.com.

Hurricane Leah is coming to town! This week, we're diving  into Leah McSweeney's lawsuit against Bravo, Andy Cohen, and NBCUniversal — and we've got a lot of ground to cover, so this will be several parts. Today, we're breaking down Leah's claims, what it means to claim disability discrimination under the law, the retaliation and harassment allegations, Andy's role and of course, the Hurricane Leah of it all.    What's on the docket?   Breakdown of Leah's causes of action  What qualifies as a disability under the law  Harassment claims based on disability, religion, sex, and gender  Specific allegations against Andy Cohen  Key differences between New York State and New York City laws  What is RICO criminal law? A brief history and explanation  Alcohol culture on RHONY and its role in the lawsuit  & so much more! Stay tuned for part 2.  Access additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠      The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.      Thank you to our incredible sponsors!  Rula: Rula patients typically pay $15 per session when using insurance. Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at ⁠https://www.rula.com/bravodocket⁠ #rulapod     Quince: Go to Quince.com/docket for 365-day returns, plus free shipping on your order.    Lume: Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code BRAVODOCKET at ⁠LumeDeodorant.com⁠! #lumepod    L-Nutra: Prolon is offering The Bravo Docket listeners 15% off sitewide plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe to their 5-Day Program! Just visit ⁠ProlonLife.com/DOCKET⁠  Laundry Sauce: Make laundry day the best day of the week! Get 20% off your entire order @LaundrySauce with code DOCKET at https://laundrysauce.com/⁠DOCKET  #laundrysaucepod  Wayfair: Shop the best selection of home improvement online. Get renovating with Wayfair. Head to ⁠Wayfair.com⁠ right now.    Air Doctor: Head to AirDoctorPro.com and use promo code DOCKET to get UP TO $300 off today!   Graza: Head to Graza.co and use DOCKET to get 10% off of TRIO which includes Sizzle, Frizzle and Drizzle. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

OK Charter School Board v. Drummond | 04/30/25 | Docket #: 24-394

Martin v. United States | 04/29/25 | Docket #: 24-362

Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis | 04/29/25 | Docket #: 24-304

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent spoke at the podium as Kevin Hincks reported from the Cboe Global Markets. Bessent urged Americans to watch the hard data coming down the line, as Kevin points out strength in the latest prints. One weak spot came from General Motors (GM), which posted an earnings beat, though a postponed conference call and the company not accounting tariffs worried investors. Kevin says the next big development Americans will watch is the tax bill in Washington.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools | 04/28/25 | Docket #: 24-249

Soto v. United States | 04/28/25 | Docket #: 24-320

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Welcome back, Legal Team! With Real Housewives of Beverly Hills wrapping up for the year, we're closing out our legal deep dive with part two of all things Erika Jayne. This week, we unpack the Marco Marco lawsuit filed in Florida by designer Marco Morante—plus how it connects to the earlier California case filed by Christopher Psaila. We break down the overlapping claims, Erika's motion to dismiss, and the role of her attorney (and rumored landlord) James Wilkes—who's dealing with some legal trouble of his own.  What's on the docket?  Key differences and overlaps with the original California filing by Christopher Psaila  Who Marco Marco is and their history with Erika  Claims filed by Marco Morante in the Florida case  Erika's motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction  Who is James Wilkes? A look at Erika's attorney—and his connection to her  Wilkes' own legal issues, including an aggravated assault charge  Mr. Wilkes' delays in scheduling the motion to dismiss hearing  Details of the case management conference (March 2025)  The motion for relief from judgment filed by Wilkes  Access additional content and our Patreon here: https://zez.am/thebravodocket         The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.      Thank you to our incredible sponsors!  Rula: Rula patients typically pay $15 per session when using insurance. Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at https://www.rula.com/bravodocket #rulapod     Quince: Go to Quince.com/docket for 365-day returns, plus free shipping on your order.    Lume: Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code BRAVODOCKET at LumeDeodorant.com! #lumepod    L-Nutra: Prolon is offering The Bravo Docket listeners 15% off sitewide  plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe to their 5-Day Program! Just visit ProlonLife.com/DOCKET    Laundry Sauce: Make laundry day the best day of the week! Get 20% off your entire order @LaundrySauce with code DOCKET at https://laundrysauce.com/DOCKET  #laundrysaucepod    Wayfair: Shop the best selection of home improvement online. Get renovating with Wayfair. Head to Wayfair.com right now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Bob and Ali are joined by The Lawyer You Know to discuss the Karen Read case. They also discuss the Vallow-Daybell trial. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

While The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills wraps up for the season, Legal Team—we're just getting started. We're back with major Erika Jayne legal updates, diving into the trustee's case tied to the Girardi Keese bankruptcy. From the millions allegedly funneled to Erika and EJ Global to what the trustee is seeking and where the case stands now—we're breaking it all down. Stay tuned for part 2, where we'll get into the Florida case filed by Marco Marco.    What's on the docket?  Erika's behavior on RHOBH while navigating legal trouble  Breakdown of the trustee's case against Erika and the Girardi Keese bankruptcy  Millions allegedly funneled to Erika instead of the firm  How this flew under the radar — An explanation on how law firm finances usually work  The trustee's claims and what they're seeking  Judge-issued sanctions over a late status report  Hearing transcript highlights: Erika's attorney vs. trustee's attorney  The trustee's position going into trial  Erika's position going into trial      Access additional content and our Patreon here: https://zez.am/thebravodocket         The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.         Thank you to our incredible sponsors!  Rula: Rula patients typically pay $15 per session when using insurance. Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at https://www.rula.com/bravodocket #rulapod    Skims: The Fits Everybody collection is available in sizes XXS to 4X. You can shop now at SKIMS.com and SKIMS stores. After you place your order, be sure to let them know we sent you! Select "podcast" in the survey and be sure to select our show in the dropdown menu that follows.    Aquatru: Our listeners receive 20% OFF any AquaTru purifier! Go to AquaTru.com and enter code “DOCKET” “ at checkout.    Quince: Go to Quince.com/docket for 365-day returns, plus free shipping on your order.    Lume: Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code BRAVODOCKET at LumeDeodorant.com! #lumepod    L-Nutra: Prolon is offering The Bravo Docket listeners 15% off sitewide  plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe to their 5-Day Program! Just visit ProlonLife.com/DOCKET    Laundry Sauce: Make laundry day the best day of the week! Get 20% off your entire order @LaundrySauce with code DOCKET at https://laundrysauce.com/DOCKET  #laundrysaucepod    Wayfair: Shop the best selection of home improvement online. Get renovating with Wayfair. Head to Wayfair.com right now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Audio from youtube live 3.25.25 Bob and Ali continue their coverage of the Karen Read case Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices