Podcasts about Exclude

Send us a textEver wonder why some photographers spot amazing shots everywhere while you're standing in the same place seeing nothing?

DEAR PAO: Illegitimate children exclude uncles and aunts from inheriting | Nov. 20, 2025Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein#TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

[Mortgage Professional of America] Trade group seeks to exclude mortgage programs from future government shutdowns.  [Housing Wire] The HEI battle continues in Massachusetts vs. HomeTap. [Business Insider] A new retirement trend: Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities. Watch our video podcast here!

FIS Votes to Exclude Russian, Belarusian Athletes from Milano Cortina Qualifiers

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs' legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government's witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes's testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs' attorneys argue that Hughes's proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes's testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs' legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government's witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes's testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs' attorneys argue that Hughes's proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes's testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs' legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government's witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes's testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs' attorneys argue that Hughes's proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes's testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs' legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government's witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes's testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs' attorneys argue that Hughes's proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes's testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

VLOG Oct 1 Diddy denied new trial, Mia at Oct 3 sentencing https://www.patreon.com/posts/diddy-dockets-on-140141420 Roman Storm/Tornado Cash motion, US ignores Court order on unsealing https://www.patreon.com/posts/crypto-tornado-1-140155450 FDIC move to cut out public not slowed by shutdown. UN scoops: closing Palais Wilson?

Acknowledging Palestinian sovereignty is increasingly seen as a necessary—but not sufficient—step toward a just resolution of the conflict, particularly among those who also call for an end to what they view as Israeli impunity. Human rights attorney and activist Stanley Cohen argues that countries recognizing Palestinian statehood should also be barred from aiding or abetting Israel in actions against Palestinian civilians.

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense has submitted a response opposing the State's motion in limine, which seeks to exclude neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence from the trial. The defense intends to present expert testimony indicating that Mr. Kohberger exhibits behaviors consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). They argue that these conditions explain certain behaviors, such as a flat affect, intense gaze, and repetitive speech patterns, which might otherwise be misinterpreted by the jury as indicative of guilt or lack of remorse. Additionally, the defense contends that these behaviors are neurological in nature, supported by neuroimaging evidence, and are crucial for the jury to understand Mr. Kohberger's demeanor and actions accurately.The State, represented by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, has moved to prohibit the introduction of this evidence, arguing that it is inadmissible under Idaho rules. The prosecution asserts that the defense has not provided sufficient specific details about Mr. Kohberger's alleged conditions and that such evidence could unfairly prejudice the jury. They also contend that the defense failed to meet disclosure deadlines set by the court. The judge's decision on whether to allow the neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence will significantly impact the strategies employed by both parties in the upcoming trial, scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ty ABecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense has submitted a response opposing the State's motion in limine, which seeks to exclude neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence from the trial. The defense intends to present expert testimony indicating that Mr. Kohberger exhibits behaviors consistent with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). They argue that these conditions explain certain behaviors, such as a flat affect, intense gaze, and repetitive speech patterns, which might otherwise be misinterpreted by the jury as indicative of guilt or lack of remorse. Additionally, the defense contends that these behaviors are neurological in nature, supported by neuroimaging evidence, and are crucial for the jury to understand Mr. Kohberger's demeanor and actions accurately.The State, represented by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, has moved to prohibit the introduction of this evidence, arguing that it is inadmissible under Idaho rules. The prosecution asserts that the defense has not provided sufficient specific details about Mr. Kohberger's alleged conditions and that such evidence could unfairly prejudice the jury. They also contend that the defense failed to meet disclosure deadlines set by the court. The judge's decision on whether to allow the neuropsychological and psychiatric evidence will significantly impact the strategies employed by both parties in the upcoming trial, scheduled to begin on August 11, 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ty ABecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The lawsuits stem from parallel cases in the Southern District of New York: one brought by Jane Doe on behalf of Epstein's victims and another by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, both targeting JPMorgan Chase for its alleged role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. JPMorgan, in turn, filed third-party claims against former executive James Edward Staley, arguing that he should bear responsibility for any liability tied to Epstein, given his close personal and professional ties to the financier. These cases became highly significant in exposing the financial networks that allegedly allowed Epstein's crimes to flourish.In response, Staley filed a motion to exclude JPMorgan Chase's proffered expert opinions, challenging the credibility and admissibility of the bank's expert witnesses. His brief sought to limit the evidence that could be used against him, aiming to weaken JPMorgan's case for shifting liability onto him. This move reflects Staley's broader defense strategy of resisting being scapegoated as the primary enabler within JPMorgan, while the bank itself faced mounting scrutiny for its role in maintaining Epstein as a client despite numerous red flags.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The lawsuits stem from parallel cases in the Southern District of New York: one brought by Jane Doe on behalf of Epstein's victims and another by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, both targeting JPMorgan Chase for its alleged role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. JPMorgan, in turn, filed third-party claims against former executive James Edward Staley, arguing that he should bear responsibility for any liability tied to Epstein, given his close personal and professional ties to the financier. These cases became highly significant in exposing the financial networks that allegedly allowed Epstein's crimes to flourish.In response, Staley filed a motion to exclude JPMorgan Chase's proffered expert opinions, challenging the credibility and admissibility of the bank's expert witnesses. His brief sought to limit the evidence that could be used against him, aiming to weaken JPMorgan's case for shifting liability onto him. This move reflects Staley's broader defense strategy of resisting being scapegoated as the primary enabler within JPMorgan, while the bank itself faced mounting scrutiny for its role in maintaining Epstein as a client despite numerous red flags.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The lawsuits stem from parallel cases in the Southern District of New York: one brought by Jane Doe on behalf of Epstein's victims and another by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, both targeting JPMorgan Chase for its alleged role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. JPMorgan, in turn, filed third-party claims against former executive James Edward Staley, arguing that he should bear responsibility for any liability tied to Epstein, given his close personal and professional ties to the financier. These cases became highly significant in exposing the financial networks that allegedly allowed Epstein's crimes to flourish.In response, Staley filed a motion to exclude JPMorgan Chase's proffered expert opinions, challenging the credibility and admissibility of the bank's expert witnesses. His brief sought to limit the evidence that could be used against him, aiming to weaken JPMorgan's case for shifting liability onto him. This move reflects Staley's broader defense strategy of resisting being scapegoated as the primary enabler within JPMorgan, while the bank itself faced mounting scrutiny for its role in maintaining Epstein as a client despite numerous red flags.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. undertakes the census every 10 years. Hundreds of thousands of Census workers set out to count everyone living in the U.S., regardless of their citizenship status.That data is used to reallocate seats in the House of Representatives, redraw voting districts on the local level, and decide how federal funds should be allocated in each state. The next one is 5 years away, and President Donald Trump wants to make big changes to the 2030 count – by excluding noncitizens. Why does it matter who's counted in the Census? How would making changes to it influence the life of every person living in the U.S.? Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Just in time for the start of the semester, Marty and Eric talk about ways you can organize and manage your document backupsThe Simple Backup Plan (3-2-1)Rule: 3 copies, 2 types of storage, 1 off-site.Step-by-step (7 steps)Make a home base: Create folders: Teaching, Research, Service, Admin.Turn on encryption: FileVault (Mac) / BitLocker (Win).Cloud copy (off-site): Save active work inside OneDrive/Google Drive/Box (edu account). Make sure version history is on.Local versioned copy:Mac → Time Machine to an external drive/NAS.Windows → File History/Windows Backup to an external drive/NAS.Air-gapped copy (optional but great): A second encrypted SSD you plug in weekly, back up, then unplug and keep elsewhere (office/home).Label & note: Keep a one-page “Backup Map” listing where copies live and how to restore.Test restore: Once a quarter, restore one random file from each place.Weekly rhythm (easy to remember)Daily: Work from your cloud-synced folder.Weekly (Fri): Plug drive, let Time Machine/File History run; if you have a second SSD, run it, unplug, store off-site.Quarterly: Do a 5-minute test restore.Tips that prevent headachesCompliance first: Use IT/IRB-approved storage for FERPA/PHI/IRB data.Ransomware safety: Keep one offline copy or use cloud “file lock/immutable” if available.Email ≠ backup: Export gradebooks/key emails (PDF/CSV) into your term folders.Name things clearly: 2025-FA COUN62356 Syllabus v03.docx.Exclude junk: Downloads, caches, node_modules, giant temp files.Notifications on: Set backup apps to alert on failures.One-line defaults (pick these if unsure)Cloud: OneDrive (edu)Local backup: Time Machine (Mac) / File History (Win)Extra SSD: 2TB USB-C, encryptediDriveIdrive.comBackblazeBackblaze.com CarboniteCarbonite.compCloudpCloud.comSyncSync.com CrashplanCrashplan.comGoogleOneone.google.com OneDrivehttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/onedrive/online-cloud-storageEmail: ThePodTalkNetwork@gmail.comWebsite: ThePodTalk.Net

Topics covered in this episode: Coverage.py regex pragmas * Python of Yore* * nox-uv* * A couple Django items* Extras Joke Watch on YouTube About the show Sponsored by DigitalOcean: pythonbytes.fm/digitalocean-gen-ai Use code DO4BYTES and get $200 in free credit Connect with the hosts Michael: @mkennedy@fosstodon.org / @mkennedy.codes (bsky) Brian: @brianokken@fosstodon.org / @brianokken.bsky.social Show: @pythonbytes@fosstodon.org / @pythonbytes.fm (bsky) Join us on YouTube at pythonbytes.fm/live to be part of the audience. Usually Monday at 10am PT. Older video versions available there too. Finally, if you want an artisanal, hand-crafted digest of every week of the show notes in email form? Add your name and email to our friends of the show list, we'll never share it. Brian #1: Coverage.py regex pragmas Ned Batchelder The regex implementation of how coverage.py recognizes pragmas is pretty amazing. It's extensible through plugins covdefaults adds a bunch of default exclusions, and also platform- and version-specific comment syntaxes. coverage-conditional-plugin gives you a way to create comment syntaxes for entire files, for whether other packages are installed, and so on. A change from last year (as part of coverage.py 7.6 allows multiline regexes, which let's us do things like: Exclude an entire file with A(?s:.*# pragma: exclude file.*)Z Allow start and stop delimiters with # no cover: start(?s:.*?)# no cover: stop Exclude empty placeholder methods with ^s*(((async )?def .*?)?)(s*->.*?)?:s*)?...s*(#|$) See Ned's article for explanations of these Michael #2: Python of Yore via Matthias Use YORE: ... comments to highlight CPython version dependencies. # YORE: EOL 3.8: Replace block with line 4. if sys.version_info < (3, 9): from astunparse import unparse else: from ast import unparse Then check when they go out of support: $ yore check --eol-within '5 months' ./src/griffe/agents/nodes/_values.py:11: Python 3.8 will reach its End of Life within approx. 4 months Even fix them with fix . Michael #3: nox-uv via John Hagen What nox-uv does is make it very simple to install uv extras and/or dependency groups into a nox session's virtual environment. The versions installed are constrained by uv's lockfile meaning that everything is deterministic and pinned. Dependency groups make it very easy to install only want is necessary for a session (e.g., only linting dependencies like Ruff, or main dependencies + mypy for type checking). Brian #4: A couple Django items Stop Using Django's squashmigrations: There's a Better Way Johnny Metz Resetting migrations is sometimes the right thing. Overly simplified summary: delete migrations and start over dj-lite Adam Hill Use SQLite in production with Django “Simplify deploying and maintaining production Django websites by using SQLite in production. dj-lite helps enable the best performance for SQLite for small to medium-sized projects. It requires Django 5.1+.” Extras Brian: Test & Code 237: FastAPI Cloud with Sebastian Ramirez will be out later today pythontest.com: pytest fixtures nuts and bolts - revisited A blog series that I wrote a long time ago. I've updated it into more managable bite-sized pieces, updated and tested with Python 3.13 and pytest 8 Michael: New course: Just Enough Python for Data Scientists My live stream about uv is now on YouTube Cursor CLI: Built to help you ship, right from your terminal. Joke: Copy/Paste

President Donald Trump wants immigrants in the U.S. illegally kept out of the U.S. Census. AP correspondent Donna Warder reports.

Watch LARRY with Larry O'Connor LIVE — Monday-Friday at 12PM Eastern on YouTube, Facebook, & Rumble! Listen to LARRY with Larry O'Connor wherever you get your podcasts! SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7i8F7K4fqIDmqZSIHJNhMh?si=814ce2f8478944c0&nd=1&dlsi=e799ca22e81b456f APPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/larry/id1730596733 On this full episode of LARRY, we discuss the BREAKING NEWS that President Trump wants to issue a NEW mid-decade census the EXCLUDE illegal immigrants — throwing their election hopes into COMPLETE DESPAIR, James Carville says the quiet part out loud about illegal Democrat lawfare, Mahmoud Khalil brings a WHOLE NEW HEADACHE to the Democrat Party and MUCH, much more! SHOP OUR MERCH: https://store.townhallmedia.com/ BUY A LARRY MUG: https://store.townhallmedia.com/products/larry-mug Become a Townhall VIP Member today and use promo code LARRY for 50% off: https://townhall.com/subscribe?tpcc=poddescription https://townhall.com/ https://rumble.com/c/c-5769468 https://www.facebook.com/townhallcom/ https://www.instagram.com/townhallmedia/ https://twitter.com/townhallcomBecome a Townhall VIP member with promo code "LARRY": https://townhall.com/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

​In Case Number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan C. Kohberger has filed a reply to the State's objection concerning his Motion in Limine #6, which seeks to exclude specific opinions of forensic analyst Rylene Nowlin and the use of the terms "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. Kohberger's defense argues that these terms are misleading and could confuse the jury by implying a certainty about the method of DNA transfer that is not scientifically substantiated. They emphasize that Nowlin's own disclosures acknowledge the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the current inability of DNA technology to conclusively determine how or when DNA was deposited on an item. Therefore, the defense contends that allowing such terminology and speculative testimony would prejudice the jury and should be excluded to ensure a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032425-Defendants-Reply-States-Objection-Defendants-MIL6-RE-Nowlin-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this episode of the Heart podcast, Digital Media Editor, Professor James Rudd, is joined by Dr Louis-Marie Desroche from Reunion Island. They discuss his study that concluded - "Relying solely on CMR could lead to missed diagnoses and undertreatment. CMR should be integrated with other diagnostic tools to optimise care in this population". If you enjoy the show, please leave us a positive review wherever you get your podcasts. It helps us to reach more people - thanks! Link to published paper: https://heart.bmj.com/content/early/2025/03/26/heartjnl-2024-325419  

LESSON 188The Peace Of God Is Shining In Me Now.Why wait for Heaven? Those who seek the light are merely covering their eyes. The light is in them now. Enlightenment is but a recognition, not a change at all. Light is not of the world, yet you who bear the light in you are alien here as well. The light came with you from your native home, and stayed with you because it is your own. It is the only thing you bring with you from Him Who is your Source. It shines in you because it lights your home, and leads you back to where it came from and you are at home.This light can not be lost. Why wait to find it in the future, or believe it has been lost already, or was never there? It can so easily be looked upon that arguments which prove it is not there become ridiculous. Who can deny the presence of what he beholds in him? It is not difficult to look within, for there all vision starts. There is no sight, be it of dreams or from a truer Source, that is not but the shadow of the seen through inward vision. There perception starts, and there it ends. It has no source but this.The peace of God is shining in you now, and from your heart extends around the world. It pauses to caress each living thing, and leaves a blessing with it that remains forever and forever. What it gives must be eternal. It removes all thoughts of the ephemeral and valueless. It brings renewal to all tired hearts, and lights all vision as it passes by. All of its gifts are given everyone, and everyone unites in giving thanks to you who give, and you who have received.The shining in your mind reminds the world of what it has forgotten, and the world restores the memory to you as well. From you salvation radiates with gifts beyond all measure, given and returned. To you, the giver of the gift, does God Himself give thanks. And in His blessing does the light in you shine brighter, adding to the gifts you have to offer to the world.The peace of God can never be contained. Who recognizes it within himself must give it. And the means for giving it are in his understanding. He forgives because he recognized the truth in him. The peace of God is shining in you now, and in all living things. In quietness is it acknowledged universally. For what your inward vision looks upon is your perception of the universe.Sit quietly and close your eyes. The light within you is sufficient. It alone has power to give the gift of sight to you. Exclude the outer world, and let your thoughts fly to the peace within. They know the way. For honest thoughts, untainted by the dream of worldly things outside yourself, become the holy messengers of God Himself.These thoughts you think with Him. They recognize their home. And they point surely to their Source, Where God the Father and the Son are one. God's peace is shining on them, but they must remain with you as well, for they were born within your mind, as yours was born in God's. They lead you back to peace, from where they came but to remind you how you must return.They heed your Father's Voice when you refuse to listen. And they urge you gently to accept His Word for what you are, instead of fantasies and shadows. They remind you that you are the co-creator of all things that live. For as the peace of God is shining in you, it must shine on them.We practice coming nearer to the light in us today. We take our wandering thoughts, and gently bring them back to where they fall in line with all the thoughts we share with God. We will not let them stray. We let the light within our minds direct them to come home. We have betrayed them, ordering that they depart from us. But now we call them back, and wash them clean of strange desires and disordered wishes. We restore to them the holiness of their inheritance.Thus are our minds restored with them, and we acknowledge that the peace of God still shines in us, and from us to all living things that share our life. We will forgive them all, absolving all the world from what we thought it did to us. For it is we who make the world as we would have it. Now we choose that it be innocent, devoid of sin and open to salvation. And we lay our saving blessing on it, as we say:The peace of God is shining in me now.Let all things shine upon me in that peace,And let me bless them with the light in me.- Jesus Christ in ACIM

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdf

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdf

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdf

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdf

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

​In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdf

​In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdf

Anton dives deep into the concept of building multi-store networks for high-ticket dropshipping. He shares his own journey from a single e-commerce shop to a multi-million-dollar network, and walks you through why niche-specific stores convert better, how to structure your business entity, and strategies to drive free and paid traffic across multiple sites.Key TakeawaysWhat Is a Multi-Store Network?Independent, niche-specific Shopify stores (e.g., bouncehousesplus.com, trampolinesplus.com, swingsetsplus.com)Cross-promotion flywheel: customer journeys between related nichesWhy Not One “Superstore”?Niche focus boosts conversion rate (CR) – e.g., 2.5% from targeted trafficSuperstores dilute authority, lower Return on Ad Spend (ROAS)Selecting Store NichesBrainstorm products that share a customer base (e.g., backyard play equipment)Exclude unrelated niches to preserve brand relevanceBusiness Structure & TaxesUse a single LLC (e.g., AK Stores LLC) with S-Corp tax electionSimplified accounting and exit strategy (sell the entire network)Cross-Promotion Traffic StrategiesOrder Confirmation EmailsMonthly Promotions & RemarketingScaling Your RevenueEarly strategy took Anton from ~$340K/year to ~$3.2M/yearEach store remains highly profitable on its own, but network multiplies ROINext Steps & ResourcesDrop any questions in the commentsFor in-depth niche research, store builds, and traffic modules, grab the free 2-hour webinar at dropshipwebinar.com

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3177: Jeremy Jacobson challenges the conventional wisdom of including home equity in retirement budgeting, emphasizing that doing so can create dangerous blind spots, especially during market downturns. By treating home equity separately and recognizing the benefits of imputed rent, retirees can protect their portfolios and maintain spending power without being forced into selling their homes or taking on unnecessary debt. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://www.gocurrycracker.com/mortgages-home-equity-and-retirement-spending/ Quotes to ponder: "Home equity is not included in our net worth for budgeting purposes. I plan to spend less than 4% of the remainder." "Exclude home equity from the portfolio." "Debt is leverage, which multiplies returns and losses." Episode references: Cfiresim: https://www.cfiresim.com/ Risk Parity Radio: https://www.riskparityradio.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The defense submitted a letter to Judge Subramanian in response to a government filing made early that morning regarding the anticipated testimony of Ms. Bongolan. The defense argues that the government is making a last-ditch effort to admit evidence that is both inadmissible and irrelevant hearsay. They assert that this attempt amounts to a "second bite at the apple," seeking to reintroduce material that should not be allowed under the rules of evidence.Additionally, the defense contends that the government's letter is not only legally baseless but also misleading in its presentation of both the facts and applicable law. They accuse the prosecution of mischaracterizing the situation in an effort to sway the court, and they urge Judge Subramanian to reject the government's latest arguments and prevent the introduction of the contested testimony.The defense submitted a second letter to Judge Subramanian responding to the government's objections regarding certain exhibits the defense plans to introduce during the cross-examination of government witness Bryana ("Bana") Bongolan. The defense also used the letter to object to two exhibits they understand the government intends to introduce through this same witness. They argue that their proposed exhibits and topics of cross-examination are relevant and permissible.Specifically, the defense seeks to introduce a series of photographs intended to counter the government's narrative that Sean Combs controlled or inhibited Cassie Ventura's professional career. According to the defense, these photographs serve as physical evidence showing that Ventura actively worked on her music and pursued various business activities independently of Combs, including projects she undertook while collaborating with Ms. Bongolan.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.400.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.386.0.pdf

The defense submitted a letter to Judge Subramanian in response to a government filing made early that morning regarding the anticipated testimony of Ms. Bongolan. The defense argues that the government is making a last-ditch effort to admit evidence that is both inadmissible and irrelevant hearsay. They assert that this attempt amounts to a "second bite at the apple," seeking to reintroduce material that should not be allowed under the rules of evidence.Additionally, the defense contends that the government's letter is not only legally baseless but also misleading in its presentation of both the facts and applicable law. They accuse the prosecution of mischaracterizing the situation in an effort to sway the court, and they urge Judge Subramanian to reject the government's latest arguments and prevent the introduction of the contested testimony.The defense submitted a second letter to Judge Subramanian responding to the government's objections regarding certain exhibits the defense plans to introduce during the cross-examination of government witness Bryana ("Bana") Bongolan. The defense also used the letter to object to two exhibits they understand the government intends to introduce through this same witness. They argue that their proposed exhibits and topics of cross-examination are relevant and permissible.Specifically, the defense seeks to introduce a series of photographs intended to counter the government's narrative that Sean Combs controlled or inhibited Cassie Ventura's professional career. According to the defense, these photographs serve as physical evidence showing that Ventura actively worked on her music and pursued various business activities independently of Combs, including projects she undertook while collaborating with Ms. Bongolan.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.400.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.386.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a letter to Judge Subramanian, the Government opposed the defense's motion to strike exhibits GX E-331-F-R and GX E-331-H-R, which had already been admitted into evidence on June 6, 2025. The Government argued that these exhibits were properly admitted and remain central to proving the sex trafficking allegations against Sean Combs. The letter also addressed the defense's arguments, raised in their June 8th filing and discussed in court, suggesting that the Government's overarching theory of sex trafficking should be limited or curtailed.The prosecution maintained that its theory of sex trafficking, as presented to the jury, is fully supported by both the law and the evidence admitted thus far. The letter emphasized that the exhibits in question are not only relevant but critical to establishing the elements of the trafficking offense, particularly in demonstrating the coercion, pattern of conduct, and exploitation alleged. The Government urged the Court to reject the defense's attempt to narrow the scope of the case or to exclude key evidence that speaks directly to the heart of the charges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.396.0.pdf

In this letter to Judge Subramanian, the defense opposes the government's plan to introduce certain testimony from Dawn Richard. The defense argues that the government intends to elicit inadmissible and irrelevant testimony regarding alleged statements and purported threats made by Sean Combs and Bad Boy Records President Harve Pierre. They contend that such statements, along with Ms. Richard's subjective understanding of them, fall outside the scope of permissible evidence and would unfairly prejudice the jury.The defense asserts that allowing this line of testimony would improperly introduce speculative and potentially inflammatory material that lacks proper evidentiary foundation. They request that the Court preclude the government from eliciting or offering this evidence through Ms. Richard, maintaining that it does not meet the standards for admissibility and risks distracting the jury from the core issues of the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.398.0.pdf

In a letter to Judge Subramanian, the Government opposed the defense's motion to strike exhibits GX E-331-F-R and GX E-331-H-R, which had already been admitted into evidence on June 6, 2025. The Government argued that these exhibits were properly admitted and remain central to proving the sex trafficking allegations against Sean Combs. The letter also addressed the defense's arguments, raised in their June 8th filing and discussed in court, suggesting that the Government's overarching theory of sex trafficking should be limited or curtailed.The prosecution maintained that its theory of sex trafficking, as presented to the jury, is fully supported by both the law and the evidence admitted thus far. The letter emphasized that the exhibits in question are not only relevant but critical to establishing the elements of the trafficking offense, particularly in demonstrating the coercion, pattern of conduct, and exploitation alleged. The Government urged the Court to reject the defense's attempt to narrow the scope of the case or to exclude key evidence that speaks directly to the heart of the charges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.396.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdf

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Conor McCourt, a former NYPD sergeant and forensic video analyst, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. McCourt analyzed surveillance footage of an alleged 2016 assault involving Combs and concluded that the videos were distorted and not faithful representations of the events. The government contends that McCourt's testimony should be barred due to the defense's untimely and incomplete disclosure, which failed to meet the requirements set by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the defense did not provide a comprehensive summary of McCourt's opinions, his qualifications, or a list of prior cases where he testified as an expert, all of which were due by March 14, 2025. The government argues that this delay hindered its ability to prepare a rebuttal and prejudiced its caseBeyond procedural issues, prosecutors assert that McCourt's anticipated testimony lacks substantial probative value and could mislead the jury. They argue that his technical critiques—such as claims about video distortion and transcoding artifacts—are speculative and unlikely to assist jurors in understanding the evidence. Furthermore, the government warns that presenting McCourt as an expert may unduly influence the jury, giving his opinions more weight than warranted. They also note that McCourt's analysis includes videos not intended for presentation at trial, rendering parts of his testimony irrelevant. Consequently, the government urges the court to exclude McCourt's testimony entirely or, at the very least, limit it under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 702 to prevent confusion and ensure a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.277.0.pdf

Welcome to episode 162 of Growers Daily! We cover: if woodchips can be contaminated (like compost can), pests that refuse to be kept out, and buying the right broadfork. We are a Non-Profit! 

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs' legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government's witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes's testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs' attorneys argue that Hughes's proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes's testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs' legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government's witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes's testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs' attorneys argue that Hughes's proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes's testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf

In this filing, the defense team for Sean “Diddy” Combs renews its motion to exclude certain summary charts the government intends to introduce as evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006. The defense argues that these charts are not neutral summaries of voluminous records—as Rule 1006 requires—but rather argumentative presentations designed to convey the government's interpretation of the evidence. They point to a prior concession by the government acknowledging that the charts are not intended to prove specific facts, but to help “present the government's theory,” which the defense contends renders them inherently prejudicial and inadmissible. The defense notes that while the court previously reserved judgment pending a review of the government's draft charts, the newly submitted versions confirm their earlier concerns.The defense further emphasizes that these charts violate the spirit and letter of Rule 1006, which was designed to allow juries to more easily digest large volumes of data—not to serve as vehicles for a party's argument. By framing the charts as interpretive rather than objective, the defense argues that the government is improperly using visual aids to bolster its narrative in a way that is likely to mislead the jury and unfairly prejudice Mr. Combs. They assert that this tactic runs counter to guidance from the Rules Advisory Committee, which warns against using summary evidence to argue a party's case rather than present underlying facts. On these grounds, the defense requests that the court preclude the government from introducing the proposed summary exhibits at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.357.0.pdf