Podcasts about Exclude

The Clare Immigrant Support Centre claims new legislation relating to social housing and residency status won't "exclude anyone who wasn't already excluded". The Housing Minister has introduced a bill which requires applicants for social housing to be lawfully and habitually resident in Ireland. Residency requirements have long existed in practice but will now be in effect on a statutory basis. Clare Immigrant Support Centre Direct Manager Simon O'Treasaigh says social housing is already unavailable to asylum seekers and those without valid visas .

Ken and Lima analyze whether Kevin Stefanski made a mistake by not consulting Deion Sanders about the development and playing time of Shedeur Sanders. The discussion also revisits the fallout from the Baker Mayfield era and how those past coaching decisions continue to impact the perception of the current staff. 01:00 - Social Media Reactions 02:10 - Deion Sanders Debate 03:45 - Caller On QB Issues 06:45 - Baker Mayfield Fallout

Campaigners protest the cut-off date in redress scheme for mother and baby homes.

School exclusions contribute to inequality among young people, says Kathryn Bates. Read the article on BOLD.Stay up to date with all the latest research on child development and learning at boldscience.org.Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn.Subscribe to BOLD's newsletter.

Do you know how Google determines the age, gender, and income of your paid traffic? Well that's an important question to ask! In today's podcast we discuss why you should not exclude traffic based on obscure demographics that have no real analytical weight in the performance of your account. Don't settle for the chicken nuggets of PPC, pull up a chair and enjoy the real meat being served. Let's talk about that!Try Opteo for free for 28 days - https://opteo.com/pspChris Schaeffer - http://www.chrisschaeffer.comSubmit a Question - https://www.paidsearchpodcast.com

13/16: Tal Fortgang discusses St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a case involving state subsidies for religious schools. Colorado is accused of using secular conditions to exclude religious institutions from preschool programs. The case questions whether states can constitutionally bar religious parents from generally available public benefits.1900 MEXICO

From understanding why family members should never run your business unless they're your wife or daughters to learning the brutal truth that when you're not around your brother or cousin will undermine you saying oh because I'm the brother do this meanwhile it's not something you recommend and workers will be afraid to challenge them because he's the uncle of the CEO pulling your company down which is exactly why the owner of Wadiqa in Japan said if you live in this part of the world and you want your business to thrive don't work with family, the catfish farmer who sat with Japanese business owners and studied how Toyota Honda Suzuki Panasonic and Sony built generational companies where the structure was so solid that when one guy started it his son became boss his grandson became boss and the family has interests but the company survives for generations proving that culturally the ethics there are very different and he never heard of somebody say I'll not let my uncle work here in Japan but looking at Ghana he had to make that decision, the Christian entrepreneur who looks at his company as the property of the God he serves and has to manage it well so you can't fool around there and see him sitting down watching you destroy it because if you're not a Christian you will not understand but that's his concept and he doesn't waste time firing people who fool around, the business owner who admits the issue is founders have so much passion when they start but the people they hire don't have that passion and you have to get people who buy into your passion to grow your business because if that passion just stays with you and doesn't percolate to the other guys around you then when you're not around they can't move the business forward but if you're able to sell your passion into them or infuse your passion into them even if you're not around they know this is how this business should be moving, the aquaculture entrepreneur whose business started in 2023 not making profits yet but seeing revenues growing growing because he has a lot of assets being depreciated and depreciation is heavy making the cashfish business complicated when some people come and tell oh I started with 500 I made this amount of money but if you look at the cost variables you're going to buy fingerlings and if you don't buy good fingerlings you might lose them so give yourself maybe 5% mortality rate, the fish farmer who breaks down that feed is about 70% of your total cost of production and you can't reduce the price of feed because the company making the feed wants to make money and you don't control them so how do you make money when your feed cost is 70% leaving you with maybe 30% to play around with and you have to pay your workers and transport the feed to your farm, the processor who decided to dry and package fish instead of selling it fresh because when you feed it to a certain point somebody comes to buy and tells you I'm not going to buy it at one KG for 40 cedis I'll give you 30 cedis and if you say no he goes away and comes back a week later saying 30 cedis or even lower and you are buying feed to feed this fish so out of desperation some farmers sell and cry at night, the marketer who explains that people go to Makola and Kaneshie market to buy dried fish because it's a staple in our diet so if you dry and package you become more competitive and don't rely on point and kill people coming to buy your fish fresh because if they don't come you're in trouble and if they buy at a lower price your price realization is not that high, the strategic thinker who says before the four Ps of marketing you need to do research about what is the demand for your product where you are because if you're located in Kwintanpo and you want to sell in Accra you're in big trouble and consumer preferences are very different so you need to look at what do these people want and it may not even be beautiful packaging. Host: Derrick Abaitey

Most businesses are designed around efficiency, scale, and transactions. But what if the way a business is designed also determines who gets included, and who gets left out? The Breakfast Show invites Ravi Sinha, founder of Art Werkx to share how his creative café-studio is working with the Down Syndrome Association to design more inclusive, everyday experiences, and how businesses can balance accessibility with sustainability.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Host: Cindy Allen Published: April 3, 2026 Length: ~15 minutes Presented by: Global Training Center Summary In this week's episode of Simply Trade: Cindy's Version, Cindy Allen breaks down a major shift in trade operations as CBP moves closer to launching the CAPE system for IEEPA duty refunds—while at the same time, new Section 232 actions signal that trade enforcement is far from slowing down. CBP has indicated it is on track for an April 20 rollout of CAPE, with key components nearing completion. However, Phase 1 will only cover certain entries, leaving many importers navigating critical decisions around protests and timing. At the same time, new developments in pharmaceutical tariffs and steel and aluminum revisions suggest that, despite recent legal challenges, trade enforcement is evolving—not retreating. Inspired by Taylor Swift's Begin Again, Cindy walks through why this moment feels less like closure—and more like the start of a new phase in global trade compliance. This Week in Trade • CBP signals April 20 target for CAPE rollout tied to IEEPA refunds • Phase 1 expected to cover ~63% of entries, excluding many already liquidated cases • Judge highlights importers' right to file protests, raising strategic considerations • Strait of Hormuz disruptions continue to create supply chain uncertainty • No movement on key legislation including First Sale and Foreign Importer of Record rules IEEPA Refunds & CAPE: Where Things Stand CBP continues to make progress toward launching CAPE (Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries): • Claim portal (~85% complete) • Mass processing of entries (~60% complete) • Review and liquidation (~80% complete) • Refund processing (~75% complete) Phase 1 will: • Focus on unliquidated entries and those within voluntary reliquidation windows • Exclude fully liquidated entries, protests, drawback, and certain AD/CVD cases ⏱️ Timeline: • Target launch: ~April 20 • Estimated processing: up to 45 days post-launch Section 232: We're “Beginning Again” This week brought significant new developments under Section 232: Pharmaceutical Tariffs • 100% duty on name-brand pharmaceuticals • Generics excluded • Implementation expected within 180 days Key complexity: • Importers must now identify brand vs. generic at entry • Multiple exemptions and reduced rates tied to reshoring and trade agreements Steel & Aluminum Updates • 50% duty remains for core steel/aluminum products • 25% duty on derivative products (full value) • New de minimis exemption for products with

I explain why serious environments are built to exclude, not include everyone. When standards are high, not everybody can stay, and that's exactly what gives the environment value. I don't try to make my message comfortable for everyone because the goal is to filter for people who are serious, committed, and can handle pressure. In the episode, I break down how exclusion protects performance, enforces standards, and keeps the right people in the room. Not everyone is meant to stay, and that's the point. Show Notes: [09:53]#1 Exclusion is how standards become enforceable. [16:26]#2 Serious environments protect focus by limiting access. [20:09]#3 Inclusion without consequence produces dilution. [25:30] Recap Episodes Mentioned: 2199: Why DIE [Diversity, Inclusion & Equity] Is The Enemy Of High Performance 2307: How To Do DIE The RIGHT Way [Part 1: Diversity] 2308: How To Do DIE The RIGHT Way [Part 2: Inclusion] 2309: How To Do DIE The RIGHT Way [Part 3: Equity] 3601:  Inclusion Eliminates Accountability Next Steps: --- Power Presence is not taught. It is enforced. If you are operating in environments where hesitation costs money, authority, or leverage, the Power Presence Mastermind exists as a controlled setting for discipline, execution, and consequence-based decision-making. Details live here: http://PowerPresenceProtocol.com/Mastermind  This Masterclass is the public record of standards. Private enforcement happens elsewhere. All episodes and the complete archive: → WorkOnYourGamePodcast.com 

Jon Shields, a professor of American politics in the government department at Claremont McKenna College, joins Paul E. Peterson to discuss Shields' latest research, which uses the Open Syllabus database to see how contentious issues are being taught on college campuses.

The NT Government has applied to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), to have Blacklip rock oysters exempt from the current rules for cadmium levels in molluscs.

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

Over the last week, there has been debate about National press outlets being excluded from the opportunity to review ONE DAY the Musical at the Royal Lyceum Theatre in Edinburgh.The production, which is making its world premiere, is one of a handful that had declined certain critics, alongside The Greatest Showman, and the most recent tours of Legally Blonde, and Kinky Boots.Today, as well as sharing Mickey-Jo's thoughts on this specific uproar, Mickey-Jo will be pulling back the curtain a little on how reviews are arranged, who this affects, and why this decision may have been made...check out Mickey-Jo's brand new substack newsletter:www.mickeyjotheatre.substack.com•00:00 | introduction03:00 | how reviews are arranged11:44 | the ONE DAY backlash19:43 | further thoughts 26:31 | conclusionAbout Mickey-Jo:As one of the leading voices in theatre criticism on a social platform, Mickey-Jo is pioneering a new medium for a dwindling field. His YouTube channel: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠MickeyJoTheatre⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ is the largest worldwide in terms of dedicated theatre criticism, where he also share features, news and interviews as well as lifestyle content for over 95,000 subscribers. With a viewership that is largely split between the US and the UK he has been fortunate enough to be able to work with PR, Marketing, and Social Media representatives for shows in New York, London, Edinburgh, Hamburg, Toronto, Sao Pãolo, and Paris. His reviews and features have also been published by WhatsOnStage, for whom he was a panelist to help curate nominees for their 2023 and 2024 Awards as well as BroadwayWorldUK, Musicals Magazine and LondonTheatre.co.uk. Instagram/TikTok/X: @MickeyJoTheatre Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The conflict in the Middle East has disrupted the plans of many travellers, who may be in for more bad luck by insurers. Much of the region's airspace has been shut after the US and Israeli attack on Iran and its retaliatory strikes in the region - and travel insurance companies have invoked the war clause in their policies. Consumer NZ CEO Jon Duffy says it's important for Kiwi travellers to check their policies, as there could be a way through this. "Insurance policies do cover cancellations if it's due to an airspace closure...but because it's hostilities and military action - typically, cover is excluded." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.

This episode might sting a little—but it's exactly what you need to hear if your content isn't converting. In today's episode, I break down why saying "I help women" is one of the biggest mistakes coaches make in their messaging—and how that single phrase is quietly costing you clients, clarity, and confidence in your offers. This isn't about being lazy as a human. It's about playing it safe in your marketing because specificity feels scary. And I'm here to tell you the truth: vague messaging doesn't feel safe to your buyer—it feels unclear. And people don't buy when they're confused. If you want warmer DMs, clearer content, and offers that actually make sense, this episode will help you fix your messaging fast. 1. Why "I Help Women" Is Lazy Marketing (And Why Coaches Use It) When you say "I help women," what your audience actually hears is: I help everyone. And when you help everyone, no one knows if you mean them. Most coaches do this because they're afraid to: Pick the wrong niche Exclude people Be judged Commit to something specific Generic feels safe—but it kills clarity. 2. The Market Pays Specialists, Not Generalists Specialists aren't paid more because they're smarter. They're paid more because they're easier to trust. Different women = different problems = different language, offers, outcomes, and content. When you lump them all together, your audience is forced to guess—and people don't buy when they're guessing. 3. Stop Marketing the Category—Start Marketing the Moment "I help women with hormones" is still too broad. Hormones could mean: PCOS Fertility Perimenopause Menopause Thyroid Cortisol Estrogen dominance The niche isn't the category. The niche is the moment someone is living in right now. 4. The Sentence That Changes Everything Instead of: "I help women" Use this formula: I help [specific person] who is struggling with [specific problem] get [specific result] without [thing they've already tried or hate]. This is what makes someone say: Oh my God, that's me. 5. Why Specific Messaging Is Magnetic (Not Limiting) Specific messaging doesn't push people away. It pulls the right people in. Your content should feel like a mirror—not a motivational poster. If someone says, "That's kind of me," you lose. If they say, "That is me," you win. 6. Pick One Lane (Without Making It Permanent) You are not marrying your niche—you're dating it. Pick one lane for 90 days: One life stage One main problem One desired outcome Build content. Create one offer. Get feedback. Then adjust. Clarity comes from action—not overthinking.

Jesus has a powerful call on your life. Don't exclude yourself. 

#top .av-special-heading.av-gs9o3p-d50b3b13fc736c026f3f9cd1ef11d800{ padding-bottom:10px; } body .av-special-heading.av-gs9o3p-d50b3b13fc736c026f3f9cd1ef11d800 .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{ font-size:25px; } .av-special-heading.av-gs9o3p-d50b3b13fc736c026f3f9cd1ef11d800 .av-subheading{ font-size:15px; } Through My Bible Yr 03 – January 11Revelation 11:1-14 LISTEN HERE Through My Bible – January 11 Revelation 11:1-14 (EHV) https://wels2.blob.core.windows.net/tmb-ehv/03-0111db.mp3 See series: Through My Bible Revelation 11 The Two Witnesses 1 Then a measuring rod like a staff was given to me. He said, [1] “Stand up and measure the incense altar and the temple of God and those who worship in it. 2 Exclude the outer court of the temple and do not measure it, because it has been given to the heathen. They will trample the holy city for forty-two months. 3 I will commission my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that are standing before the Lord of the earth. 5 If anyone wants to harm them, fire is going to come out of their mouths and consume their enemies. If anyone should want to harm them, it is necessary that he be killed in this way. 6 These two have the authority to shut the sky so that no rain falls during the days when they are prophesying. They also have authority over the waters, to turn them into blood, and the authority to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want. The Beast That Kills the Two Witnesses 7 When they finish their testimony, the beast that comes up from the abyss will fight against them, conquer them, and kill them. 8 Their dead bodies will lie on the street of the great city, which spiritually [2] is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 9 Some from the peoples, tribes, languages, and nations will look at their dead bodies for three and a half days and will not permit them to be placed in a tomb. 10 Those who dwell on the earth will also rejoice over them and celebrate by sending gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth. 11 After three and a half days the breath of life from God came into them. They stood on their feet, and a great fear fell on those who saw them. 12 And I [3] heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” They went up into heaven in a cloud, as their enemies watched them. 13 At that moment there was also a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed by the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave praise to the God of heaven. 14 The second woe is past. See, the third woe is coming soon. Footnotes Revelation 11:1 Some witnesses to the text read The angel stood there and said. Revelation 11:8 Or because of its spiritual condition Revelation 11:12 Some witnesses to the text read they. #top .hr.hr-invisible.av-aocsdx-89cb4ca21532423cf697fc393b6fcee0{ height:10px; } The Holy Bible, Evangelical Heritage Version®, EHV®, © 2019 Wartburg Project, Inc. All rights reserved. #top .hr.hr-invisible.av-4vzadh-3f04b370105df1fd314a2a9d83e55b26{ height:50px; } Share this entryShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare by MailLink to FlickrLink to InstagramLink to Vimeo

-YouTube introduced some new filters to its advanced search tools today. Possibly the most exciting change is that Shorts are now listed as a content type, so the three-minute-or-less videos can be excluded as results in your searches. -After years of testing its humanoid robot, Boston Dynamics' Atlas is entering production. The first companies that will receive deployments are Hyundai and Google DeepMind, the firm's newly minted AI partner. -UK-based EV startup Longbow Motors showed off one of its high-performance electric machines with advanced in-wheel motors from Donut Labs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:Acting Texas Comptroller Kelly Hancock is asking Attorney General Ken Paxton for legal cover to exclude private schools with ties to CAIR or China from the state's new private school voucher program: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/paxton-islamic-schools-vouchers-21257343.phpThe recently-unsealed divorce records between Paxton and his soon-to-be-ex-wife State Senator Angela Paxton reveal full blame for the divorce from the Senator upon the AG, and his insistence that she receive "nothing" in the settlement: https://www.chron.com/politics/article/ken-paxton-divorce-records-unsealed-21254129.phpThe San Antonio Express editorial board suggests that Texas voters "flush" Ken Paxton over his "creepy" new tipline soliciting photos of alleged bathroom bill violators: https://www.expressnews.com/opinion/editorial/article/ken-paxton-transgender-bathroom-politics-21252847.phpTed Cruz is said to be formulating a 2028 run for President, setting up a clash with Trump VP J.D. Vance: https://azat.tv/en/ted-cruz-president-2028-vance-maga/See the full list of 2026 races and candidates, courtesy of Lone Star Left, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Check out our web store, including our newly-expanded Humans Against Greg Abbott collection: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://store.progresstexas.org/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Thanks for listening! Our monthly donors form the backbone of our funding, and if you're a regular, we'd like to invite you to join the team! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://progresstexas.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Listen to the December 20th, 2025, daily headline round-up and find all the top news that you need to know.

Most of the original 13 States of the United States excluded Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and Atheists from holding office. Why did they do this? Dr. Taylor Marshall explains. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

IGG testing, also known as Immunoglobulin G testing, is a method used in forensic science to identify individuals through the analysis of specific proteins found in blood. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) is a type of antibody produced by the immune system in response to foreign substances, such as bacteria or viruses. Each person's IgG profile is unique, similar to a genetic fingerprint, making it useful for identification purposes.In crime-solving, IGG testing involves collecting blood samples from crime scenes and comparing them to known samples, such as those taken from suspects or victims. The presence or absence of specific IgG antibodies in the samples can help forensic investigators establish links between individuals and crime scenes.Police use IGG testing to:Establish connections between suspects and crime scenes: By comparing the IgG profiles of blood samples found at a crime scene with those of suspects or victims, investigators can determine whether a particular individual was present at the scene.Exclude innocent suspects: If the IgG profile of a suspect does not match that of the blood found at the crime scene, it can help exclude them from the investigation.Identify unknown individuals: In cases where the identity of a suspect or victim is unknown, IGG testing can be used to narrow down potential matches based on blood samples collected from the scene.However, like any forensic technique, IGG testing also raises privacy concerns. Some of these concerns include:Informed consent: Collecting blood samples for IGG testing without the individual's consent may raise ethical questions about privacy and bodily autonomy.Genetic information: IgG profiles can reveal information about an individual's immune system, which is a form of genetic information. There are concerns about how this sensitive data is collected, stored, and used, especially in terms of potential discrimination or misuse.False positives and misinterpretation: While IGG testing can be a valuable tool in forensic investigations, there is always a risk of false positives or misinterpretation of results. This could lead to wrongful accusations or convictions if not carefully considered.Database security: As with any forensic database, there are concerns about the security of the information stored within it. Unauthorized access or breaches could compromise individuals' privacy and potentially lead to misuse of their data.Ever since the arrest of Bryan Kohberger a conviction has rested upon the shoulders of the DNA that was collected at the scene of the brutal quadruple homicide. However, there have been challenges to the process used to collect that DNA and some have even questioned the constitutionality of the process itself. In this episode we take a look at that argument and hear from several legal scholars about the process that was used to collect the DNA and how that evidence will or will not be used moving forward.(commercial at 9:40)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Moscow murder suspect could mount constitutional challenge | Idaho StatesmanBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

IGG testing, also known as Immunoglobulin G testing, is a method used in forensic science to identify individuals through the analysis of specific proteins found in blood. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) is a type of antibody produced by the immune system in response to foreign substances, such as bacteria or viruses. Each person's IgG profile is unique, similar to a genetic fingerprint, making it useful for identification purposes.In crime-solving, IGG testing involves collecting blood samples from crime scenes and comparing them to known samples, such as those taken from suspects or victims. The presence or absence of specific IgG antibodies in the samples can help forensic investigators establish links between individuals and crime scenes.Police use IGG testing to:Establish connections between suspects and crime scenes: By comparing the IgG profiles of blood samples found at a crime scene with those of suspects or victims, investigators can determine whether a particular individual was present at the scene.Exclude innocent suspects: If the IgG profile of a suspect does not match that of the blood found at the crime scene, it can help exclude them from the investigation.Identify unknown individuals: In cases where the identity of a suspect or victim is unknown, IGG testing can be used to narrow down potential matches based on blood samples collected from the scene.However, like any forensic technique, IGG testing also raises privacy concerns. Some of these concerns include:Informed consent: Collecting blood samples for IGG testing without the individual's consent may raise ethical questions about privacy and bodily autonomy.Genetic information: IgG profiles can reveal information about an individual's immune system, which is a form of genetic information. There are concerns about how this sensitive data is collected, stored, and used, especially in terms of potential discrimination or misuse.False positives and misinterpretation: While IGG testing can be a valuable tool in forensic investigations, there is always a risk of false positives or misinterpretation of results. This could lead to wrongful accusations or convictions if not carefully considered.Database security: As with any forensic database, there are concerns about the security of the information stored within it. Unauthorized access or breaches could compromise individuals' privacy and potentially lead to misuse of their data.Ever since the arrest of Bryan Kohberger a conviction has rested upon the shoulders of the DNA that was collected at the scene of the brutal quadruple homicide. However, there have been challenges to the process used to collect that DNA and some have even questioned the constitutionality of the process itself. In this episode we take a look at that argument and hear from several legal scholars about the process that was used to collect the DNA and how that evidence will or will not be used moving forward.(commercial at 9:40)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Moscow murder suspect could mount constitutional challenge | Idaho StatesmanBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

AP correspondent Michael Sisak reports on Luigi Mangione's latest court appearance, as he faces charges for allegedly killing United Healthcare's CEO last year.

Episode 40: Associated Press v. Tayor Budowich, et al.Associated Press v. Taylor Budowich, et al. argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on November 24, 2025. Argued by Yaakov M. Roth, Principal Deputy Attorney General of the United States (on behalf of Taylor Budowich, et al.) and Charles D. Tobin (on behalf of the Associated Press).  Case Background, from the Memorandum and Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:  About two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The Associated Press did not follow suit. For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP's access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the President. The AP now sues the White House chief of staff, her communications deputy, and the press secretary (collectively, “the Government”), seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the Government from excluding it because of its viewpoint.   Today, the Court grants that relief. But this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views.  No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less. Statement of the Issues, from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee The Associated Press:  Under the First Amendment, the government may not coerce the press and public into using state-preferred language, or punish those who do not comply. The government violated those basic principles when it excluded the AP from the White House press pool and from events open to the White House press corps based solely on the government's dislike of the term Gulf of Mexico. The White House also took this action without notice to the AP, content-neutral guidelines, or an opportunity for the AP to be heard, violating its Fifth Amendment rights.  The questions presented are: whether the District Court correctly entered a preliminary injunction ordering the government to immediately rescind this access ban, pursuant to the First Amendment; and whether the Fifth Amendment also prevents such targeting in the absence of due process. Resources:  Free Speech Arguments Podcast episode on the original panel circuit argument Statement of the Issues District Court Memorandum and Order Court Listener Docket  Brief for the AppellantsBrief for the Plaintiff-Appellee The Associated Press The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

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

[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!

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.

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-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

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

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 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

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

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!