Podcasts about federal rules

This week on the Mark Levin Show, the judges in the James Comey case are obstructing the prosecution by granting rare access to secret grand jury information under Federal Rule 6e, despite no evidence of misconduct during the indictment, effectively trying to dismiss the case before trial. The judges continue lecturing the prosecution on alleged faults which create an awful situation. Later, no we are not ready for Michelle Obama to be President. She's a radical leftist who keeps trashing our country and talking down to the people. She'd be unable to hold up to scrutiny on substantive issues had she run. She's no Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and on and on. The 9/11 families still lack answers from Saudi Arabia's involvement on September 11th. Mohammed bin Salman's claim that Osama bin Laden used Saudis to destroy U.S.-Saudi relations is crap. MBS says he wants a two-state solution with Israel and Palestine but he won't take in one Palestinian from Gaza. The video with Democratic veterans urging the military and intelligence communities to defy ‘illegal orders' from President Trump, without specifying what those orders are is shocking. This is unprecedented exploitation, implying the President is portrayed as a law-violating dictator. Democrats pretend to support the military while slashing its budgets under Biden. A three-judge panel issued a 160-page order blocking Texas's new congressional redistricting plan, alleging it was unlawfully based on race rather than partisanship. In a scathing 104-page dissent, Judge Jerry Smith accused majority judges Jeffrey Vincent Brown and David Guaderrama of "pernicious judicial misbehavior" by denying him adequate time to review and respond, calling it the most outrageous judicial conduct he had encountered in 37 years. Smith argued the redistricting was driven by partisan gain, not racial animus, dismantling the majority's claims as deceptive, misleading, and factually erroneous. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Navigating the Complex World of Civil Procedure: Discovery and Its ImpactThis conversation provides a comprehensive overview of discovery in law, focusing on the rules and strategies essential for law students preparing for exams and practicing attorneys. It covers the scope of discovery, the tools available, mandatory disclosures, the importance of expert testimony, and the implications of electronically stored information (ESI). The discussion also delves into the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, as well as the potential sanctions for failing to comply with discovery rules. The conversation concludes with practical exam strategies and reflections on the justice system's approach to truth and proportionality.In the realm of civil litigation, discovery is often where the real battle is fought. As law students and practitioners alike know, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Chapter Five, can make or break a case long before it reaches the courtroom. This blog post delves into the critical aspects of discovery, offering insights and strategies to navigate this complex terrain.Understanding the Scope and ProportionalityThe foundation of discovery lies in Rule 26B1, which governs the scope of what can be requested. Historically, discovery aimed to eliminate trial by ambush, ensuring full disclosure. However, the rise of electronically stored information (ESI) has transformed the landscape, leading to a paradigm shift in 2015. The focus has shifted from mere relevance to proportionality, requiring that requests be non-privileged, relevant, and proportional to the needs of the case.The Six Factors of ProportionalityTo determine proportionality, courts consider six factors: the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Understanding these factors is crucial for any legal professional navigating discovery disputes.The Role of Privilege and Work ProductTwo critical shields in discovery are attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. While privilege protects confidential communications between a lawyer and client, work product safeguards materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. These doctrines are essential for protecting sensitive information and ensuring a fair adversarial process.Sanctions and ComplianceFailure to comply with discovery rules can lead to severe sanctions under Rule 37. From exclusion of evidence to default judgments, the consequences of non-compliance underscore the importance of adhering to discovery obligations. Understanding the nuances of these rules is vital for avoiding costly mistakes.As you prepare for exams or practice law, remember that discovery is not just about gathering information—it's about strategy, compliance, and understanding the rules that govern the process. By mastering the intricacies of discovery, you can effectively navigate the legal landscape and achieve favorable outcomes for your clients.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest legal insights and strategies.TakeawaysDiscovery is crucial for case outcomes.Understanding proportionality is key in discovery.The burden of proof lies with the resisting party.Mandatory disclosures streamline the discovery process.Interrogatories help clarify facts and contentions.Corporate depositions require thorough preparation.ESI has transformed litigation practices.Attorney-client privilege is easily waived.Work product doctrine protects legal strategies.Sanctions enforce compliance with discovery rules.law school, discovery, civil procedure, bar exam, legal education, attorney-client privilege, ESI, sanctions, legal strategy, exam preparation

Navigating the Complex World of Civil Procedure: Pleadings, Motions, and JoinderThis conversation delves into the intricacies of civil procedure, focusing on the rules governing pleadings, motions, and joinder. It emphasizes the importance of understanding Federal Rule 15, particularly in the context of amending pleadings and the implications of the 2009 amendments. The discussion covers the dynamics of amending pleadings, judicial discretion, the Fomen factors, relation back under Rule 15C, and the logical relationship test for joinder. The overarching theme is the balance between procedural flexibility and the defendant's right to fair notice, culminating in strategies for law students preparing for exams.In the realm of civil procedure, understanding the nuances of pleadings, motions, and joinder can be the difference between winning and losing a case. This blog post delves into the critical aspects of these legal processes, offering insights and strategies for law students and practitioners alike.Imagine you're preparing for a civil procedure exam or facing the daunting bar exam. The chapter on pleadings, motions, and joinder is not just a collection of technicalities; it's where cases are won and lost. This post serves as your guide to mastering these essential rules.Amending Pleadings: Federal Rule 15 is your safety valve when it comes to amending pleadings. It allows for amendments as a matter of course, providing a crucial opportunity to correct mistakes without court intervention. However, timing is everything. The 2009 amendment to Rule 15A1 changed the landscape, closing the "free ride" loophole and emphasizing the importance of acting within the 21-day window.The Doctrine of Relation Back: When the statute of limitations looms, the doctrine of relation back can be a lifesaver. It allows new claims to be treated as if they were filed with the original complaint, provided they arise from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence. This legal time machine ensures that valid claims aren't dismissed on technical grounds.Joinder of Parties: Rule 20A's permissive joinder allows for the inclusion of multiple parties in a single case, provided the claims arise from the same transaction or series of transactions. This rule promotes efficiency and convenience, enabling the consolidation of related claims into one cohesive lawsuit.The modern procedural landscape is designed to be flexible, balancing the need for efficiency with the defendant's right to fair notice. As you prepare for exams or navigate real-world cases, remember that mastering these rules is key to success. The Supreme Court's decisions in Twombly and Iqbal have raised the bar for pleadings, making Rule 15's liberal amendment policy more crucial than ever.Subscribe Now: Stay informed and ahead of the curve by subscribing to our blog for more insights into civil procedure and other legal topics.TakeawaysThese rules can be the difference between your claim surviving.Understanding the dynamics of amending pleadings is crucial.The 2009 amendment to Rule 15 changed the game.Judicial discretion plays a significant role in amendments.The Fomen factors are essential for understanding amendment denials.Relation back under Rule 15C is a powerful tool.Joinder of claims and parties enhances efficiency in litigation.The logical relationship test is key for joinder.Efficiency in civil procedure is paramount for case management.Exam strategies should focus on the continuous period model for amendments.Civil Procedure, Rule 15, Amending Pleadings, Joinder, Legal Exam, Fomen Factors, Relation Back, Legal Strategy, Law School, Exam Preparation

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, the judges in the James Comey case are obstructing the prosecution by granting rare access to secret grand jury information under Federal Rule 6e, despite no evidence of misconduct during the indictment, effectively trying to dismiss the case before trial. The judges continue lecturing the prosecution on alleged faults which create an awful situation. It looks like the fix is in. Also, the Epstein files contain nothing negative about Trump, despite pushes from figures like Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson, and Steve Bannon. Tucker Carlson will always be a loathsome lowlife giving Nick Fuentes a megaphone, and for his own repulsive bigotry and antisemitism, and nobody can change that. This is not who the American people are or ever will be. And we patriots are not going to surrender our country to these poisonous grifters and hate-mongers. Not now, not ever. But they are actively trying to destroy our movement, promote themselves, and hand the country over to the Marxist-Islamist left and the Democrat Party. Make no mistake about it. Later, no we are not ready for Michelle Obama to be President. She's a radical leftist who keeps trashing our country and talking down to the people. She'd be unable to hold up to scrutiny on substantive issues had she run. She's no Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and on and on. Afterward, there should be some skepticism about the U.S. selling advanced F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, given the country's unacknowledged role in 9/11 and lack of apology to victims' families or the nation. What do they need F-35s for? Who is threatening Saudia Arabia? Why aren't we selling F-35s to Taiwan? Then, China is intensifying reprisals against Japan following new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's suggestion that Japan could militarily intervene if China attempts to blockade or seize Taiwan, which China claims but has no historic right to. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Full audio of the Supreme Court oral argument in Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton (No. 24-808), argued November 4, 2025. In this case, the Justices examine whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1)'s "reasonable time" limit can bar a motion to set aside a default judgment that is void for lack of personal jurisdiction—or whether a void judgment can be challenged at any time. The argument highlights a deep circuit split, the limits of procedural finality, and how far courts must go to protect due process in long-dormant cases. Check out the official Crime Talk merch at the Crime Talk Store: scottreisch.com/crime-talk-store. #ConeyIslandAutoParts #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #OralArgument #CivilProcedure #CrimeTalk

As featured on Home Sweet Home Chicago on 11-08-2025: Attorney Rae Kaplan of Kaplan Law Firm joins David Hochberg to talk about the latest federal student-loan law changes and why now is an extremely important time for families to plan for their future with loans and scholarships. For more information, call (312) 564-4267.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton | 11/04/25 | Docket #: 24-808 24-808 CONEY ISLAND AUTO PARTS, INC. V. BURTON DECISION BELOW: 109 F.4th 438 CERT. GRANTED 6/6/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Well-settled legal principles dictate that a judgment entered in the absence of personal jurisdiction is void. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) authorizes federal courts to vacate a judgment when it is void. A motion seeking vacatur, however, "must be made within a reasonable time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Each of the United States Courts of Appeals other than the Sixth Circuit holds that there is effectively no time limit for moving to vacate a judgment, notwithstanding Rule 60(c)(1)'s "reasonable time" requirement, when the judgment is obtained in the absence of personal jurisdiction. The common thinking among these circuits is that a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void ab initio. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is the sole outlier. In this case, it held that Rule 60(c)(1) governs the timing of a motion seeking vacatur of a void judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4). The question presented is: Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-5881

Summary of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss:Introduction:The memorandum begins by outlining the grounds for dismissing the Second Amended Complaint. The defendants, Sean Combs, Love Records, and Combs Global Enterprises, argue that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The defendants seek to have the case dismissed in its entirety.Legal Standards for Dismissal:The document likely explains the legal standards for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule allows a defendant to seek dismissal of a complaint if the plaintiff fails to state a claim that is legally sufficient.Arguments for Dismissal:Failure to State a Claim: The defendants argue that the plaintiff, Rodney Jones, has not provided sufficient factual allegations to support his claims against them. The memorandum likely points out that the claims are speculative or lack the necessary detail to establish a plausible claim for relief.Lack of Specificity: The memorandum might argue that the complaint lacks specificity regarding the alleged misconduct of Sean Combs, Love Records, and Combs Global Enterprises. This could include failure to allege how each defendant was involved in the purported wrongdoing.Insufficient Legal Basis: The defendants could argue that the legal theories under which the plaintiff seeks relief are flawed or do not apply to the facts as presented. This might involve challenging the legal validity of the claims or the appropriateness of the chosen legal theories.Discussion of Relevant Case Law:The memorandum typically cites relevant case law to support its arguments. This includes precedents where similar claims were dismissed due to lack of specificity or failure to state a claim. The defendants use these cases to argue that the court should apply the same reasoning to the current complaint.Conclusion:The defendants request that the court dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, meaning that the plaintiff would not be allowed to file another complaint on the same grounds. The memorandum concludes by reiterating the arguments for dismissal and emphasizing the insufficiency of the plaintiff's claims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the case 24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter (also known as Jay-Z) has filed a motion opposing the plaintiff's request to proceed anonymously under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), which generally requires parties to be named in public court proceedings. Carter argues that the plaintiff's anonymity could prejudice his ability to defend against the claims and that public interest and transparency in judicial proceedings favor disclosure of the plaintiff's identity. Alternatively, he seeks dismissal of the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), asserting that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims presented.Carter's motion emphasizes that anonymity in litigation is an extraordinary measure requiring strong justification, which he claims the plaintiff has failed to provide. Furthermore, he questions the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claims and argues that the court should dismiss the case if it determines it lacks jurisdiction or if the plaintiff does not adequately establish the grounds for proceeding anonymously. The motion seeks to resolve these procedural and jurisdictional issues before addressing the substantive merits of the complaint.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsoruce:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.38.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This conversation delves into the complexities of hearsay in legal evidence, focusing on Federal Rule of Evidence 803 and its exceptions. The discussion provides a systematic approach to understanding hearsay, emphasizing the importance of context, spontaneity, and the reliability of statements. Key exceptions such as present sense impression, excited utterance, and business records are explored in detail, along with their requirements and limitations. The conversation also touches on the implications of modern technology on hearsay rules and the evolving nature of legal evidence.In the world of law, hearsay is often seen as a daunting topic, especially for students preparing for exams or the bar. The complexity lies not just in the definitions but in the myriad exceptions that exist within the Federal Rules of Evidence. This post aims to demystify Rule 803, focusing on exceptions where the declarant's availability is immaterial.Understanding Rule 803: Rule 803 outlines exceptions to the hearsay rule, emphasizing circumstances that inherently guarantee the reliability of a statement. These exceptions are crucial for legal practitioners to understand, as they often appear in exams and real-world cases.Key Exceptions:Present Sense Impression (PSI): This exception allows statements made during or immediately after an event to be admissible, provided they describe or explain the event. The immediacy of the statement is key to its reliability.Excited Utterance: Unlike PSI, this exception relies on the declarant's state of shock or stress. The statement must relate to a startling event and be made while the declarant is still under the influence of that stress.Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition: Statements reflecting the declarant's current state of mind or physical condition are admissible, provided they don't attempt to prove past events.Practical Application: Understanding these exceptions is not just about memorizing rules but grasping the rationale behind them. The law seeks to balance the ideal of live testimony with the practical need to admit reliable evidence. As technology evolves, so too does the interpretation of these rules, particularly in how spontaneous statements are viewed in the digital age.Mastering hearsay exceptions requires a structured approach and a deep understanding of the underlying principles. By focusing on the rationale and systematically analyzing each element, legal practitioners can effectively navigate this complex area of law.Subscribe now to stay updated on more insights into the intricacies of legal evidence and other foundational topics.TakeawaysHearsay is universally seen as the toughest topic in evidence.Understanding the context is crucial for analyzing hearsay.Five mandatory steps must be followed for hearsay analysis.The risk of insincerity is minimized in spontaneous statements.Timing is critical for present sense impressions.Excited utterances require a startling event to be admissible.Statements about current feelings are admissible under Rule 803.Business records must meet strict criteria for admissibility.Emails may not qualify as business records if not systematic.Modern technology challenges traditional hearsay rules. hearsay, evidence, law, Federal Rule of Evidence 803, legal analysis, law school, exam preparation, legal exceptions, courtroom evidence, hearsay exceptions

This conversation delves into the complexities of hearsay in evidence law, particularly focusing on Federal Rule of Evidence 801. The discussion covers the definition of hearsay, the policy reasons behind its exclusions, and the distinctions between hearsay exclusions and exceptions. Key concepts such as the TOMA framework, non-TOMA purposes, and the implications of the Confrontation Clause are explored, providing a comprehensive understanding of hearsay and its application in legal contexts.In the realm of evidence law, few topics are as daunting as hearsay. For students preparing for finals or the bar, mastering the intricacies of hearsay is crucial. In our latest Deep Dive session, we explore Federal Rule of Evidence 801, aiming to demystify this often-confusing area.The Foundation of Hearsay AnalysisUnderstanding Rule 801 is key to tackling any hearsay problem. Before diving into the rule book, it's essential to grasp the policy behind hearsay exclusions. The rule exists to ensure the reliability of evidence presented in court, emphasizing the importance of testimony being tested through procedures like cross-examination.The Three SafeguardsThe Anglo-American tradition values three key safeguards for ideal testimony: the witness testifying under oath, the presence of the witness before the jury or judge, and the opportunity for cross-examination. These elements are crucial in assessing the credibility of statements and are at the heart of the hearsay rule.Non-Hearsay Categories and ExclusionsHearsay analysis begins with defining whether a statement is offered for the truth of the matter asserted (TOMA). If not, it falls into non-hearsay categories such as verbal acts, effect on the listener, or the declarant's state of mind. Understanding these categories is vital for identifying non-TOMA purposes and navigating hearsay exclusions under Rule 801D.Hearsay Exceptions and the Confrontation ClauseWhile hearsay exceptions under Rules 803 and 804 allow certain statements to be admitted due to circumstantial reliability, the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause adds another layer of complexity. The Crawford v. Washington case revolutionized the approach, emphasizing the need for confrontation through cross-examination for testimonial hearsay.A Thought-Provoking DebateThe intricate structure of hearsay rules raises fundamental questions about their necessity. Some critics argue for abolishing the categorical rule against hearsay, suggesting reliance on other rules like Rule 403 to weigh the probative value of statements. This debate challenges us to consider whether the current system is the optimal way to uncover the truth.TakeawaysHearsay is a complex topic that often confuses law students.Understanding the policy behind hearsay rules is crucial for legal analysis.The TOMA framework is essential for defining hearsay.Non-TOMA purposes include verbal acts, effect on the listener, and state of mind of the declarant.Hearsay exclusions under Rule 801D are not considered hearsay due to procedural safeguards.Prior statements of testifying witnesses have specific admissibility requirements.Admissions by a party opponent do not require guarantees of trustworthiness.The Confrontation Clause ensures defendants can confront their accusers.Testimonial statements have specific requirements for admissibility under the Confrontation Clause.The complexity of hearsay rules raises questions about their necessity in the legal system.hearsay, evidence law, federal rules of evidence, TOMA, legal analysis, hearsay exclusions, hearsay exceptions, confrontation clause, testimonial statements, legal education

Defendant Shawn Carter, known as Jay-Z, has filed a motion for sanctions and dismissal of the complaint against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, arguing that the plaintiff's claims lack legal merit and are unsupported by factual evidence. Carter asserts that the lawsuit is frivolous and intended to harass or burden him, violating Rule 11's requirement that legal filings be grounded in a factual and legal basis. The memorandum outlines how the plaintiff's complaint contains baseless allegations, lacks sufficient evidence, and misuses the judicial process. Carter's legal team seeks not only dismissal of the case but also sanctions against the plaintiff and their counsel for filing the allegedly improper lawsuit.The memorandum further emphasizes that Rule 11 exists to prevent abuse of the court system and to deter frivolous litigation. Carter's attorneys argue that the plaintiff's actions have wasted judicial resources and caused unnecessary legal expenses. They call for appropriate penalties, including financial sanctions, to discourage similar conduct in the future. Carter maintains that the court should swiftly dismiss the complaint to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and ensure accountability for those who misuse it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions - FINAL(15510670.10).docxBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Defendant Shawn Carter, known as Jay-Z, has filed a motion for sanctions and dismissal of the complaint against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, arguing that the plaintiff's claims lack legal merit and are unsupported by factual evidence. Carter asserts that the lawsuit is frivolous and intended to harass or burden him, violating Rule 11's requirement that legal filings be grounded in a factual and legal basis. The memorandum outlines how the plaintiff's complaint contains baseless allegations, lacks sufficient evidence, and misuses the judicial process. Carter's legal team seeks not only dismissal of the case but also sanctions against the plaintiff and their counsel for filing the allegedly improper lawsuit.The memorandum further emphasizes that Rule 11 exists to prevent abuse of the court system and to deter frivolous litigation. Carter's attorneys argue that the plaintiff's actions have wasted judicial resources and caused unnecessary legal expenses. They call for appropriate penalties, including financial sanctions, to discourage similar conduct in the future. Carter maintains that the court should swiftly dismiss the complaint to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and ensure accountability for those who misuse it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions - FINAL(15510670.10).docxBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Welcome back to the Deep Dive, where we unravel the complexities of evidence law. If you're preparing for finals or the bar exam, understanding the intricacies of witness testimony is crucial. Today, we delve into the foundational aspects of trial practice, focusing on Articles 6 and 8 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.This conversation delves into the intricacies of impeachment, focusing on its purpose, methods, and the significance of bias and motive in legal contexts. The discussion highlights how impeachment serves to challenge witness credibility and the established techniques that can be employed in this process.Competency: The journey begins with Rule 601, which sets a modern default that almost everyone is competent to testify unless a specific rule states otherwise. Historically, many were barred from testifying due to perceived biases, but today, the focus is on admissibility and letting the jury assess credibility.Impeachment: Once a witness testifies, their statements are open to scrutiny. Impeachment is the process of challenging a witness's credibility, with bias being a powerful tool. Unlike other methods, bias doesn't need a specific rule number, as it's deeply rooted in common law and due process.Rehabilitation: After impeachment, the witness's credibility can be restored through rehabilitation. This involves explaining inconsistencies or presenting prior consistent statements. The goal is to provide the jury with a balanced view, allowing them to decide the weight of the testimony.Understanding the balance between competency, impeachment, and rehabilitation is key to mastering evidence law. These rules empower the jury to make informed decisions, highlighting the importance of strategic thinking in legal practice.TakeawaysImpeachment aims to challenge the credibility of witnesses.The jury must be shown reasons to doubt witness statements.Bias, interest, or motive are key tools in impeachment.Understanding the jury's perspective is crucial in legal arguments.Impeachment techniques can vary in effectiveness and application.Legal professionals must be adept at using impeachment strategies.The context of a witness's testimony can influence its credibility.Impeachment is a fundamental aspect of legal proceedings.Effective impeachment can sway jury decisions significantly.Mastering impeachment techniques is essential for legal success.impeachment, jury, witness credibility, bias, motive, legal methods

This episode dives deep into the complexities of character evidence in law, focusing on Federal Rules of Evidence 404 and 405. It explores the strategic considerations, exceptions, and the balance between fairness and truth in legal proceedings.In the intricate world of evidence law, character evidence stands as one of the most challenging areas for law students and practitioners alike. This blog post delves into the nuances of character evidence, focusing on Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 404 and 405, and the strategic considerations involved.Understanding the Basics: Character evidence generally refers to using a person's character or traits to prove they acted in a certain way on a specific occasion. Under FRE 404, such evidence is typically inadmissible due to the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, and distraction from the main issues. The rule aims to prevent trials from devolving into character assassinations rather than focusing on the crime charged.Exceptions to the Rule: Despite the general prohibition, there are exceptions where character evidence can be admitted. These include the defendant's right to introduce evidence of their own pertinent character trait (FRE 404A2A), evidence of the victim's character in certain cases (FRE 404A2B), and when character is an essential element of a claim or defense (FRE 405B).Strategic Considerations: Introducing character evidence can be a double-edged sword. While it may bolster a defense, it also opens the door for the prosecution to introduce rebuttal evidence. Lawyers must carefully weigh the potential benefits against the risks of prejudice and distraction.Character evidence remains a contentious and complex area of law, balancing the need for fairness with the pursuit of truth. As legal professionals navigate these waters, understanding the strategic implications and exceptions is crucial for effective advocacy.TakeawaysCharacter evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct on a specific occasion.FRE 404 prohibits character evidence due to risks of unfair prejudice and confusion.Exceptions include the defendant's pertinent character trait and victim's character in certain cases.Character evidence can open the door for rebuttal evidence from the prosecution.FRE 405B allows character evidence when it's an essential element of a claim or defense.Strategic use of character evidence requires careful consideration of potential risks.The doctrine of chances is a debated non-propensity purpose under FRE 404B.FRE 412, the rape shield law, protects victims' past sexual history from being used in court.FRE 413, 414, and 415 allow prior similar acts in sex offense cases for propensity inference.Understanding the framework of character evidence is crucial for legal practitioners.Character evidence is generally inadmissible. FRE 404 prohibits character evidence. Exceptions include the defendant's character trait. Character evidence can open the door for rebuttal. FRE 405B allows character evidence as an essential element. Strategic use requires careful consideration. The doctrine of chances is debated. FRE 412 protects victims' past sexual history. FRE 413 allows prior similar acts for propensity. Understanding character evidence is crucial.character evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence, FRE 404, FRE 405, legal strategy

In late 2022, a plaintiff identified as “Jane Doe 1” filed a civil suit in Manhattan federal court accusing JPMorgan Chase of enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operations by facilitating his financial transactions, ignoring red flags, and providing essential services to his network. The complaint asked the court to certify the case as a class action, representing all women who were abused or trafficked by Epstein during the period when he held accounts or related financial relationships with JPMorgan (from about January 1, 1998, to August 19, 2013).On June 12, 2023, Judge Jed Rakoff granted Jane Doe's motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, officially recognizing the case as a class action.   JPMorgan later agreed to a tentative $290 million settlement with the now-certified class of Epstein survivors, a deal which was subsequently approved by the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In late 2022, a plaintiff identified as “Jane Doe 1” filed a civil suit in Manhattan federal court accusing JPMorgan Chase of enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operations by facilitating his financial transactions, ignoring red flags, and providing essential services to his network. The complaint asked the court to certify the case as a class action, representing all women who were abused or trafficked by Epstein during the period when he held accounts or related financial relationships with JPMorgan (from about January 1, 1998, to August 19, 2013).On June 12, 2023, Judge Jed Rakoff granted Jane Doe's motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, officially recognizing the case as a class action.   JPMorgan later agreed to a tentative $290 million settlement with the now-certified class of Epstein survivors, a deal which was subsequently approved by the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In late 2022, a plaintiff identified as “Jane Doe 1” filed a civil suit in Manhattan federal court accusing JPMorgan Chase of enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operations by facilitating his financial transactions, ignoring red flags, and providing essential services to his network. The complaint asked the court to certify the case as a class action, representing all women who were abused or trafficked by Epstein during the period when he held accounts or related financial relationships with JPMorgan (from about January 1, 1998, to August 19, 2013).On June 12, 2023, Judge Jed Rakoff granted Jane Doe's motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, officially recognizing the case as a class action.   JPMorgan later agreed to a tentative $290 million settlement with the now-certified class of Epstein survivors, a deal which was subsequently approved by the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/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.pdf

Berk v. Choy | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-440 24-440 BERK V. CHOY DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 5354482 CERT. GRANTED 3/10/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case presents a clear, recognized, entrenched conflict over an important question about the application of state procedural rules in federal court. Delaware, like numerous states, requires that in certain actions the plaintiff must also file an affidavit of merit ("AOM") with the complaint. See 18 Del. C. § 6853. An AOM is an affidavit signed by an expert stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that each defendant has committed the alleged misconduct. See id. § 6853(a)(l). The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits hold that AOM provisions and comparable statutes do not govern actions in federal court because they answer the same question as-and therefore conflict with-several different Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third and Tenth circuits, in contrast, hold that they present "no conflict" with any Federal Rules. In the decision below, the Third Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, for at least the fifth time, refused to hold that an AOM statute conflicts with any Federal Rules. Judge Phipps "concur[red] in only the judgment." Third Circuit precedent required him to vote to affirm, he explained, but ''writing on a clean slate ... he may not [have] arrive[d] at that same conclusion." The question presented is: Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1620

In this opinion and order, Judge Arun Subramanian of the Southern District of New York addressed post-trial motions filed by Sean “Diddy” Combs following his conviction on two counts of transporting individuals for prostitution under the Mann Act. After an eight-week trial, the jury found Combs guilty, but before the government rested its case, his defense filed a motion for acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, arguing insufficient evidence. The court deferred its ruling at that time and allowed the trial to continue.Following the guilty verdict, Combs renewed his motion for acquittal and separately filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 33, seeking to overturn the jury's decision or secure a retrial. Judge Subramanian reviewed both motions and found no basis to disturb the verdict. The court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence for a rational jury to convict and that no errors occurred warranting a new trial. Accordingly, both motions were denied, upholding Combs's conviction on both counts.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.518.0.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 opinion and order, Judge Arun Subramanian of the Southern District of New York addressed post-trial motions filed by Sean “Diddy” Combs following his conviction on two counts of transporting individuals for prostitution under the Mann Act. After an eight-week trial, the jury found Combs guilty, but before the government rested its case, his defense filed a motion for acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, arguing insufficient evidence. The court deferred its ruling at that time and allowed the trial to continue.Following the guilty verdict, Combs renewed his motion for acquittal and separately filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 33, seeking to overturn the jury's decision or secure a retrial. Judge Subramanian reviewed both motions and found no basis to disturb the verdict. The court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence for a rational jury to convict and that no errors occurred warranting a new trial. Accordingly, both motions were denied, upholding Combs's conviction on both counts.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.518.0.pdf

In this opinion and order, Judge Arun Subramanian of the Southern District of New York addressed post-trial motions filed by Sean “Diddy” Combs following his conviction on two counts of transporting individuals for prostitution under the Mann Act. After an eight-week trial, the jury found Combs guilty, but before the government rested its case, his defense filed a motion for acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, arguing insufficient evidence. The court deferred its ruling at that time and allowed the trial to continue.Following the guilty verdict, Combs renewed his motion for acquittal and separately filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 33, seeking to overturn the jury's decision or secure a retrial. Judge Subramanian reviewed both motions and found no basis to disturb the verdict. The court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence for a rational jury to convict and that no errors occurred warranting a new trial. Accordingly, both motions were denied, upholding Combs's conviction on both counts.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.518.0.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.

​In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The podcast show we are releasing today is a repurposing of part 2 of a webinar we produced on August 13, 2025, which explored the U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a ruling that significantly curtails the use of nationwide or “universal” injunctions. A universal injunction is one which confers benefits on non-parties to the lawsuit. This case marks a turning point in federal court jurisprudence, with profound implications for equitable relief, national policy, and governance. Our distinguished panel of legal scholars, Suzette Malveaux (Roger D. Groot Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law), Portia Pedro (Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law), and Alan Trammell (Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law) are joined by experienced litigators Alan Kaplinsky, Carter G. Phillips (Former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States & Partner, Sidley Austin LLP), and Burt M. Rublin (Senior Counsel and Appellate Group Practice Leader, Ballard Spahr LLP). These panelists dive deep into the Court's decision, unpacking its historical foundation, analyzing the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, and evaluating its far-reaching effects on all stakeholders, including industry groups, trade associations, federal agencies, the judiciary, the executive branch, and everyday citizens. This podcast show and the one we released last Thursday, September 25, cover these critical topics: ·        The originalist and historical reasoning behind the Court's rejection of universal injunctions ·        A detailed analysis of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions ·        The ruling's impact on legal challenges to federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders ·        The potential role of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) class actions as alternatives to universal injunctions, including the status of the CASA case and other cases where plaintiffs have pursued class actions ·        The use of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) to “set aside” or “vacate” unlawful regulations and Section 705 of the APA to seek stays of regulation effective dates ·        The viability of associational standing for trade groups challenging regulations on behalf of their members ·        The ruling's influence on forum selection and judicial assignment strategies, including “judge-shopping” ·        The Supreme Court's increasing use of its emergency or “shadow” docket, rather than its conventional certiorari docket, to render extraordinarily important opinions  This is a unique opportunity to hear from leading experts as they break down one of the most consequential and controversial Supreme Court decisions of this Supreme Court Term. These podcast shows will provide you with valuable insights into how this ruling reshapes the legal landscape. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

The podcast show we are releasing today is a repurposing of part 1 of a webinar we produced on August 13, 2025, which explored the U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a ruling that significantly curtails the use of nationwide or “universal” injunctions. A universal injunction is one which confers benefits on non-parties to the lawsuit. This case marks a turning point in federal court jurisprudence, with profound implications for equitable relief, national policy, and governance. Our distinguished panel of legal scholars, Suzette Malveaux (Roger D. Groot Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law), Portia Pedro (Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law), and Alan Trammell (Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law) are joined by experienced litigators Alan Kaplinsky, Carter G. Phillips (Former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States & Partner, Sidley Austin LLP), and Burt M. Rublin (Senior Counsel and Appellate Group Practice Leader, Ballard Spahr LLP). These panelists dive deep into the Court's decision, unpacking its historical foundation, analyzing the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, and evaluating its far-reaching effects on all stakeholders, including industry groups, trade associations, federal agencies, the judiciary, the executive branch, and everyday citizens. This podcast show and the one we release one week from today cover these critical topics: ·         The originalist and historical reasoning behind the Court's rejection of universal injunctions ·         A detailed analysis of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions ·         The ruling's impact on legal challenges to federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders ·         The potential role of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) class actions as alternatives to universal injunctions, including the status of the CASA case and other cases where plaintiffs have pursued class actions ·         The use of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) to “set aside” or “vacate” unlawful regulations and Section 705 of the APA to seek stays of regulation effective dates ·         The viability of associational standing for trade groups challenging regulations on behalf of their members ·         The ruling's influence on forum selection and judicial assignment strategies, including “judge-shopping” ·         The Supreme Court's increasing use of its emergency or “shadow” docket, rather than its conventional certiorari docket, to render extraordinarily important opinions  This is a unique opportunity to hear from leading experts as they break down one of the most consequential and controversial Supreme Court decisions of this Supreme Court Term. These podcast shows will provide you with valuable insights into how this ruling reshapes the legal landscape. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Today, Jim Garrity examines a critical issue in trial practice: whether an incomplete deposition—cut short when the deponent becomes unavailable—can be admitted at trial, particularly when the opposing party had no opportunity for cross-examination. Drawing on a new Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Jim explores the court's decision, the key factors trial lawyers should argue for or against exclusion, and the balancing test that should be used when essential testimony hangs in the balance. Discover practical strategies for both offering and opposing use of incomplete deposition transcripts in high-stakes litigation. Thanks for listening!SHOW NOTESInsight Terminal Solutions, LLC v. Cecelia Financial Management, et al., No. 24-5222, 2025 WL 2434894 (6th Cir. August 25, 2025) (reversing trial court's ruling that deposition was categorically inadmissible because defendants did not have an opportunity to cross-examine a 30 B6 deponent before his death)Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a) (setting three-part test for admissibility of deposition testimony at trial)Treharne v. Callahan, 426 F.2d 58 (3d Cir. 1970) (court upheld the district court's discretionary admission of written interrogatory answers given by the now-deceased defendant, even though the plaintiff could not cross-examine; under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, answers to interrogatories can be used to the same extent as depositions, which are admissible if the witness is dead; further, the need for the evidence—being the only defense evidence—outweighed the lack of cross-examination, especially where death was not caused by the party offering the evidence and there was no fault involved)Duttle v. Bandler & Kass, 127 F.R.D. 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (magistrate declined to exclude a deposition taken without defense counsel present, even though the witness died before cross-examination could occur; under Rule 32(a), depositions of deceased witnesses may be admitted if the party had notice and opportunity to participate, and the prejudice to the party proffering the deposition (who would lose critical evidence) outweighed potential prejudice to the opponent. Court proposed that any prejudice could be minimized by stipulating to facts the defense might have developed via cross-examination, reducing the impact of any lost impeachment opportunity)Derewecki v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 353 F.2d 436 (3d Cir. 1965) (trial and appeals courts admitted decedent's incomplete depositions as evidence, despite the absence of cross-examination by the defendant who had no chance to cross-examine before the witness died; Rule 26 authorized admission of depositions when the deponent is deceased as long as the circumstances justified it, and both parties had agreed the deposition was “completed” for evidentiary purposes; further, the harm in excluding the sole direct evidence of how the accident occurred outweighed the right to cross-examination. Courts must consider whether the lack of cross is due to fault; here, no such fault was shown)Waterman S. S. Corp. v. Gay Cottons, 414 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1969) (deposition of a witness who died before any cross-examination by the adverse party was admitted in bench trial; where there was no realistic possibility that cross-examination would have materially aided the party, exclusion was not required. Further, deposition testimony corroborated by other evidence; thus, lack of cross-examination did not affect the outcome)In re Reingold, 157 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 1998) (testimony excluded at trial level; exclusion reversed. Trial court excluded party-plaintiff's perpetuation deposition, taken while the plaintiff was gravely ill and ended before cross-examination could be completed due to the witness's declining condition and ultimate death; Fifth Circuit held this exclusion to be a clear abuse of discretion and granted mandamus relief directing admission of the video deposition; FRCP 32(a) creates strong presumption favoring admission of a deceased witness's deposition. Exclusion is only justified by a specific and particularized showing of prejudice, such as stating what crucial areas would have been dealt with in cross-examination; a mere generalized complaint about the lack of cross is insufficient. Since the opposing party had already conducted a substantial deposition of the witness in prior proceedings, the risks of prejudice were further minimized)

Montana's Medicaid office is struggling to process applications in a timely manner. The state is planning to fast track new work requirements and eligibility checks – which would mean even more paperwork for applicants and state officials.

You will be hearing a lot about motions to dismiss indictments based on the Trump Administration and DOJ's “vindictive prosecution” in violation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the DOJ Manual. But the very FIRST such motion has been filed by Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was illegally removed to El Salvador and tortured, and then had a phony indictment brought against him by Trump's DOJ. Will Judge Crenshaw order Abrego Garcia's release from federal detention on his criminal charges this week and dismiss his indictment? Michael Popok takes a hard look at the new filing and makes a stunning prediction. Thanks to Ground News! Go to https://Ground.News/AF to cut through misinformation, critically analyze the news shaping our lives and hold the media accountable. Save 40% off unlimited access to Ground News with my link or scan the QR code on screen. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In July 2024, Delegate Stacey Plaskett filed a lawsuit under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the attorney representing six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. Plaskett argued that the amended lawsuit against her was frivolously filed, lacked any factual or legal foundation, and was intended to harass rather than pursue a legitimate legal claim. She sought sanctions to penalize and deter what she viewed as a baseless and politically motivated suit.However, the court denied her Rule 11 motion, concluding that the survivors' filing was neither frivolous nor made for improper purposes. The ruling underscored that the suit was grounded in sufficient factual and legal claims, and that the plaintiffs' allegations merited judicial consideration rather than sanctions. In essence, the denial affirmed that the litigation could proceed on substantive grounds.Also....In the released segment of her May 9, 2023 deposition, Stacey Plaskett was pressed on her awareness of Jeffrey Epstein's role in the Virgin Islands and the extent of his influence with local officials and institutions. The questioning focused on whether she had knowledge of Epstein's financial relationships, his political donations, or his contacts with Virgin Islands leadership during the period when he was operating in the territory. Plaskett largely distanced herself from Epstein, stating that she had no direct involvement with him and little knowledge of his activities beyond what was publicly known.Attorneys also asked Plaskett about government oversight, her interactions with agencies connected to Epstein's business holdings, and whether she had ever received benefits, contributions, or favors traceable to Epstein or his companies. In the available transcript, she denied having such connections and emphasized that she was not involved in decisions related to Epstein's finances or residency. While limited to roughly 25 pages, the deposition underscores how central Virgin Islands political figures were to JPMorgan's defense and the USVI's allegations—whether officials ignored red flags about Epstein or knowingly permitted him to operate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, became the lone remaining defendant in a civil case filed by six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse after the court dismissed the claims against other parties. The survivors alleged that Plaskett was complicit in Epstein's sex trafficking operation, accusations that she forcefully denied. In April 2025, a second amended complaint reiterated the charges, to which Plaskett responded by filing a motion to dismiss, calling the claims baseless and defamatory. She has consistently framed the lawsuit as politically motivated and lacking in legal merit.Prior to this, in July 2024, Plaskett filed a motion under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the survivors' attorney. Rule 11 motions are designed to punish parties or lawyers for filing frivolous, unfounded, or harassing litigation. Plaskett argued that the case against her was precisely that.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.127.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, became the lone remaining defendant in a civil case filed by six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse after the court dismissed the claims against other parties. The survivors alleged that Plaskett was complicit in Epstein's sex trafficking operation, accusations that she forcefully denied. In April 2025, a second amended complaint reiterated the charges, to which Plaskett responded by filing a motion to dismiss, calling the claims baseless and defamatory. She has consistently framed the lawsuit as politically motivated and lacking in legal merit.Prior to this, in July 2024, Plaskett filed a motion under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the survivors' attorney. Rule 11 motions are designed to punish parties or lawyers for filing frivolous, unfounded, or harassing litigation. Plaskett argued that the case against her was precisely that.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.127.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In July 2024, Delegate Stacey Plaskett filed a lawsuit under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the attorney representing six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. Plaskett argued that the amended lawsuit against her was frivolously filed, lacked any factual or legal foundation, and was intended to harass rather than pursue a legitimate legal claim. She sought sanctions to penalize and deter what she viewed as a baseless and politically motivated suit.However, the court denied her Rule 11 motion, concluding that the survivors' filing was neither frivolous nor made for improper purposes. The ruling underscored that the suit was grounded in sufficient factual and legal claims, and that the plaintiffs' allegations merited judicial consideration rather than sanctions. In essence, the denial affirmed that the litigation could proceed on substantive grounds.Also....In the released segment of her May 9, 2023 deposition, Stacey Plaskett was pressed on her awareness of Jeffrey Epstein's role in the Virgin Islands and the extent of his influence with local officials and institutions. The questioning focused on whether she had knowledge of Epstein's financial relationships, his political donations, or his contacts with Virgin Islands leadership during the period when he was operating in the territory. Plaskett largely distanced herself from Epstein, stating that she had no direct involvement with him and little knowledge of his activities beyond what was publicly known.Attorneys also asked Plaskett about government oversight, her interactions with agencies connected to Epstein's business holdings, and whether she had ever received benefits, contributions, or favors traceable to Epstein or his companies. In the available transcript, she denied having such connections and emphasized that she was not involved in decisions related to Epstein's finances or residency. While limited to roughly 25 pages, the deposition underscores how central Virgin Islands political figures were to JPMorgan's defense and the USVI's allegations—whether officials ignored red flags about Epstein or knowingly permitted him to operate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In October 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a combined memorandum opposing Virginia Roberts Giuffre's request to extend the deposition deadline and, separately, moved for sanctions under Federal Rule 45. Maxwell argued that Giuffre served subpoenas in ways that directly violated Rule 45(a)(4), which requires timely pre-notice to all parties before serving a non‑party subpoena for documents. Specifically, Maxwell noted that Giuffre attempted to subpoena witnesses—such as Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova—without providing proper advance notice to the defense, including issuing subpoenas before notifying Maxwell's counselMaxwell framed this as part of a broader pattern of bad‑faith discovery tactics: she emphasized that Giuffre squandered the discovery period, failed to diligently schedule depositions, and attempted to secure depositions well past the court‑ordered cutoff without showing good cause. In support, she detailed her own efforts to coordinate schedules and comply with rules, contrasted with Giuffre's “last‑minute scramble,” and urged the court to reject the extension of deadlines and impose sanctions under Rule 45 and Rule 37 for the procedural violationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1137.19.pdf (free.law)

In October 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a combined memorandum opposing Virginia Roberts Giuffre's request to extend the deposition deadline and, separately, moved for sanctions under Federal Rule 45. Maxwell argued that Giuffre served subpoenas in ways that directly violated Rule 45(a)(4), which requires timely pre-notice to all parties before serving a non‑party subpoena for documents. Specifically, Maxwell noted that Giuffre attempted to subpoena witnesses—such as Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova—without providing proper advance notice to the defense, including issuing subpoenas before notifying Maxwell's counselMaxwell framed this as part of a broader pattern of bad‑faith discovery tactics: she emphasized that Giuffre squandered the discovery period, failed to diligently schedule depositions, and attempted to secure depositions well past the court‑ordered cutoff without showing good cause. In support, she detailed her own efforts to coordinate schedules and comply with rules, contrasted with Giuffre's “last‑minute scramble,” and urged the court to reject the extension of deadlines and impose sanctions under Rule 45 and Rule 37 for the procedural violationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1137.19.pdf (free.law)

In July 2024, Delegate Stacey Plaskett filed a lawsuit under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the attorney representing six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. Plaskett argued that the amended lawsuit against her was frivolously filed, lacked any factual or legal foundation, and was intended to harass rather than pursue a legitimate legal claim. She sought sanctions to penalize and deter what she viewed as a baseless and politically motivated suit.However, the court denied her Rule 11 motion, concluding that the survivors' filing was neither frivolous nor made for improper purposes. The ruling underscored that the suit was grounded in sufficient factual and legal claims, and that the plaintiffs' allegations merited judicial consideration rather than sanctions. In essence, the denial affirmed that the litigation could proceed on substantive grounds.Also....In the released segment of her May 9, 2023 deposition, Stacey Plaskett was pressed on her awareness of Jeffrey Epstein's role in the Virgin Islands and the extent of his influence with local officials and institutions. The questioning focused on whether she had knowledge of Epstein's financial relationships, his political donations, or his contacts with Virgin Islands leadership during the period when he was operating in the territory. Plaskett largely distanced herself from Epstein, stating that she had no direct involvement with him and little knowledge of his activities beyond what was publicly known.Attorneys also asked Plaskett about government oversight, her interactions with agencies connected to Epstein's business holdings, and whether she had ever received benefits, contributions, or favors traceable to Epstein or his companies. In the available transcript, she denied having such connections and emphasized that she was not involved in decisions related to Epstein's finances or residency. While limited to roughly 25 pages, the deposition underscores how central Virgin Islands political figures were to JPMorgan's defense and the USVI's allegations—whether officials ignored red flags about Epstein or knowingly permitted him to operate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, became the lone remaining defendant in a civil case filed by six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse after the court dismissed the claims against other parties. The survivors alleged that Plaskett was complicit in Epstein's sex trafficking operation, accusations that she forcefully denied. In April 2025, a second amended complaint reiterated the charges, to which Plaskett responded by filing a motion to dismiss, calling the claims baseless and defamatory. She has consistently framed the lawsuit as politically motivated and lacking in legal merit.Prior to this, in July 2024, Plaskett filed a motion under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the survivors' attorney. Rule 11 motions are designed to punish parties or lawyers for filing frivolous, unfounded, or harassing litigation. Plaskett argued that the case against her was precisely that.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.127.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In October 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a combined memorandum opposing Virginia Roberts Giuffre's request to extend the deposition deadline and, separately, moved for sanctions under Federal Rule 45. Maxwell argued that Giuffre served subpoenas in ways that directly violated Rule 45(a)(4), which requires timely pre-notice to all parties before serving a non‑party subpoena for documents. Specifically, Maxwell noted that Giuffre attempted to subpoena witnesses—such as Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova—without providing proper advance notice to the defense, including issuing subpoenas before notifying Maxwell's counselMaxwell framed this as part of a broader pattern of bad‑faith discovery tactics: she emphasized that Giuffre squandered the discovery period, failed to diligently schedule depositions, and attempted to secure depositions well past the court‑ordered cutoff without showing good cause. In support, she detailed her own efforts to coordinate schedules and comply with rules, contrasted with Giuffre's “last‑minute scramble,” and urged the court to reject the extension of deadlines and impose sanctions under Rule 45 and Rule 37 for the procedural violationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1137.19.pdf (free.law)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In October 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a combined memorandum opposing Virginia Roberts Giuffre's request to extend the deposition deadline and, separately, moved for sanctions under Federal Rule 45. Maxwell argued that Giuffre served subpoenas in ways that directly violated Rule 45(a)(4), which requires timely pre-notice to all parties before serving a non‑party subpoena for documents. Specifically, Maxwell noted that Giuffre attempted to subpoena witnesses—such as Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova—without providing proper advance notice to the defense, including issuing subpoenas before notifying Maxwell's counselMaxwell framed this as part of a broader pattern of bad‑faith discovery tactics: she emphasized that Giuffre squandered the discovery period, failed to diligently schedule depositions, and attempted to secure depositions well past the court‑ordered cutoff without showing good cause. In support, she detailed her own efforts to coordinate schedules and comply with rules, contrasted with Giuffre's “last‑minute scramble,” and urged the court to reject the extension of deadlines and impose sanctions under Rule 45 and Rule 37 for the procedural violationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1137.19.pdf (free.law)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In October 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a combined memorandum opposing Virginia Roberts Giuffre's request to extend the deposition deadline and, separately, moved for sanctions under Federal Rule 45. Maxwell argued that Giuffre served subpoenas in ways that directly violated Rule 45(a)(4), which requires timely pre-notice to all parties before serving a non‑party subpoena for documents. Specifically, Maxwell noted that Giuffre attempted to subpoena witnesses—such as Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova—without providing proper advance notice to the defense, including issuing subpoenas before notifying Maxwell's counselMaxwell framed this as part of a broader pattern of bad‑faith discovery tactics: she emphasized that Giuffre squandered the discovery period, failed to diligently schedule depositions, and attempted to secure depositions well past the court‑ordered cutoff without showing good cause. In support, she detailed her own efforts to coordinate schedules and comply with rules, contrasted with Giuffre's “last‑minute scramble,” and urged the court to reject the extension of deadlines and impose sanctions under Rule 45 and Rule 37 for the procedural violationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1137.19.pdf (free.law)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell filed a formal motion in January 2024 seeking sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 37(c), arguing that Virginia Giuffre had failed to comply with both a court-ordered discovery directive and Rule 26(a) disclosure requirements. Maxwell's team, led by attorney Laura Menninger, detailed repeated instances in which Giuffre withheld or failed to fully disclose critical medical records and the identities of treating health providers—information essential to assessing her claims for emotional and physical distress. They characterized these omissions as intentional and willful, highlighting Giuffre's failure to identify providers like Dr. Lightfoot in Australia, among others, despite clear court orders and confirmations made during an April 21, 2016 hearing.Maxwell contended these violations had prejudiced her defense and undermined the integrity of the discovery process—arguing that lesser sanctions would be insufficient. Her motion sought a range of potential consequences under Rule 37(b), such as preclusion of Giuffre's damages claims or striking portions of her case, as well as cost-shifting remedies available under Rule 37(c), including attorney's fees and possibly an adverse inference against Giuffre. The motion emphasized that Giuffre and her counsel were well aware of the consequences of non-compliance and that her continued delays and omissions should trigger serious sanctions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:epstein-documents-943-pages - DocumentCloud

Ghislaine Maxwell filed a formal motion in January 2024 seeking sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 37(c), arguing that Virginia Giuffre had failed to comply with both a court-ordered discovery directive and Rule 26(a) disclosure requirements. Maxwell's team, led by attorney Laura Menninger, detailed repeated instances in which Giuffre withheld or failed to fully disclose critical medical records and the identities of treating health providers—information essential to assessing her claims for emotional and physical distress. They characterized these omissions as intentional and willful, highlighting Giuffre's failure to identify providers like Dr. Lightfoot in Australia, among others, despite clear court orders and confirmations made during an April 21, 2016 hearing.Maxwell contended these violations had prejudiced her defense and undermined the integrity of the discovery process—arguing that lesser sanctions would be insufficient. Her motion sought a range of potential consequences under Rule 37(b), such as preclusion of Giuffre's damages claims or striking portions of her case, as well as cost-shifting remedies available under Rule 37(c), including attorney's fees and possibly an adverse inference against Giuffre. The motion emphasized that Giuffre and her counsel were well aware of the consequences of non-compliance and that her continued delays and omissions should trigger serious sanctions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:epstein-documents-943-pages - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In her formal response to the government's motion, Ghislaine Maxwell opposed the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in her criminal case, arguing that such a release would violate long-standing principles of grand jury secrecy and unfairly prejudice her rights. Her legal team emphasized that the transcripts in question contain sensitive testimony and confidential material that should remain protected under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Maxwell's attorneys insisted that the government's request lacked compelling justification and that releasing the materials would serve no legitimate public interest while potentially influencing public perception and undermining her right to a fair trial.Furthermore, Maxwell's response accused the government of attempting to circumvent established legal norms for tactical purposes. Her defense argued that any disclosure could taint potential jurors and further inflame the already intense media scrutiny surrounding her case. They maintained that the government had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to override the presumption of secrecy traditionally afforded to grand jury proceedings. In closing, Maxwell's team urged the court to deny the motion and preserve the confidentiality of the grand jury materials to uphold judicial integrity and due process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.803.0.pdf

In her formal response to the government's motion, Ghislaine Maxwell opposed the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in her criminal case, arguing that such a release would violate long-standing principles of grand jury secrecy and unfairly prejudice her rights. Her legal team emphasized that the transcripts in question contain sensitive testimony and confidential material that should remain protected under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Maxwell's attorneys insisted that the government's request lacked compelling justification and that releasing the materials would serve no legitimate public interest while potentially influencing public perception and undermining her right to a fair trial.Furthermore, Maxwell's response accused the government of attempting to circumvent established legal norms for tactical purposes. Her defense argued that any disclosure could taint potential jurors and further inflame the already intense media scrutiny surrounding her case. They maintained that the government had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances to override the presumption of secrecy traditionally afforded to grand jury proceedings. In closing, Maxwell's team urged the court to deny the motion and preserve the confidentiality of the grand jury materials to uphold judicial integrity and due process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.803.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Steve Gruber discusses news and headlines 

The process of unsealing federal grand jury records is deliberately difficult, wrapped in layers of legal insulation under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Only a federal judge—not the President, not the Attorney General—can authorize disclosure, and even then, only if the requester demonstrates a “particularized need” that outweighs the default presumption of secrecy. Motions must be surgically precise, narrowly tailored, and supported by compelling legal justification. Even successful requests often result in redacted or restricted disclosures, not public transparency. The system is built to prioritize protection over exposure, and accountability often takes a backseat to process.While the courts claim this structure safeguards the integrity of justice, it frequently appears to serve power over truth—especially when politically sensitive material is involved. The legal mechanisms for disclosure exist on paper but function in reality as bureaucratic gatekeeping. Victims, journalists, and the public are told they can seek access, but few ever get it—and fewer still get anything meaningful. The result is a growing skepticism: that secrecy has become less about shielding the innocent and more about shielding the institution itself. The question is, will the courts continue to protect that secrecy at all costs, or will the demand for real transparency finally break through?to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com