Podcasts about filed

D&P Highlight: Formal charges have been filed, but where is the manslaughter charge? full 385 Wed, 12 Nov 2025 19:56:00 +0000 SXAQ9odV93PSrqEtAHFkticZ6zUZgv7q news The Dana & Parks Podcast news D&P Highlight: Formal charges have been filed, but where is the manslaughter charge? You wanted it... Now here it is! Listen to each hour of the Dana & Parks Show whenever and wherever you want! © 2025 Audacy, Inc. News False https://

This Day in Legal History: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990On November 12, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 into law, enacting one of the most ambitious environmental regulatory packages in U.S. history. The amendments addressed a broad range of air quality concerns, including acid rain, smog in urban areas, and emissions of hazardous air pollutants. At the time, the legislation was notable for its bipartisan support and its embrace of both traditional regulation and market-based solutions. Among its most innovative features was the introduction of a cap-and-trade program to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, the primary cause of acid rain. This program placed a national cap on emissions and allowed utilities to buy and sell allowances, incentivizing the adoption of cleaner technologies and practices.The legislation also directed the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate 189 toxic air pollutants, a massive expansion from the original eight. It required cleaner gasoline in high-pollution areas and set deadlines for phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. States were mandated to submit detailed plans for meeting federal air quality standards, significantly increasing local accountability. The law established a new operating permit system for major sources of air pollution, centralizing compliance efforts. It also increased civil and criminal penalties for violators and expanded the public's right to sue polluters and the government for non-enforcement.The amendments reflected growing public concern about environmental degradation and represented a turning point in how the federal government approached pollution control. By pairing stricter standards with economic incentives, the 1990 law helped redefine regulatory strategy in environmental law.The U.S. Supreme Court extended a temporary pause on a lower court order that would have required the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits during the ongoing government shutdown. The administration is currently withholding approximately $4 billion from the program, which supports 42 million low-income Americans. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who initially granted the pause, stated she would have denied the request to extend it further. The pause is now set to expire Thursday, though an end to the shutdown could render the legal fight moot. Meanwhile, the Senate has approved a bipartisan bill to end the shutdown, which has become the longest in U.S. history. The lapse in SNAP funding marks the first such disruption in the program's six-decade existence, prompting recipients to rely on food pantries and cut back on essential expenses like medications.US Supreme Court extends pause on order requiring Trump to fully fund food aid | ReutersThree former senior enforcement officials from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have launched a new legal initiative aimed at holding corporations accountable in the absence of federal action. The project, backed by the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, will focus on bringing strategic lawsuits against companies accused of exploiting consumers, workers, and small businesses. The team—Eric Halperin, Cara Petersen, and Tara Mikkilineni—previously held top roles at the CFPB before it was effectively sidelined by the Trump administration.The CFPB's enforcement and supervision functions were largely dismantled this year, leaving a vacuum in consumer protection at the federal level. In response, consumer advocates and state officials have begun stepping in to fill the enforcement gap. Halperin emphasized that rising corporate profits alongside deepening financial stress for ordinary Americans is no coincidence, pointing to a lack of oversight that enables corporate misconduct to go unchecked.Former top enforcers at US watchdog join project to bring pro-consumer lawsuits | ReutersThe NCAA has agreed to a $303 million settlement to resolve claims from over 7,700 current and former Division I coaches who say they were illegally denied pay under a now-repealed policy that barred compensation for so-called “volunteer” coaches in all sports except baseball. Filed in federal court in Sacramento, the proposed class action settlement still requires approval from U.S. District Judge William Shubb. If approved, no coach will receive less than $5,000, with average payouts expected to be around $39,260 before fees, and some six-figure awards anticipated.The plaintiffs argued the NCAA and its member schools violated antitrust laws by maintaining the compensation ban, a rule repealed in 2023. The NCAA denies wrongdoing but said the deal provides “certainty and clarity.” The lawyers representing the coaches plan to seek up to 30% of the settlement—around $90.9 million—in legal fees. This case follows a $49 million NCAA settlement with baseball coaches over similar claims and comes amid broader legal pressure on the NCAA, including a pending $2.8 billion settlement allowing schools to pay student-athletes directly.NCAA agrees to $303 million settlement with unpaid college coaches | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Mexico's latest attempt to crack down on value-added tax (VAT) invoice fraud—and why it misses the mark. The new measure shifts enforcement burdens onto digital platforms like Amazon and eBay, criminalizing them for fraud they are neither equipped nor authorized to detect. Instead of building a real-time fiscal invoicing system that validates transactions as they occur, the government is digitizing enforcement without changing the underlying system that enables fraud in the first place.False VAT invoice fraud in Mexico typically involves shell companies, or factureras, issuing legally compliant but entirely fictitious receipts that allow taxpayers to inflate deductions or claim improper refunds. The fraud takes root not in shady ads or informal platforms, but in a tax infrastructure that fails to verify the legitimacy of transactions in real time. Despite having a digital identity framework and certified validators in place, more than 8,000 shell entities have used these tools to issue fake invoices that are indistinguishable from valid ones.The government's move to deputize digital platforms sidesteps the real problem: the lack of a transactional choke point where the buyer, seller, and tax authority all converge—namely, the point of sale. Countries like Brazil and Italy have shown that embedding validation at checkout prevents fraud from scaling. Until Mexico adopts this kind of infrastructure, enforcement efforts will continue to target the periphery while the core system remains vulnerable.Mexico Effort to Curtail VAT Fraud Needs Real-Time Verification This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

When Kristil Krug told friends she was being stalked online, she did everything right. Filed police reports, installed cameras, and tried to always be aware of her surroundings. But the real danger wasn't a stranger in the dark, it was her husband. And it wasn't until after Kristil's murder that investigators would uncover a truth more horrifying than anything she'd ever imagined. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Scott Schara gives an update with his personal life, including his upcoming book titled ‘Is The Government Legally Killing Us?’ Our Amazing Grace: https://ouramazinggrace.net www.worldviewmatters.tv © FreedomProject 2025

On Monday, a new collection of evidence, previously unseen outside the courtroom, was submitted as part of Richard Allen's efforts to overturn his conviction for the murders of Abby Williams and Libby German.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The family of 5-year-old Kinsleigh Welty has initiated a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Indiana Department of Child Services, asserting that their negligence contributed to the child's tragic death.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen to news from and about the Church in Asia in a capsule of around 10 minutes.North Indian state of Uttar Pradesh told to pay compensation to Muslim man detained for alleged forced conversion of a Hindu woman. Listen to the story and more in a wrap-up of the weekly news from Asia.Filed by UCA News reporters, compiled by Fabian Antony, text edited by Anosh Malekar, presented by Joe Mathews, Cover photo by AFP, background score by Andre Louis and produced by Binu Alex for ucanews.com For news in and about the Church in Asia, visit www.ucanews.comTo contribute please visit www.ucanews.com/donateOn Twitter Follow Or Connect through DM at : twitter.com/ucanewsTo view Video features please visit https://www.youtube.com/@ucanews

November 5, 2025 ~ James Harrington, Managing Partner at Fieger Law and Todd Flood, Attorney at Flood Law, stop by to chat with Kevin after they held a joint press conference on four additional lawsuits against DMC Sinai-Grace Hospital failing to protect patients and employees from former nurse and “known predator.” Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Send us a text

November 3, 2025 ~ Jeff Monosso, Fox News Correspondent and WJR Contributor discusses the latest in the suspected Dearborn terrorist plot. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

NEWS: DOJ vows no cover-up in probe of flood control scandal, sees cases filed by December | Nov. 4, 2025Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein#TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

HEADLINES: DOJ vows no cover-up in probe of flood control scandal, sees cases filed by December | Nov. 4, 2025Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein#TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

PREVIEW: Palisades Fire Scandal: Allegations of LA Fire Department Negligence and Cover-Up Guest: Jeff Bliss Jeff Bliss reports on new information revealed in an amended lawsuit filed against state and city entities regarding the massive Pacific Palisades fire that started on January 1st and burned through January 2nd. The revelation, coming ten or eleven months after the incident, is that firemen on the scene saw the smoldering fire but were obliged to leave. Whistleblowers and radio transmissions confirmed that the fire department was called off the original fire and sent home despite firemen recognizing the danger: the fire was still smoldering, abundant vegetation was present, and high winds were forecast. Because firefighters drove away from the smoldering fire, it reignited on January 6th, leading to the massive conflagration that destroyed an entire neighborhood. Bliss notes that the lawsuit is expected to be a "real bloodbath" because it points to negligence by the LA Fire Department and the state of California. It remains unknown whether the mayor or governor knew about the decision to pull the fire department from the scene.

This Day in Legal History: October ManifestoOn October 30, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia issued the October Manifesto in response to mounting unrest and revolutionary fervor sweeping the Russian Empire. The 1905 Revolution had erupted earlier that year following the Bloody Sunday massacre, in which unarmed protesters were gunned down by imperial guards. Strikes, peasant revolts, and mutinies within the military and navy intensified public pressure for reform. The October Manifesto promised several liberalizing measures: the creation of a legislative Duma (parliament), expansion of civil liberties including freedom of speech, assembly, and conscience, and a commitment that no law would be enacted without the Duma's consent.Though revolutionary factions remained skeptical, the manifesto temporarily quelled widespread unrest and led to the formation of Russia's first constitutional structure. It marked the first time autocratic power in Russia was publicly limited by law, at least in theory. However, the tsarist regime maintained significant control: Nicholas retained the right to dissolve the Duma at will and manipulate election laws. Conservative forces viewed the manifesto as a concession made under duress, while radicals criticized it as too limited and unenforceable.The October Manifesto also split opposition forces. Some liberals, known as Octobrists, supported working within the new constitutional framework. Others, including the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, dismissed the document as a façade and continued to push for broader revolution. In legal terms, the manifesto introduced the concept of legislative consent into Russian governance, establishing a precedent for popular representation in lawmaking. Although the Duma's actual power remained constrained, the October Manifesto set the stage for future political conflicts that would culminate in the Russian Revolutions of 1917.The Trump administration's recent approvals for oil and gas leasing in Alaska and road development projects are drawing scrutiny from environmental groups, who say the decisions were made opaquely during a government shutdown, limiting their ability to challenge them in court. These projects include reopening leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), issuing permits for the 211-mile Ambler Road to mining sites, and approving a controversial land exchange to allow road construction through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge wilderness. Environmental attorneys argue that key documents and analyses justifying these decisions remain unavailable, complicating legal strategies.The Interior Department, operating with a reduced staff, has only offered links to decision documents, providing little insight into environmental protections or regulatory compliance. Although these projects have been previously contested in court, the lack of transparency surrounding the latest approvals hinders further action. Some legal experts suggest potential conflicts of interest—such as the U.S. acquiring a stake in a company tied to the Ambler Road—could be grounds for future lawsuits. Additionally, the Izembek land swap may face legal challenges for bypassing required congressional approval.Environmental Groups Challenged in Fighting Trump's Alaska MovesThree former Morgan Stanley financial advisers are suing the U.S. Department of Labor over a recent advisory opinion that they argue unlawfully shields the bank from arbitration claims related to unpaid deferred compensation. Filed in Manhattan federal court, the lawsuit alleges that the Labor Department's September 9 finding—that Morgan Stanley's deferred compensation plan does not qualify as an employee benefit pension plan under ERISA—conflicts with two prior court rulings that said it does.The plaintiffs, Steve Sheresky, Jeffrey Samsen, and Nicholas Sutro, say the opinion was “arbitrary and capricious” and would undermine their efforts, and those of other former employees, to arbitrate claims over canceled or unpaid compensation. They also claim Morgan Stanley is already using the Labor Department's stance to dismiss ongoing claims and seek reimbursement of legal costs.Though Morgan Stanley is not a defendant in the suit, the plaintiffs argue the agency overstepped its authority and are asking the court to revoke the advisory opinion under the Administrative Procedure Act. The case, Sheresky et al v. U.S. Department of Labor, raises broader questions about administrative agencies issuing legal interpretations that can influence private litigation outcomes without proper judicial or legislative review.Former Morgan Stanley advisers sue US Labor Department | ReutersEli Lilly has announced a new partnership with Walmart to offer its weight-loss drug Zepbound at discounted, direct-to-consumer prices through Walmart pharmacies nationwide. This marks the first time customers using the LillyDirect platform can pick up the medication in person at a retail location. The lowest dose of Zepbound will be available for $349 per month for self-paying patients.The move is part of Lilly's broader strategy to expand access and boost market share in the competitive obesity drug space, currently valued at around $150 billion. Zepbound competes directly with Novo Nordisk's Wegovy, but recent data suggests Lilly has pulled ahead in prescriptions, despite Novo's earlier market entry.Lilly reported that around 35% of Zepbound prescriptions in Q2 came from cash-paying customers using LillyDirect. Both Lilly and Novo have also made their weight-loss drugs available through various telehealth platforms, further expanding patient access.Lilly, Walmart launch first retail pick-up option for weight-loss drug | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes earlier this week looks at the escalating tensions surrounding digital services taxes (DSTs), with France once again moving to raise its DST—from 3% to 15%—primarily targeting U.S. tech giants like Google, Meta, and Amazon. The U.S. has responded with familiar threats of tariffs and trade retaliation, repeating a now well-worn pattern of diplomatic pushback without addressing the underlying issue. That issue is structural: the global tax framework was built around physical presence, but today's digital economy allows companies to generate profits in countries where they have no offices, employees, or infrastructure.As frustration builds in countries watching tech firms reap profits without corresponding local tax contributions, DSTs have become a tool to reclaim taxing rights. In response, nearly 140 countries have worked through the OECD to build a two-pillar international solution. Pillar One aims to reallocate taxing rights based on where users are located; Pillar Two introduces a global minimum tax. Yet, while other countries move forward, the U.S. continues to resist fully embracing Pillar One—out of concern for political optics and revenue loss.That resistance is counterproductive. By refusing to commit to a multilateral framework, the U.S. is guaranteeing the very outcome it opposes: a fragmented global tax landscape where each country sets its own rules. The current whac-a-mole strategy—reacting to every unilateral move with threats—offers no long-term protection for U.S. companies and only heightens global instability. It's time for the U.S. to stop playing defense and help finalize a framework that reflects the realities of the digital economy.Whac-A-Mole Taxation Battles Will Persist Without A Global Deal This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Erie County District Attorney Mike Keane further details additional charges filed against a man accused of killing his girlfriend and their newborn son full 622 Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:30:00 +0000 b5tYXRzXMDCHGNjDPe2HWqJrZaYGjPli buffalo,crime,wben,erie county district attorney's office,michael keane,news WBEN Extras buffalo,crime,wben,erie county district attorney's office,michael keane,news Erie County District Attorney Mike Keane further details additional charges filed against a man accused of killing his girlfriend and their newborn son Archive of various reports and news events 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News

This Day in Legal History: Black TuesdayOn October 29, 1929, the United States experienced one of the most catastrophic financial events in its history—Black Tuesday, the climax of the stock market crash that helped trigger the Great Depression. While primarily remembered as an economic crisis, this day also had profound and lasting legal consequences that reshaped American financial regulation and the federal government's role in the economy.In the immediate aftermath, the lack of oversight and rampant speculation that had fueled the 1920s bull market came under intense scrutiny. The legal system responded in the 1930s with a suite of landmark legislative reforms designed to stabilize financial markets and restore public confidence. Chief among these were the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which established mandatory disclosure requirements for public companies and created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to enforce federal securities laws.These laws introduced the legal principle that corporations owe a duty of candor to investors and that misleading or fraudulent statements can be subject to civil and criminal penalties. They also laid the foundation for modern financial regulation, including rules governing insider trading, market manipulation, and fiduciary duties of brokers and advisors.The legal legacy of October 29, 1929, is thus not limited to market losses but includes the birth of a federal regulatory framework that continues to govern securities markets today. It marked a turning point where the federal government took a permanent role in policing Wall Street and protecting investors through statutory and administrative mechanisms.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will hear Argentina's appeal of a $16.1 billion judgment related to its 2012 expropriation of oil company YPF. The judgment, issued by U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in 2023, awarded $14.39 billion to Petersen Energia Inversora and $1.71 billion to Eton Park Capital Management, former minority shareholders of YPF. They claimed Argentina violated contractual obligations by failing to make a tender offer when it nationalized 51% of YPF from Spanish energy firm Repsol.Argentina argues the case should not be heard in a U.S. court, citing sovereign immunity, misapplication of Argentine law, and the principle of international comity. It also contends the damages are vastly overstated—amounting to 45% of its 2024 national budget. The litigation has been financially backed by Burford Capital, which could receive a large payout if the appeal fails.The appeal arrives as President Javier Milei, a libertarian reformer, works to stabilize Argentina's economy with austerity measures, having recently achieved a rare budget surplus. Meanwhile, Argentina is also separately appealing a court order to hand over YPF shares, an order currently on hold. The U.S. government has not taken a stance on the appeal but opposed the share turnover, citing foreign policy risks.Argentina to ask US appeals court to overturn $16.1 billion YPF judgment | ReutersA federal judge ruled that Bilal Essayli was unlawfully appointed as acting U.S. attorney for California's Central District, which includes Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright found that Essayli's continued service beyond the 120-day interim period allowed by law was improper since he had neither been nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. This decision disqualifies him from serving in the acting role but allows him to remain as first assistant U.S. attorney.The ruling does not dismiss three criminal indictments issued during Essayli's tenure, as they were signed by other prosecutors and no due process violations were found. Still, the judgment raises concerns about leadership stability in the largest federal judicial district in the country, serving roughly 19 million people.Essayli's appointment was part of a broader pattern under the Trump administration of bypassing Senate confirmation for key prosecutorial roles. A similar ruling recently invalidated the acting U.S. attorney appointment in Nevada, and another decision in New Jersey blocked Alina Habba, a Trump ally, from participating in prosecutions. These appointments are now under appeal.Judge disqualifies ‘acting' US attorney in California | ReutersThe celebrity video platform Cameo filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against OpenAI in a California federal court, accusing it of unlawfully using the name “Cameo” for a new feature in its Sora video generation app. Cameo claims that OpenAI's use of the term for AI-generated virtual likenesses causes brand confusion and threatens the distinctiveness of its trademark.OpenAI launched Sora as a standalone app in late September, and its feature—also named “Cameo”—lets users create AI-generated videos that can include virtual celebrities. Cameo argues this directly competes with its own service, where users pay real celebrities for personalized video messages. The company pointed to examples of AI-generated videos featuring public figures like Mark Cuban and Jake Paul, claiming this puts OpenAI in head-to-head competition with their business model.Cameo said it attempted to resolve the issue privately, but OpenAI declined to change the feature's name. OpenAI responded that it disagrees with the lawsuit, arguing no one can monopolize a generic term like “cameo.”The lawsuit seeks financial damages and a court injunction to stop OpenAI from using the name “Cameo.”OpenAI sued for trademark infringement over Sora's ‘Cameo' feature | ReutersTexas has hired the law firm Keller Postman—which previously secured a $1.4 billion settlement from Meta—to lead a new lawsuit alleging that Tylenol use during pregnancy increases the risk of autism in children. Filed in Panola County, the suit accuses Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, Tylenol's current owner, of misleading consumers by marketing the drug to pregnant women despite knowing potential developmental risks tied to its active ingredient, acetaminophen.Ashley Keller, a senior partner at the firm, said the case will be handled on a contingency basis, meaning Texas pays only if it wins, similar to prior deals with Meta and Google. The firm's effective hourly rate under that model can reach $3,780, though its total fees are capped at 11% of any recovery. Keller defended the state's approach, saying the firm invests heavily and shares the litigation risk with Texas.The lawsuit builds on ongoing national litigation over acetaminophen and childhood developmental disorders, though courts have previously rejected similar claims. A 2024 federal ruling in New York dismissed related cases after expert testimony linking acetaminophen to ADHD was excluded. Texas' case, however, is distinct because it focuses on state-level claims of deceptive trade practices and fraudulent transfer, alleging J&J unlawfully moved Tylenol liabilities to Kenvue.Texas Returns to Keller Postman to Link Tylenol to Child Autism This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

County Road 2209 is open and a re-filed Florida bill would crush pyramid schemes

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this podcast recorded at our recent Corporate Labor and Employment Counsel Exclusive® seminar, Stacy Bunck (shareholder, Kansas City) and Will Ruggiero (shareholder, Stamford) discuss retaliation claims in the workplace, particularly focusing on best practices for disciplining employees who have filed complaints. Will and Stacy share insights on the prevalence of retaliation claims, legal standards, and real-world case examples to illustrate how employers can mitigate risk and defend against such allegations. The conversation emphasizes the importance of thorough documentation, objective decision-making, and careful handling of sensitive employment situations.

Gary Fowler interviews Dr. Ashish D. Aggarwal, Co-founder & CEO of JubileeTV, as he explores how human-centered innovation can bring independence, dignity, and joy to the fastest-growing — yet most underserved — population: aging adults.Discover how JubileeTV is transforming the television into a caregiving and connection hub, reshaping how families support their loved ones from afar. Insights You'll Learn: Human-Centered Innovation – designing with empathy for aging adults The Rise of AgeTech – technology's role in independent, connected living Family Connection Through Tech – turning everyday devices into care solutions Innovation with Purpose – why empathy drives sustainable product design Aging in Place – empowering seniors to live safely and joyfully at home From Lab to Living Room – translating complex tech into simple experiences Lessons in Leadership – from Apple's iPod to 80+ patented innovations Why This Matters:Aging adults are the fastest-growing U.S. demographic yet remain underserved by innovationHuman-centered design ensures that technology integrates seamlessly with daily lifeDr. Aggarwal's journey shows how empathy, engineering, and purpose converge to create impactful innovationAs societies age, AgeTech will define the next frontier of digital health and family connection Expert Background:• Co-founder & CEO, JubileeTV – pioneering AgeTech platform empowering older adults and families• Filed 80+ patents spanning audio, video, and connected technology innovations• Former Engineering Leader at Harman International and PortalPlayer (Apple iPod)• Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara• Passionate about technology that uplifts, connects, and empowers aging adults Perfect For: Innovators, healthtech founders, product designers, investors, caregivers, and anyone passionate about human-centered technology, aging in place, and the intersection of empathy and innovation. Timely Topic: As the world's aging population accelerates, AgeTech innovation offers new ways to preserve independence and family connection. Discover how JubileeTV is leading this human-centered revolution — proving that technology's greatest impact begins with empathy.Subscribe for more global founder conversations from GSD Venture Studios:GSD Venture Studios: https://gsdvs.com#AgeTech #HumanCenteredDesign #Innovation #HealthTech #ElderCare #FutureOfAging #EmpathyInTech #StartupJourney #DigitalHealth #FamilyTech #TopGlobalStartups #TechnologyForGood #JubileeTV

The lawsuits filed against Leon Black in connection with Jeffrey Epstein are among the most graphic and disturbing to emerge from Epstein's orbit. Several women, including Cheri Pierson and a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe, accuse Black of violent sexual assaults that allegedly took place inside Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. Pierson claims Black raped her in 2002 after Epstein arranged what was supposed to be a massage appointment, describing the encounter as brutal and coercive. Another lawsuit alleges Black sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl with autism and Down syndrome, leaving her bleeding and traumatized. Both cases portray Black as a predator who exploited Epstein's network to target vulnerable women, echoing the broader pattern of abuse associated with Epstein's inner circle. Black's legal team has vehemently denied all allegations, dismissing the claims as false and opportunistic.Compounding the scandal is Black's series of high-dollar settlements and legal maneuvering. In 2023, he quietly paid $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands to avoid potential litigation tied to Epstein's trafficking operations there. He also succeeded in getting parts of other lawsuits dismissed on procedural grounds, including a defamation case brought by former model Guzel Ganieva, which was thrown out in early 2025. Still, the volume and nature of the claims — combined with his massive financial ties to Epstein and the Senate Finance Committee's scrutiny of his payments — have left Black mired in controversy. The lawsuits' explicit, violent allegations and the perception of systemic leniency have solidified his position as one of the most controversial figures to emerge from Epstein's shadow.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The lawsuits filed against Leon Black in connection with Jeffrey Epstein are among the most graphic and disturbing to emerge from Epstein's orbit. Several women, including Cheri Pierson and a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe, accuse Black of violent sexual assaults that allegedly took place inside Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. Pierson claims Black raped her in 2002 after Epstein arranged what was supposed to be a massage appointment, describing the encounter as brutal and coercive. Another lawsuit alleges Black sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl with autism and Down syndrome, leaving her bleeding and traumatized. Both cases portray Black as a predator who exploited Epstein's network to target vulnerable women, echoing the broader pattern of abuse associated with Epstein's inner circle. Black's legal team has vehemently denied all allegations, dismissing the claims as false and opportunistic.Compounding the scandal is Black's series of high-dollar settlements and legal maneuvering. In 2023, he quietly paid $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands to avoid potential litigation tied to Epstein's trafficking operations there. He also succeeded in getting parts of other lawsuits dismissed on procedural grounds, including a defamation case brought by former model Guzel Ganieva, which was thrown out in early 2025. Still, the volume and nature of the claims — combined with his massive financial ties to Epstein and the Senate Finance Committee's scrutiny of his payments — have left Black mired in controversy. The lawsuits' explicit, violent allegations and the perception of systemic leniency have solidified his position as one of the most controversial figures to emerge from Epstein's shadow.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

⏱️ How to Finalize a Divorce in Santa Clarita in 6 Weeks? | Santa Clarita Divorce ⏱️ Wondering if you can finalize your divorce in Santa Clarita in just 6 weeks? In this video, Tim Blankenship from Divorce661.com explains how we help couples complete the entire divorce process quickly and efficiently—long before the 6-month waiting period ends.

Attempted murder and weapons charges have been filed against a man suspected of shooting a Macomb County businessman. WWJ's Tony Ortiz and Tracey McCaskill have the afternoon's top news stories.

The lawsuits filed against Leon Black in connection with Jeffrey Epstein are among the most graphic and disturbing to emerge from Epstein's orbit. Several women, including Cheri Pierson and a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe, accuse Black of violent sexual assaults that allegedly took place inside Epstein's Manhattan townhouse. Pierson claims Black raped her in 2002 after Epstein arranged what was supposed to be a massage appointment, describing the encounter as brutal and coercive. Another lawsuit alleges Black sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl with autism and Down syndrome, leaving her bleeding and traumatized. Both cases portray Black as a predator who exploited Epstein's network to target vulnerable women, echoing the broader pattern of abuse associated with Epstein's inner circle. Black's legal team has vehemently denied all allegations, dismissing the claims as false and opportunistic.Compounding the scandal is Black's series of high-dollar settlements and legal maneuvering. In 2023, he quietly paid $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands to avoid potential litigation tied to Epstein's trafficking operations there. He also succeeded in getting parts of other lawsuits dismissed on procedural grounds, including a defamation case brought by former model Guzel Ganieva, which was thrown out in early 2025. Still, the volume and nature of the claims — combined with his massive financial ties to Epstein and the Senate Finance Committee's scrutiny of his payments — have left Black mired in controversy. The lawsuits' explicit, violent allegations and the perception of systemic leniency have solidified his position as one of the most controversial figures to emerge from Epstein's shadow.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​Sean "Diddy" Combs, the former music mogul, has been served with a superseding indictment that introduces new allegations of forced labor and sexual misconduct. Filed in the Southern District of New York, the indictment accuses Combs and his associates of coercing employees to work extensive hours under threats of physical, psychological, financial, and reputational harm. Notably, it alleges that Combs used physical violence and intimidation to compel one employee into engaging in sexual acts with him. These new charges supplement existing accusations of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation for prostitution, with the trial set to commence on May 5, 2025.In this episode, we get a look at that indictment and what was added to it.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.169.0_2.pdf

In the Appellant's Reply Brief for United States v. Sean Combs, case number 24-CR-542 (AS), the defense challenges the district court's decisions on multiple grounds. First, they argue that the court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search, asserting that this violated Combs' Fourth Amendment rights. Second, the defense contends that the court improperly admitted hearsay statements under the co-conspirator exception, allowing prejudicial evidence to influence the jury.Furthermore, the defense criticizes the jury instructions regarding the conspiracy charge, alleging they were misleading and contributed to an unfair conviction. They also dispute the sentencing decision, claiming the court failed to consider mitigating factors and imposed an excessively harsh sentence. Consequently, the defense seeks to have the conviction overturned or, at a minimum, to have the case remanded for resentencing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.35.0.pdf

​Sean "Diddy" Combs, the former music mogul, has been served with a superseding indictment that introduces new allegations of forced labor and sexual misconduct. Filed in the Southern District of New York, the indictment accuses Combs and his associates of coercing employees to work extensive hours under threats of physical, psychological, financial, and reputational harm. Notably, it alleges that Combs used physical violence and intimidation to compel one employee into engaging in sexual acts with him. These new charges supplement existing accusations of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation for prostitution, with the trial set to commence on May 5, 2025.In this episode, we get a look at that indictment and what was added to it.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.169.0_2.pdf

The Combs Defendants assert that Plaintiff's complaint fails on multiple legal grounds and should be dismissed. First, they argue that no plausible claim is alleged under Rule 12(b)(6): the Complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to meet the heightened pleading standard for fraud, defamation, RICO claims, or negligence. They contend Plaintiff offers nothing more than conclusory statements and unsupported legal labels, without demonstrating the required “who, what, when, where, and how” of each alleged misrepresentation or wrongful act. As a result, the Complaint falls short of establishing any viable cause of action warranting further discovery or litigation.Second, the Combs Defendants underscore that statutory protections—such as the federal safe-harbor for forward-looking statements, New York's absolute privilege for certain communications, and state-law immunity standards—shield them even if some wrongdoing is assumed. Moreover, any purported defamatory or false statements are not actionable as they are either opinion or based on disclosed facts, and the RICO claims are improperly pled in that they lack a pattern of racketeering activity. In light of these deficiencies and immunity defenses, the Court is asked to dismiss the Complaint against the Combs Defendants, with prejudice and without leave to amend.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630375.72.0.pdf

Liza Gardner's lawsuit, filed in November 2023 under New York's Adult Survivors Act, alleges that in 1990 she was sexually assaulted by Sean “Diddy” Combs and singer Aaron Hall when she was 16 years old. According to her complaint, Gardner attended an event hosted by MCA Records, where she and a friend were given drinks and then invited to an after-party at Hall's apartment. She claims Combs coerced her into having sex with him, then as she was dressing, Hall entered the room, pinned her down, and forced her to have sex with him too. She also asserts that in the days following the assault, Combs came to her home, beat and choked her until she lost consciousness.In her amended complaint, Gardner emphasizes that she was a minor at the time—under New York's age of consent in 1990—and contends that she could not legally consent to drinking alcohol with the accused. She further alleges that the sexual assault left her with lasting psychological harm, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and difficulty forming relationships.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.njd.551633.42.0.pdf

Liza Gardner's lawsuit, filed in November 2023 under New York's Adult Survivors Act, alleges that in 1990 she was sexually assaulted by Sean “Diddy” Combs and singer Aaron Hall when she was 16 years old. According to her complaint, Gardner attended an event hosted by MCA Records, where she and a friend were given drinks and then invited to an after-party at Hall's apartment. She claims Combs coerced her into having sex with him, then as she was dressing, Hall entered the room, pinned her down, and forced her to have sex with him too. She also asserts that in the days following the assault, Combs came to her home, beat and choked her until she lost consciousness.In her amended complaint, Gardner emphasizes that she was a minor at the time—under New York's age of consent in 1990—and contends that she could not legally consent to drinking alcohol with the accused. She further alleges that the sexual assault left her with lasting psychological harm, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and difficulty forming relationships.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.njd.551633.42.0.pdf

Anna Kane, the ex-wife of NHL player Evander Kane, has publicly identified herself as one of the earliest accusers of Sean "Diddy" Combs in a sexual assault lawsuit. Initially filing under the pseudonym "Jane Doe" in December 2023, she amended her complaint on December 7, 2024, to reveal her true identity. Kane alleges that in 2003, at the age of 17, she was drugged and raped by Combs, his associate Harve Pierre, and another unidentified man at Combs' New York City recording studio. The lawsuit includes photographs purportedly showing her at the studio during the incident and seeks unspecified damages under the Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law.Kane's decision to come forward was influenced by other women who have recently accused Combs of similar misconduct. She expressed that the demand to use her real name was an attempt to intimidate her, but she remains undeterred in her pursuit of justice. Combs, currently detained on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, has denied all allegations, labeling them as attempts to tarnish his reputation. The court has dismissed claims against Combs' corporate entities, focusing solely on the assault allegations against the individuals involved. An initial pretrial conference is scheduled for January 2025.to contact me:bobycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.71.0_5.pdf

Linktree: ⁠https://linktr.ee/Analytic⁠Join The Normandy For Additional Bonus Audio And Visual Content For All Things Nme+! Join Here: ⁠https://ow.ly/msoH50WCu0K⁠Join Analytic Dreamz on Notorious Mass Effect for an in-depth analysis of the Drake v. UMG lawsuit dismissal! On October 9, 2025, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas dismissed Drake's defamation case against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar's “Not Like Us,” ruling its lyrics as “nonactionable opinion” and hyperbolic rap battle rhetoric. Filed in January 2025, Drake claimed UMG knowingly promoted false accusations. Vargas called the Drake-Lamar feud, spanning 8–9 diss tracks, “hip-hop's most infamous.” Analytic Dreamz explores the Grammy-winning track's cultural impact, UMG's First Amendment win, and Drake's appeal plans. From Super Bowl performances to legal precedents, get the full breakdown of this landmark hip-hop case with Analytic Dreamz! Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/analytic-dreamz-notorious-mass-effect/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Liza Gardner's lawsuit, filed in November 2023 under New York's Adult Survivors Act, alleges that in 1990 she was sexually assaulted by Sean “Diddy” Combs and singer Aaron Hall when she was 16 years old. According to her complaint, Gardner attended an event hosted by MCA Records, where she and a friend were given drinks and then invited to an after-party at Hall's apartment. She claims Combs coerced her into having sex with him, then as she was dressing, Hall entered the room, pinned her down, and forced her to have sex with him too. She also asserts that in the days following the assault, Combs came to her home, beat and choked her until she lost consciousness.In her amended complaint, Gardner emphasizes that she was a minor at the time—under New York's age of consent in 1990—and contends that she could not legally consent to drinking alcohol with the accused. She further alleges that the sexual assault left her with lasting psychological harm, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and difficulty forming relationships.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.njd.551633.42.0.pdf

Anna Kane, the ex-wife of NHL player Evander Kane, has publicly identified herself as one of the earliest accusers of Sean "Diddy" Combs in a sexual assault lawsuit. Initially filing under the pseudonym "Jane Doe" in December 2023, she amended her complaint on December 7, 2024, to reveal her true identity. Kane alleges that in 2003, at the age of 17, she was drugged and raped by Combs, his associate Harve Pierre, and another unidentified man at Combs' New York City recording studio. The lawsuit includes photographs purportedly showing her at the studio during the incident and seeks unspecified damages under the Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law.Kane's decision to come forward was influenced by other women who have recently accused Combs of similar misconduct. She expressed that the demand to use her real name was an attempt to intimidate her, but she remains undeterred in her pursuit of justice. Combs, currently detained on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, has denied all allegations, labeling them as attempts to tarnish his reputation. The court has dismissed claims against Combs' corporate entities, focusing solely on the assault allegations against the individuals involved. An initial pretrial conference is scheduled for January 2025.to contact me:bobycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.71.0_5.pdf

Liza Gardner's lawsuit, filed in November 2023 under New York's Adult Survivors Act, alleges that in 1990 she was sexually assaulted by Sean “Diddy” Combs and singer Aaron Hall when she was 16 years old. According to her complaint, Gardner attended an event hosted by MCA Records, where she and a friend were given drinks and then invited to an after-party at Hall's apartment. She claims Combs coerced her into having sex with him, then as she was dressing, Hall entered the room, pinned her down, and forced her to have sex with him too. She also asserts that in the days following the assault, Combs came to her home, beat and choked her until she lost consciousness.In her amended complaint, Gardner emphasizes that she was a minor at the time—under New York's age of consent in 1990—and contends that she could not legally consent to drinking alcohol with the accused. She further alleges that the sexual assault left her with lasting psychological harm, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and difficulty forming relationships.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.njd.551633.42.0.pdf

Liza Gardner's lawsuit, filed in November 2023 under New York's Adult Survivors Act, alleges that in 1990 she was sexually assaulted by Sean “Diddy” Combs and singer Aaron Hall when she was 16 years old. According to her complaint, Gardner attended an event hosted by MCA Records, where she and a friend were given drinks and then invited to an after-party at Hall's apartment. She claims Combs coerced her into having sex with him, then as she was dressing, Hall entered the room, pinned her down, and forced her to have sex with him too. She also asserts that in the days following the assault, Combs came to her home, beat and choked her until she lost consciousness.In her amended complaint, Gardner emphasizes that she was a minor at the time—under New York's age of consent in 1990—and contends that she could not legally consent to drinking alcohol with the accused. She further alleges that the sexual assault left her with lasting psychological harm, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and difficulty forming relationships.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.njd.551633.42.0.pdf