Podcasts about filed

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.

National Coloured Congress MP Fadiel Adams has laid a complaint against the National Police Commissioner General Fannie Masemola for nepotism. Adams is accusing General masemola of establishing a network of patronage within SAPS by facilitating and promoting family members and close associates into strategic positions.. He says he has evidence to back his claims. Adams spoke with SABC News reporter Bulelani Phillip outside the Cape Town Central Police Station

Listen to news from and about the Church in Asia in a capsule of around 10 minutes.Indonesian authorities criticized for including former military dictator Suharto in a list of nominees for recognition as national heroes. 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

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.

In this bulletin, a landmark class action is filed, alleging sexual violence and harassment in the ADF, Donald Trump terminates all trade talks with Canada over a television advertisement. And in football, the FIFA World Cup fan village is launched at the Rockefeller Centre in Manhattan.

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

This Day in Legal History: Al Capone ConvictedOn October 17, 1931, notorious gangster Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion in federal court, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history. Capone, who had risen to national infamy during Prohibition as the head of a sprawling Chicago crime syndicate, had long evaded prosecution for his violent and illegal enterprises. Despite widespread public knowledge of his role in bootlegging, extortion, and murder, prosecutors struggled to tie him directly to any of those crimes. Instead, federal investigators, led by Treasury Department agent Frank J. Wilson, focused on Capone's lavish lifestyle and failure to file income tax returns.The government's case rested on a novel legal theory at the time: that even illegally obtained income was subject to federal taxation. This approach was upheld by the Supreme Court in prior decisions and proved decisive in Capone's prosecution. During trial, prosecutors introduced evidence of Capone's expenditures and testimony from witnesses who detailed his earnings, none of which had been declared to the IRS. The jury found him guilty on five counts of tax evasion.Capone was sentenced to 11 years in federal prison, fined $50,000, and charged nearly $30,000 in court costs and back taxes. He was denied bail and began serving time in the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta before being transferred to Alcatraz in 1934. His conviction not only marked the downfall of one of America's most feared mob bosses but also cemented the IRS's role in fighting organized crime. The case showcased the growing power of the federal government in regulating and prosecuting financial crimes.Former National Security Adviser John Bolton was indicted on charges of sharing classified government information, including top-secret material, with two relatives identified by sources as his wife and daughter. The indictment alleges Bolton transmitted over a thousand pages of sensitive information—gleaned from high-level meetings and intelligence briefings—between 2018 and 2025, with discussions indicating the material might be used in a book project. He referred to his relatives as his “editors” and communicated with a publisher about potential rights. Bolton has denied wrongdoing, stating he looks forward to defending himself and accusing Trump of abuse of power. His attorney maintains no classified information was unlawfully shared or stored.The case is part of a broader trend under the Trump administration, which has pursued indictments against multiple critics, including James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump has actively pushed for such prosecutions, and concerns have been raised about the politicization of the Justice Department. Still, officials note Bolton's case began in 2022 and involves more substantial evidence. Bolton's personal email was reportedly hacked by an actor tied to the Iranian government, which further complicated the case, though he allegedly failed to report the storage of classified material. If convicted, Bolton faces up to 10 years per count under the Espionage Act.John Bolton, former Trump adviser, charged with sharing classified information | ReutersThe U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a federal lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's imposition of a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications. The lawsuit, brought in Washington, D.C., argues that the fee—announced by Trump in a September proclamation—exceeds the president's legal authority and threatens to destabilize the visa system established by Congress. This marks the Chamber's first legal action against the Trump administration since his second term began in January.The H-1B program allows U.S. employers to hire skilled foreign workers, particularly in fields like technology and engineering. Companies typically pay between $2,000 and $5,000 per H-1B petition, with most applications costing under $3,600. The newly announced fee would significantly raise costs for employers, potentially forcing them to reduce their reliance on foreign talent or abandon the program altogether.Trump justified the fee by citing national and economic security concerns, claiming the H-1B program facilitates the replacement of American workers. The Chamber disputes that, arguing the fee is not an immigration restriction because employers—not foreign nationals—pay it. The policy is also facing another legal challenge in California from unions, religious groups, and employers. Business leaders warn that the fee will exacerbate labor shortages and harm U.S. competitiveness.Major US business group sues over Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee | ReutersNew Jersey filed a lawsuit against gun manufacturer Sig Sauer, seeking to halt sales of its P320 handgun within the state over allegations that the weapon can fire without the trigger being pulled. Filed in Sussex County state court, the lawsuit claims the company marketed the pistol as safe while knowing of a design flaw that allows for unintentional discharges. The complaint cites several such incidents, including the fatal shooting of a detective lieutenant in April 2023 as he was preparing to clean his P320.The state is seeking a mandatory recall of all P320s sold in New Jersey and a court order to ban further sales of the model. The lawsuit invokes product liability, consumer fraud, and public nuisance laws, marking the first time a government entity has sued over this issue, according to Attorney General Matthew Platkin. At a press conference, Platkin accused Sig Sauer of promoting the handgun's safety while omitting information about its known risks.Sig Sauer has denied the P320 can fire on its own, blaming incidents on user error. Still, the company has faced numerous lawsuits from civilians and law enforcement officers nationwide and has paid out millions in damages. New Jersey's suit claims the P320's design allows it to be fully cocked with a chambered round and that minor movement can activate the internal striker, causing it to discharge unexpectedly—especially dangerous for law enforcement officers who carry the firearm holstered and ready.New Jersey sues Sig Sauer, alleging handguns fire on their own | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Frédéric Chopin.Frédéric Chopin, the Polish composer and virtuoso pianist, died on October 17, 1849, at the age of 39 in Paris. Though his life was brief, his influence on Romantic music—and piano literature in particular—has been profound and enduring. Chopin composed almost exclusively for solo piano, blending technical innovation with a deeply expressive, often introspective voice. Among his most beloved works is the Nocturne in E-flat major, Op. 9, No. 2, composed when he was just 20.This piece exemplifies Chopin's signature style: lyrical, ornamented melodies floating over a gently rocking accompaniment. It unfolds in a graceful ternary form, inviting both performer and listener into a world of delicate melancholy and understated virtuosity. The Nocturne's opening theme returns with increasingly elaborate embellishment, showcasing Chopin's genius for subtle variation and emotional nuance. Though brief, the piece captures a vast interior world—what Robert Schumann once described as “cannons buried in flowers.”Chopin's nocturnes elevated the genre from salon entertainment to high art, and the Nocturne in E-flat major remains a favorite among pianists and audiences alike. Its enduring popularity testifies to Chopin's ability to transform a simple melody into something timeless. That he died on this day in 1849 makes this day an especially fitting moment to revisit his music, which continues to resonate with quiet power over 175 years later.Without further ado, Frédéric Chopin's Nocturne in E-flat major, Op. 9, No. 2 – enjoy! 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

VLOG Oct 16 Luigi Mangione delay to Jan 9; Diddy judgement filed, so appeal in 2 weeks https://www.patreon.com/posts/diddy-dockets-to-141285452 Crypto bros Peraire-Bueno trial https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/extra-on-taking-25m-from-ethereum toward book Sudan trial PNC scam OCC FOIA https://innercitypress.com/cra4cpncfirstbankchallengeffw101525.html UN still bans Press

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

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

This Day in Legal History: John Marshall Harlan DiesOn October 14, 1911, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan I died, closing the chapter on one of the Court's most powerful voices of dissent. Appointed in 1877 by President Rutherford B. Hayes, Harlan served for 34 years and left an indelible mark on constitutional law—not through majority opinions, but through unwavering dissents that often read as moral indictments of the Court's direction.Most famously, Harlan stood alone in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), rejecting the Court's embrace of “separate but equal” and warning that the Constitution is “color-blind.” At a time when the legal system was ratifying segregation, Harlan insisted that racial classifications violated both the spirit and letter of the Fourteenth Amendment. His lone dissent—widely criticized at the time—would later become foundational to the Court's reversal in Brown v. Board of Education more than half a century later.But Harlan's commitment to constitutional principles extended beyond race. He defended civil liberties in United States v. E.C. Knight Co., supported expansive readings of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and warned against unchecked corporate power. His approach was rooted in a belief that the Reconstruction Amendments were designed not just to end slavery, but to secure full legal equality.Though his views often put him in the minority, time has proven Harlan prophetic. His jurisprudence helped shift the constitutional center of gravity in the 20th century, as future courts took up the causes he championed alone. Remarkably, his grandson, John Marshall Harlan II, would go on to sit on the Court as well, carving out his own legacy in cases like Katz v. United States and Reynolds v. Sims.Justice Harlan I's death marked the loss of a constitutional conscience—one that held firm against the tide of his era. His dissents remain a blueprint for principled judging, reminding us that sometimes the most enduring legal influence comes not from prevailing, but from refusing to go along.In a massive trial that began this week in London's High Court, over 1.6 million claimants are suing several major carmakers—including Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Nissan, Renault, Peugeot, and Citroën—over allegations that they used illegal “defeat devices” to cheat diesel emissions tests. The lawsuit, one of the largest in UK legal history, follows in the wake of Volkswagen's 2015 “dieselgate” scandal and targets vehicles manufactured between 2012 and 2017.Claimants argue that these manufacturers deliberately programmed cars to meet legal nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions standards only under lab testing, while on-the-road emissions were allegedly up to 12 times higher—harming the environment and misleading consumers. They seek compensation for what they claim was a systemic, industry-wide choice to cheat rather than comply with the law.The defendants deny any wrongdoing, rejecting comparisons to VW and maintaining that emissions systems are legally and justifiably calibrated to function differently under certain conditions for technical and safety reasons. A central point of contention is whether the sample vehicles in the case contain prohibited defeat devices.The trial currently focuses on 20 vehicles, but its outcome will set a precedent for nearly 850,000 claims and influence another 800,000 similar suits against other carmakers, including Vauxhall/Opel and BMW. The court's decision on liability is expected by mid-2026, with damages to be determined separately.Carmakers accused in huge UK lawsuits of cheating diesel emissions tests | ReutersVisa and Mastercard have agreed to a $199.5 million settlement to resolve a class action brought by merchants who alleged the companies colluded to shift fraud-related costs onto businesses. Filed in federal court in Brooklyn, the settlement—still awaiting judicial approval—stems from a lawsuit first initiated in 2016, challenging rule changes that made merchants liable for chargebacks when they hadn't upgraded to chip-enabled point-of-sale systems.The plaintiffs argued this policy shift violated antitrust laws, claiming Visa and Mastercard moved in parallel to implement changes that benefited the networks while leaving merchants exposed to fraud losses without any offsetting fee reductions. According to the proposed agreement, Visa will pay $119.7 million and Mastercard will contribute $79.8 million. Discover and American Express, also named in the litigation, previously agreed to a $32.2 million settlement.While all four companies deny wrongdoing, plaintiffs' lawyers praised the deal, saying it recovers around 13% of the best-case damages scenario and over half of a more conservative estimate. Mastercard stated the settlement supports its broader efforts to increase security through technological upgrades, while Visa and the plaintiffs' counsel did not comment.This case is separate from the larger $5 billion settlement Visa and Mastercard reached in 2019 over allegations of fixing credit and debit card fees.Visa, Mastercard agree to $199.5 million settlement in merchants' class action | ReutersFederal courts in California and Alabama recently fined two attorneys thousands of dollars for submitting legal filings that contained fake case citations generated by AI. These sanctions highlight a persistent problem: despite repeated warnings, some lawyers continue to rely uncritically on generative AI tools that produce fictitious case law, a phenomenon known as “hallucination.” Judges in both cases criticized the attorneys for failing to verify the AI-generated content, calling the misconduct more serious than simple oversight.In Alabama, Judge Terry F. Moorer imposed a $5,000 sanction on James A. Johnson, a court-appointed criminal defense attorney, who filed a motion containing fabricated citations. The judge noted that Johnson used a Microsoft Word plugin called Ghostwriter Legal and submitted the motion during a holiday weekend while caring for a relative, but emphasized that such explanations do not excuse the lack of basic diligence. Johnson must now disclose the sanctions order in all cases he handles for the next year, and his client—visibly upset in court—requested new counsel, delaying the case.In California, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín fined attorney Edward A. Quesada $1,000 after his civil filing contained at least three false citations. Quesada admitted he had run out of time and may have accidentally copied one fake citation from an AI-generated web summary. He was also ordered to complete a CLE course on responsible AI use, with the judge citing his failure to stay informed about relevant legal technologies as a violation of professional conduct rules.Fake AI Citations Produce Fines for California, Alabama LawyersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I examine the property rights implications at the heart of Pung v. Isabella County, a case the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear. I argue that when the government seizes and sells property for unpaid taxes, “just compensation” shouldn't be defined by whatever price the property fetches at a government-run auction. That process—entirely designed and controlled by local officials—often prioritizes administrative efficiency over fair market value, turning tax sales into what I describe as “clearance rack” events.The problem is structural. Local treasurers are incentivized to close the books quickly rather than ensure former owners recover equity. That means the government may undersell a home, pay itself the back taxes, and call it a day—leaving the former owner uncompensated for the true value of what they lost. Worse, when courts treat the auction price as constitutionally adequate, they allow the taker to set the value of what it took.I draw a comparison to Tyler v. Hennepin County, where the Court ruled the government can't pocket surplus proceeds from a tax sale. Pung asks the natural follow-up: what rules apply when determining how much surplus exists? If courts accept fire-sale auction prices as “just compensation,” they effectively endorse an end-run around the Fifth Amendment.As a compromise, I propose a clear rule: auction prices should only be presumed fair if they fall within 10% of an appraised value. Outside that range, the burden should shift to the government to prove the sale was legitimate. After all, if local governments want the legitimacy of a market sale, they need to run a sale that looks like one. Otherwise, taxpayers are left holding the bag—punished not for failing to pay taxes, but for the government's indifference to recovering real value from their property. 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

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.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

Tova Noel, a former federal prison guard who was on duty when Jeffrey Epstein died in custody, is being sued by a female coworker at her new job in New York. According to the lawsuit, Noel allegedly punched and pulled the coworker's ear during a confrontation at the medical office where they both work. The complaint claims that the assault occurred in front of other staff and that surveillance cameras were—conveniently—“not functioning” at the time, making it difficult to independently verify what happened.The plaintiff, who had been responsible for training Noel, was apparently terminated after filing the complaint with human resources. The suit seeks damages for alleged emotional distress, harm, and intimidation. Noel remains employed at that location as of the reporting.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

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

Nicole Kidman filed the paper work to end her marriage with Keith Urban, and Taylor Swift hit another astronomical milestone. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices