Podcast appearances and mentions of jane roe

This Day in Legal History: Roe v. WadeOn January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, fundamentally reshaping American constitutional law and reproductive rights. In a 7–2 ruling, the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a person's right to privacy, which includes the right to choose to have an abortion. The case arose after a Texas woman, known under the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” challenged state laws that criminalized abortion except to save the life of the mother. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun articulated a constitutional framework that balanced the state's interest in regulating abortions with an individual's right to privacy.The Court introduced a trimester system, giving states greater regulatory power as pregnancy progressed but prohibiting outright bans on abortion in the first trimester. This decision effectively invalidated abortion restrictions in dozens of states and became one of the most politically and legally contentious rulings in American history. Roe expanded the constitutional interpretation of the right to privacy, which had been previously recognized in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, but its grounding in substantive due process quickly became a lightning rod for critics.Opponents of the ruling argued that the Constitution did not explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, while supporters saw it as a critical protection of bodily autonomy and gender equality. Over the next five decades, Roe faced continual challenges and legislative efforts aimed at narrowing its scope. Ultimately, in 2022, the Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, returning authority to regulate abortion back to individual states and ending federal constitutional protection for abortion rights. The legacy of Roe v. Wade continues to shape legal discourse, political identity, and reproductive healthcare policy in the United States.A federal appeals court has lifted a temporary order that had limited immigration agents from using tear gas and force against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis, a city currently at the center of a legal and political clash over immigration enforcement. The lower court's injunction—issued by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez—had aimed to protect demonstrators as they protested President Trump's mass deployment of ICE and Border Patrol agents throughout the area. The Biden-era precedent of restrained enforcement has been upended by Trump's aggressive tactics, which now include militarized agents patrolling streets and confronting U.S. citizens, particularly people of color, demanding identification and sometimes using force.The protests intensified after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen monitoring ICE activities. In response to mounting legal challenges, including a suit from the Minnesota state government and its largest cities, the Trump administration has doubled down. Not only did the Department of Homeland Security appeal the injunction, but the Justice Department has also launched a criminal investigation into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, accusing them of obstructing federal law enforcement.The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of the injunction while it considers a longer-term ruling, effectively allowing ICE to resume more aggressive tactics in the meantime. Critics, including Walz and Frey, warn that the Trump administration is intentionally provoking unrest to justify escalated federal intervention. The administration defends its actions as necessary to combat fraud, particularly among Minnesota's Somali community, which Trump has disparaged in stark terms. The legal and political standoff continues, with lawsuits and investigations adding to the tension.US appeals court lifts order curbing immigration agents' tactics against Minnesota protesters | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appeared reluctant to endorse President Trump's unprecedented attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, signaling concern over the potential threat to the central bank's independence. During oral arguments, justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had the authority to remove Cook without due process, especially given the lack of precedent and the vague legal standard for removing Fed officials “for cause.”The administration cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations—claims Cook denies—as grounds for dismissal. However, several justices, including conservatives like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed concern that firing a Fed governor without a hearing or judicial review could set a dangerous precedent and politicize the central bank. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether minor or disputed past conduct could justify removal without any formal process.Cook argued the allegations were merely a pretext for her removal over policy disagreements, particularly her resistance to Trump's pressure to cut interest rates. The Court's skepticism reflects unease about weakening safeguards designed to insulate the Fed from political interference. District Judge Jia Cobb previously blocked Cook's removal, citing due process concerns and insufficient legal cause.A decision from the Court is expected by June. If the justices rule in Cook's favor or remand the case for further proceedings, it could reinforce limits on presidential power over independent agencies.US Supreme Court appears reluctant to let Trump fire Fed's Lisa Cook | ReutersThe Trump administration has launched a new immigration enforcement campaign in Maine, dubbed “Operation Catch of the Day,” with a focus on targeting criminal offenders—though internal sources indicate the true emphasis is on refugee populations, especially Somalis. Over 100 federal immigration agents have been deployed to the state, intensifying fears in immigrant communities and sparking political backlash.Maine Governor Janet Mills, a Democrat currently running for a U.S. Senate seat, criticized the operation as unwelcome and politically motivated. This mirrors broader national trends, with Trump having already surged thousands of agents into other Democratic-led areas, such as Minnesota, where tensions recently escalated after ICE officers fatally shot a U.S. citizen. In Lewiston, Maine's second-largest city and home to a longstanding Somali refugee community, the mayor condemned ICE's tactics as inhumane and fear-driven.Despite Trump's framing of the effort as a crackdown on criminality, many targeted individuals have no criminal records. Critics argue the campaign serves more as political theater than public safety. Meanwhile, public support for such operations has eroded, especially as aggressive enforcement methods—including tear gas and raids—become more visible. DHS has defended its actions and criticized local leaders like Mills for not fully cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.Trump administration starts immigration operation in Maine | ReutersIn my latest piece for Forbes, I examine the absurdity of President Trump's renewed push to acquire Greenland—this time by threatening tariffs on countries that don't support the plan. Far from making foreign governments pay, these tariffs would, once again, function as a consumption tax on Americans. Drawing from the Kiel Institute's data, I show that during the 2025 “Liberation Day” tariff campaign, 96% of the costs fell on U.S. importers and consumers, not foreign exporters. This new Greenland-linked tariff threat follows the same script, only now it's not even pretending to protect American industry—it's economic coercion for a geopolitical fantasy.I describe how tariffs, sold as leverage, collapse trade volumes without lowering foreign prices. Countries like Brazil and India didn't budge on pricing; they just shipped elsewhere. Meanwhile, Americans paid more for less. I also highlight how small businesses and low-income households feel the pain first, as import costs ripple through the economy, raising prices on both foreign and domestic goods. Despite the $200 billion in customs revenue collected, it amounts to a regressive tax—not a clever policy move.The deeper issue, as I argue, is the unchecked executive power to unilaterally impose tariffs. Current law enables the president to take sweeping trade actions with little oversight, and we're now seeing that power used not for national defense or economic stability, but to punish allies for not acquiescing to a real estate deal. I call on Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in trade policy and set clear limits on executive authority in this arena. Otherwise, we're left with a precedent where tariffs become tools of vanity projects—not national strategy.Tariffs For Greenland—Or, ‘I'll Hold My Breath Until You Turn Blue' 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

In this episode, we dive into the true story behind Roe v. Wade, exploring not just the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case itself, but the real people at the heart of it and the decades-long fight over reproductive rights that followed. We introduce Norma McCorvey, who was Jane Roe, as well as Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, the 26 and 28 year old lawyers who stood before the Supreme Court. We also look at the legal explanations of the case, criticisms of it, the following cases that altered it and what the laws were prior to the landmark decision.

In November 2024, country music star Garth Brooks filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss a sexual assault and battery lawsuit brought against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks contended that Roe's claims should be dismissed or transferred to Mississippi, where a related lawsuit he initiated against her was already pending. He argued that the allegations were part of an extortion attempt and that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.In this episode, we take a look at that motion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.12.0_1.pdf

Jane Roe, a former makeup artist for Garth Brooks, filed an opposition to Brooks' motion to dismiss her sexual assault lawsuit in California. In her opposition, Roe contended that Brooks' attempt to dismiss the case was a strategic move to evade California's legal protections, specifically its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that intimidate or silence individuals exercising their legal rights. Roe's legal team argued that Brooks' preemptive defamation lawsuit filed in Mississippi was a form of "forum-shopping," intended to undermine her claims and deny her the protections afforded by California law.Roe's opposition emphasized that her allegations of sexual misconduct, including assault and battery, were serious claims that deserved to be heard in a California court, where the alleged incidents occurred. She maintained that dismissing her case in favor of Brooks' Mississippi lawsuit would unjustly disadvantage her and potentially suppress her pursuit of justice. The California court, acknowledging the complexities introduced by the concurrent Mississippi case, denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the related lawsuit in Mississippi. This decision allowed Roe's claims to remain active in California, awaiting further developments from the Mississippi court.(commercial at 8:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:

In his further reply supporting the motion to dismiss Jane Roe's lawsuit, Garth Brooks contended that Roe's allegations were not only baseless but also strategically filed in California to circumvent ongoing legal proceedings in Mississippi. Brooks emphasized that he had initiated a defamation lawsuit against Roe in Mississippi prior to her California filing, accusing her of attempting to extort him with false claims. He argued that Roe's lawsuit was a retaliatory action designed to undermine his preemptive legal measures and to exploit California's legal system.Brooks' legal team asserted that the California court should dismiss Roe's lawsuit to prevent duplicative litigation and potential conflicting judgments between the two states. They maintained that the Mississippi court was the appropriate venue to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, given the pre-existing lawsuit and the substantial overlap in the issues presented. Despite these arguments, the California court denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice, opting to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the Mississippi case.In December 2024, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald denied Garth Brooks' motion to dismiss a sexual assault lawsuit filed against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks had sought dismissal on the grounds that a related defamation lawsuit he filed in Mississippi should take precedence. However, Judge Fitzgerald ruled that the California case would be stayed pending the outcome of the Mississippi proceedings, emphasizing that dismissal at this stage was inappropriate.The judge's decision underscores the complexity of concurrent legal actions in different jurisdictions. By staying the California proceedings, the court aims to prevent conflicting judgments and ensure a fair adjudication of the intertwined issues. Brooks is required to inform the California court of any developments in the Mississippi case within ten court days, highlighting the ongoing nature of this legal matter.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.28.0.pdfsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.25.0.pdf

In November 2024, country music star Garth Brooks filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss a sexual assault and battery lawsuit brought against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks contended that Roe's claims should be dismissed or transferred to Mississippi, where a related lawsuit he initiated against her was already pending. He argued that the allegations were part of an extortion attempt and that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.In this episode, we take a look at that motion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.12.0_1.pdf

Jane Roe, a former makeup artist for Garth Brooks, filed an opposition to Brooks' motion to dismiss her sexual assault lawsuit in California. In her opposition, Roe contended that Brooks' attempt to dismiss the case was a strategic move to evade California's legal protections, specifically its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that intimidate or silence individuals exercising their legal rights. Roe's legal team argued that Brooks' preemptive defamation lawsuit filed in Mississippi was a form of "forum-shopping," intended to undermine her claims and deny her the protections afforded by California law.Roe's opposition emphasized that her allegations of sexual misconduct, including assault and battery, were serious claims that deserved to be heard in a California court, where the alleged incidents occurred. She maintained that dismissing her case in favor of Brooks' Mississippi lawsuit would unjustly disadvantage her and potentially suppress her pursuit of justice. The California court, acknowledging the complexities introduced by the concurrent Mississippi case, denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the related lawsuit in Mississippi. This decision allowed Roe's claims to remain active in California, awaiting further developments from the Mississippi court.(commercial at 8:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:

In his further reply supporting the motion to dismiss Jane Roe's lawsuit, Garth Brooks contended that Roe's allegations were not only baseless but also strategically filed in California to circumvent ongoing legal proceedings in Mississippi. Brooks emphasized that he had initiated a defamation lawsuit against Roe in Mississippi prior to her California filing, accusing her of attempting to extort him with false claims. He argued that Roe's lawsuit was a retaliatory action designed to undermine his preemptive legal measures and to exploit California's legal system.Brooks' legal team asserted that the California court should dismiss Roe's lawsuit to prevent duplicative litigation and potential conflicting judgments between the two states. They maintained that the Mississippi court was the appropriate venue to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, given the pre-existing lawsuit and the substantial overlap in the issues presented. Despite these arguments, the California court denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice, opting to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the Mississippi case.In December 2024, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald denied Garth Brooks' motion to dismiss a sexual assault lawsuit filed against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks had sought dismissal on the grounds that a related defamation lawsuit he filed in Mississippi should take precedence. However, Judge Fitzgerald ruled that the California case would be stayed pending the outcome of the Mississippi proceedings, emphasizing that dismissal at this stage was inappropriate.The judge's decision underscores the complexity of concurrent legal actions in different jurisdictions. By staying the California proceedings, the court aims to prevent conflicting judgments and ensure a fair adjudication of the intertwined issues. Brooks is required to inform the California court of any developments in the Mississippi case within ten court days, highlighting the ongoing nature of this legal matter.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.28.0.pdfsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.25.0.pdf

In November 2024, country music star Garth Brooks filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss a sexual assault and battery lawsuit brought against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks contended that Roe's claims should be dismissed or transferred to Mississippi, where a related lawsuit he initiated against her was already pending. He argued that the allegations were part of an extortion attempt and that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.In this episode, we take a look at that motion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.12.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jane Roe, a former makeup artist for Garth Brooks, filed an opposition to Brooks' motion to dismiss her sexual assault lawsuit in California. In her opposition, Roe contended that Brooks' attempt to dismiss the case was a strategic move to evade California's legal protections, specifically its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that intimidate or silence individuals exercising their legal rights. Roe's legal team argued that Brooks' preemptive defamation lawsuit filed in Mississippi was a form of "forum-shopping," intended to undermine her claims and deny her the protections afforded by California law.Roe's opposition emphasized that her allegations of sexual misconduct, including assault and battery, were serious claims that deserved to be heard in a California court, where the alleged incidents occurred. She maintained that dismissing her case in favor of Brooks' Mississippi lawsuit would unjustly disadvantage her and potentially suppress her pursuit of justice. The California court, acknowledging the complexities introduced by the concurrent Mississippi case, denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the related lawsuit in Mississippi. This decision allowed Roe's claims to remain active in California, awaiting further developments from the Mississippi court.(commercial at 8:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his further reply supporting the motion to dismiss Jane Roe's lawsuit, Garth Brooks contended that Roe's allegations were not only baseless but also strategically filed in California to circumvent ongoing legal proceedings in Mississippi. Brooks emphasized that he had initiated a defamation lawsuit against Roe in Mississippi prior to her California filing, accusing her of attempting to extort him with false claims. He argued that Roe's lawsuit was a retaliatory action designed to undermine his preemptive legal measures and to exploit California's legal system.Brooks' legal team asserted that the California court should dismiss Roe's lawsuit to prevent duplicative litigation and potential conflicting judgments between the two states. They maintained that the Mississippi court was the appropriate venue to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, given the pre-existing lawsuit and the substantial overlap in the issues presented. Despite these arguments, the California court denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice, opting to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the Mississippi case.In December 2024, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald denied Garth Brooks' motion to dismiss a sexual assault lawsuit filed against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks had sought dismissal on the grounds that a related defamation lawsuit he filed in Mississippi should take precedence. However, Judge Fitzgerald ruled that the California case would be stayed pending the outcome of the Mississippi proceedings, emphasizing that dismissal at this stage was inappropriate.The judge's decision underscores the complexity of concurrent legal actions in different jurisdictions. By staying the California proceedings, the court aims to prevent conflicting judgments and ensure a fair adjudication of the intertwined issues. Brooks is required to inform the California court of any developments in the Mississippi case within ten court days, highlighting the ongoing nature of this legal matter.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.28.0.pdfsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.25.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In December 2024, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald denied Garth Brooks' motion to dismiss a sexual assault lawsuit filed against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks had sought dismissal on the grounds that a related defamation lawsuit he filed in Mississippi should take precedence. However, Judge Fitzgerald ruled that the California case would be stayed pending the outcome of the Mississippi proceedings, emphasizing that dismissal at this stage was inappropriate.The judge's decision underscores the complexity of concurrent legal actions in different jurisdictions. By staying the California proceedings, the court aims to prevent conflicting judgments and ensure a fair adjudication of the intertwined issues. Brooks is required to inform the California court of any developments in the Mississippi case within ten court days, highlighting the ongoing nature of this legal matter.(commercial at 7:33)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.28.0.pdf

In his further reply supporting the motion to dismiss Jane Roe's lawsuit, Garth Brooks contended that Roe's allegations were not only baseless but also strategically filed in California to circumvent ongoing legal proceedings in Mississippi. Brooks emphasized that he had initiated a defamation lawsuit against Roe in Mississippi prior to her California filing, accusing her of attempting to extort him with false claims. He argued that Roe's lawsuit was a retaliatory action designed to undermine his preemptive legal measures and to exploit California's legal system.Brooks' legal team asserted that the California court should dismiss Roe's lawsuit to prevent duplicative litigation and potential conflicting judgments between the two states. They maintained that the Mississippi court was the appropriate venue to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, given the pre-existing lawsuit and the substantial overlap in the issues presented. Despite these arguments, the California court denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice, opting to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the Mississippi case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.25.0.pdf

In December 2024, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald denied Garth Brooks' motion to dismiss a sexual assault lawsuit filed against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks had sought dismissal on the grounds that a related defamation lawsuit he filed in Mississippi should take precedence. However, Judge Fitzgerald ruled that the California case would be stayed pending the outcome of the Mississippi proceedings, emphasizing that dismissal at this stage was inappropriate.The judge's decision underscores the complexity of concurrent legal actions in different jurisdictions. By staying the California proceedings, the court aims to prevent conflicting judgments and ensure a fair adjudication of the intertwined issues. Brooks is required to inform the California court of any developments in the Mississippi case within ten court days, highlighting the ongoing nature of this legal matter.(commercial at 7:33)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.28.0.pdf

In his further reply supporting the motion to dismiss Jane Roe's lawsuit, Garth Brooks contended that Roe's allegations were not only baseless but also strategically filed in California to circumvent ongoing legal proceedings in Mississippi. Brooks emphasized that he had initiated a defamation lawsuit against Roe in Mississippi prior to her California filing, accusing her of attempting to extort him with false claims. He argued that Roe's lawsuit was a retaliatory action designed to undermine his preemptive legal measures and to exploit California's legal system.Brooks' legal team asserted that the California court should dismiss Roe's lawsuit to prevent duplicative litigation and potential conflicting judgments between the two states. They maintained that the Mississippi court was the appropriate venue to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, given the pre-existing lawsuit and the substantial overlap in the issues presented. Despite these arguments, the California court denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice, opting to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the Mississippi case.(commercial at 8:43)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.25.0.pdf

In December 2024, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald denied Garth Brooks' motion to dismiss a sexual assault lawsuit filed against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks had sought dismissal on the grounds that a related defamation lawsuit he filed in Mississippi should take precedence. However, Judge Fitzgerald ruled that the California case would be stayed pending the outcome of the Mississippi proceedings, emphasizing that dismissal at this stage was inappropriate.The judge's decision underscores the complexity of concurrent legal actions in different jurisdictions. By staying the California proceedings, the court aims to prevent conflicting judgments and ensure a fair adjudication of the intertwined issues. Brooks is required to inform the California court of any developments in the Mississippi case within ten court days, highlighting the ongoing nature of this legal matter.(commercial at 7:33)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.28.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his further reply supporting the motion to dismiss Jane Roe's lawsuit, Garth Brooks contended that Roe's allegations were not only baseless but also strategically filed in California to circumvent ongoing legal proceedings in Mississippi. Brooks emphasized that he had initiated a defamation lawsuit against Roe in Mississippi prior to her California filing, accusing her of attempting to extort him with false claims. He argued that Roe's lawsuit was a retaliatory action designed to undermine his preemptive legal measures and to exploit California's legal system.Brooks' legal team asserted that the California court should dismiss Roe's lawsuit to prevent duplicative litigation and potential conflicting judgments between the two states. They maintained that the Mississippi court was the appropriate venue to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, given the pre-existing lawsuit and the substantial overlap in the issues presented. Despite these arguments, the California court denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice, opting to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the Mississippi case.(commercial at 8:54)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.25.0.pdf

In his further reply supporting the motion to dismiss Jane Roe's lawsuit, Garth Brooks contended that Roe's allegations were not only baseless but also strategically filed in California to circumvent ongoing legal proceedings in Mississippi. Brooks emphasized that he had initiated a defamation lawsuit against Roe in Mississippi prior to her California filing, accusing her of attempting to extort him with false claims. He argued that Roe's lawsuit was a retaliatory action designed to undermine his preemptive legal measures and to exploit California's legal system.Brooks' legal team asserted that the California court should dismiss Roe's lawsuit to prevent duplicative litigation and potential conflicting judgments between the two states. They maintained that the Mississippi court was the appropriate venue to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, given the pre-existing lawsuit and the substantial overlap in the issues presented. Despite these arguments, the California court denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice, opting to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the Mississippi case.(commercial at 8:54)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.25.0.pdf

Jane Roe, a former makeup artist for Garth Brooks, filed an opposition to Brooks' motion to dismiss her sexual assault lawsuit in California. In her opposition, Roe contended that Brooks' attempt to dismiss the case was a strategic move to evade California's legal protections, specifically its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that intimidate or silence individuals exercising their legal rights. Roe's legal team argued that Brooks' preemptive defamation lawsuit filed in Mississippi was a form of "forum-shopping," intended to undermine her claims and deny her the protections afforded by California law.Roe's opposition emphasized that her allegations of sexual misconduct, including assault and battery, were serious claims that deserved to be heard in a California court, where the alleged incidents occurred. She maintained that dismissing her case in favor of Brooks' Mississippi lawsuit would unjustly disadvantage her and potentially suppress her pursuit of justice. The California court, acknowledging the complexities introduced by the concurrent Mississippi case, denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the related lawsuit in Mississippi. This decision allowed Roe's claims to remain active in California, awaiting further developments from the Mississippi court.(commercial at 8:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jane Roe, a former makeup artist for Garth Brooks, filed an opposition to Brooks' motion to dismiss her sexual assault lawsuit in California. In her opposition, Roe contended that Brooks' attempt to dismiss the case was a strategic move to evade California's legal protections, specifically its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that intimidate or silence individuals exercising their legal rights. Roe's legal team argued that Brooks' preemptive defamation lawsuit filed in Mississippi was a form of "forum-shopping," intended to undermine her claims and deny her the protections afforded by California law.Roe's opposition emphasized that her allegations of sexual misconduct, including assault and battery, were serious claims that deserved to be heard in a California court, where the alleged incidents occurred. She maintained that dismissing her case in favor of Brooks' Mississippi lawsuit would unjustly disadvantage her and potentially suppress her pursuit of justice. The California court, acknowledging the complexities introduced by the concurrent Mississippi case, denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the related lawsuit in Mississippi. This decision allowed Roe's claims to remain active in California, awaiting further developments from the Mississippi court.(commercial at 8:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:

Jane Roe, a former makeup artist for Garth Brooks, filed an opposition to Brooks' motion to dismiss her sexual assault lawsuit in California. In her opposition, Roe contended that Brooks' attempt to dismiss the case was a strategic move to evade California's legal protections, specifically its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that intimidate or silence individuals exercising their legal rights. Roe's legal team argued that Brooks' preemptive defamation lawsuit filed in Mississippi was a form of "forum-shopping," intended to undermine her claims and deny her the protections afforded by California law.Roe's opposition emphasized that her allegations of sexual misconduct, including assault and battery, were serious claims that deserved to be heard in a California court, where the alleged incidents occurred. She maintained that dismissing her case in favor of Brooks' Mississippi lawsuit would unjustly disadvantage her and potentially suppress her pursuit of justice. The California court, acknowledging the complexities introduced by the concurrent Mississippi case, denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the related lawsuit in Mississippi. This decision allowed Roe's claims to remain active in California, awaiting further developments from the Mississippi court.(commercial at 8:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In his further reply supporting the motion to dismiss Jane Roe's lawsuit, Garth Brooks contended that Roe's allegations were not only baseless but also strategically filed in California to circumvent ongoing legal proceedings in Mississippi. Brooks emphasized that he had initiated a defamation lawsuit against Roe in Mississippi prior to her California filing, accusing her of attempting to extort him with false claims. He argued that Roe's lawsuit was a retaliatory action designed to undermine his preemptive legal measures and to exploit California's legal system.Brooks' legal team asserted that the California court should dismiss Roe's lawsuit to prevent duplicative litigation and potential conflicting judgments between the two states. They maintained that the Mississippi court was the appropriate venue to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, given the pre-existing lawsuit and the substantial overlap in the issues presented. Despite these arguments, the California court denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice, opting to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the Mississippi case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.25.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his further reply supporting the motion to dismiss Jane Roe's lawsuit, Garth Brooks contended that Roe's allegations were not only baseless but also strategically filed in California to circumvent ongoing legal proceedings in Mississippi. Brooks emphasized that he had initiated a defamation lawsuit against Roe in Mississippi prior to her California filing, accusing her of attempting to extort him with false claims. He argued that Roe's lawsuit was a retaliatory action designed to undermine his preemptive legal measures and to exploit California's legal system.Brooks' legal team asserted that the California court should dismiss Roe's lawsuit to prevent duplicative litigation and potential conflicting judgments between the two states. They maintained that the Mississippi court was the appropriate venue to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, given the pre-existing lawsuit and the substantial overlap in the issues presented. Despite these arguments, the California court denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice, opting to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the Mississippi case.(commercial at 7:48)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.25.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jane Roe, a former makeup artist for Garth Brooks, filed an opposition to Brooks' motion to dismiss her sexual assault lawsuit in California. In her opposition, Roe contended that Brooks' attempt to dismiss the case was a strategic move to evade California's legal protections, specifically its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that intimidate or silence individuals exercising their legal rights. Roe's legal team argued that Brooks' preemptive defamation lawsuit filed in Mississippi was a form of "forum-shopping," intended to undermine her claims and deny her the protections afforded by California law.Roe's opposition emphasized that her allegations of sexual misconduct, including assault and battery, were serious claims that deserved to be heard in a California court, where the alleged incidents occurred. She maintained that dismissing her case in favor of Brooks' Mississippi lawsuit would unjustly disadvantage her and potentially suppress her pursuit of justice. The California court, acknowledging the complexities introduced by the concurrent Mississippi case, denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the related lawsuit in Mississippi. This decision allowed Roe's claims to remain active in California, awaiting further developments from the Mississippi court.(commercial at 8:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:

Jane Roe, a former makeup artist for Garth Brooks, filed an opposition to Brooks' motion to dismiss her sexual assault lawsuit in California. In her opposition, Roe contended that Brooks' attempt to dismiss the case was a strategic move to evade California's legal protections, specifically its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that intimidate or silence individuals exercising their legal rights. Roe's legal team argued that Brooks' preemptive defamation lawsuit filed in Mississippi was a form of "forum-shopping," intended to undermine her claims and deny her the protections afforded by California law.Roe's opposition emphasized that her allegations of sexual misconduct, including assault and battery, were serious claims that deserved to be heard in a California court, where the alleged incidents occurred. She maintained that dismissing her case in favor of Brooks' Mississippi lawsuit would unjustly disadvantage her and potentially suppress her pursuit of justice. The California court, acknowledging the complexities introduced by the concurrent Mississippi case, denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the related lawsuit in Mississippi. This decision allowed Roe's claims to remain active in California, awaiting further developments from the Mississippi court.(commercial at 8:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:

Jane Roe, a former makeup artist for Garth Brooks, filed an opposition to Brooks' motion to dismiss her sexual assault lawsuit in California. In her opposition, Roe contended that Brooks' attempt to dismiss the case was a strategic move to evade California's legal protections, specifically its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that intimidate or silence individuals exercising their legal rights. Roe's legal team argued that Brooks' preemptive defamation lawsuit filed in Mississippi was a form of "forum-shopping," intended to undermine her claims and deny her the protections afforded by California law.Roe's opposition emphasized that her allegations of sexual misconduct, including assault and battery, were serious claims that deserved to be heard in a California court, where the alleged incidents occurred. She maintained that dismissing her case in favor of Brooks' Mississippi lawsuit would unjustly disadvantage her and potentially suppress her pursuit of justice. The California court, acknowledging the complexities introduced by the concurrent Mississippi case, denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the related lawsuit in Mississippi. This decision allowed Roe's claims to remain active in California, awaiting further developments from the Mississippi court.(commercial at 8:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:

Jane Roe, a former makeup artist for Garth Brooks, filed an opposition to Brooks' motion to dismiss her sexual assault lawsuit in California. In her opposition, Roe contended that Brooks' attempt to dismiss the case was a strategic move to evade California's legal protections, specifically its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that intimidate or silence individuals exercising their legal rights. Roe's legal team argued that Brooks' preemptive defamation lawsuit filed in Mississippi was a form of "forum-shopping," intended to undermine her claims and deny her the protections afforded by California law.Roe's opposition emphasized that her allegations of sexual misconduct, including assault and battery, were serious claims that deserved to be heard in a California court, where the alleged incidents occurred. She maintained that dismissing her case in favor of Brooks' Mississippi lawsuit would unjustly disadvantage her and potentially suppress her pursuit of justice. The California court, acknowledging the complexities introduced by the concurrent Mississippi case, denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the related lawsuit in Mississippi. This decision allowed Roe's claims to remain active in California, awaiting further developments from the Mississippi court.(commercial at 8:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jane Roe, a former makeup artist for Garth Brooks, filed an opposition to Brooks' motion to dismiss her sexual assault lawsuit in California. In her opposition, Roe contended that Brooks' attempt to dismiss the case was a strategic move to evade California's legal protections, specifically its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that intimidate or silence individuals exercising their legal rights. Roe's legal team argued that Brooks' preemptive defamation lawsuit filed in Mississippi was a form of "forum-shopping," intended to undermine her claims and deny her the protections afforded by California law.Roe's opposition emphasized that her allegations of sexual misconduct, including assault and battery, were serious claims that deserved to be heard in a California court, where the alleged incidents occurred. She maintained that dismissing her case in favor of Brooks' Mississippi lawsuit would unjustly disadvantage her and potentially suppress her pursuit of justice. The California court, acknowledging the complexities introduced by the concurrent Mississippi case, denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the related lawsuit in Mississippi. This decision allowed Roe's claims to remain active in California, awaiting further developments from the Mississippi court.(commercial at 8:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jane Roe, a former makeup artist for Garth Brooks, filed an opposition to Brooks' motion to dismiss her sexual assault lawsuit in California. In her opposition, Roe contended that Brooks' attempt to dismiss the case was a strategic move to evade California's legal protections, specifically its anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statutes, which are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits that intimidate or silence individuals exercising their legal rights. Roe's legal team argued that Brooks' preemptive defamation lawsuit filed in Mississippi was a form of "forum-shopping," intended to undermine her claims and deny her the protections afforded by California law.Roe's opposition emphasized that her allegations of sexual misconduct, including assault and battery, were serious claims that deserved to be heard in a California court, where the alleged incidents occurred. She maintained that dismissing her case in favor of Brooks' Mississippi lawsuit would unjustly disadvantage her and potentially suppress her pursuit of justice. The California court, acknowledging the complexities introduced by the concurrent Mississippi case, denied Brooks' motion to dismiss without prejudice and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the related lawsuit in Mississippi. This decision allowed Roe's claims to remain active in California, awaiting further developments from the Mississippi court.(commercial at 8:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In November 2024, country music star Garth Brooks filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss a sexual assault and battery lawsuit brought against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks contended that Roe's claims should be dismissed or transferred to Mississippi, where a related lawsuit he initiated against her was already pending. He argued that the allegations were part of an extortion attempt and that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.In this episode, we take a look at that motion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.12.0_1.pdf

In November 2024, country music star Garth Brooks filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss a sexual assault and battery lawsuit brought against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks contended that Roe's claims should be dismissed or transferred to Mississippi, where a related lawsuit he initiated against her was already pending. He argued that the allegations were part of an extortion attempt and that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.In this episode, we take a look at that motion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.12.0_1.pdf

In November 2024, country music star Garth Brooks filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss a sexual assault and battery lawsuit brought against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks contended that Roe's claims should be dismissed or transferred to Mississippi, where a related lawsuit he initiated against her was already pending. He argued that the allegations were part of an extortion attempt and that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.In this episode, we take a look at that motion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.12.0_1.pdf

In November 2024, country music star Garth Brooks filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss a sexual assault and battery lawsuit brought against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks contended that Roe's claims should be dismissed or transferred to Mississippi, where a related lawsuit he initiated against her was already pending. He argued that the allegations were part of an extortion attempt and that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.In this episode, we take a look at that motion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.12.0_1.pdf

In November 2024, country music star Garth Brooks filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss a sexual assault and battery lawsuit brought against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks contended that Roe's claims should be dismissed or transferred to Mississippi, where a related lawsuit he initiated against her was already pending. He argued that the allegations were part of an extortion attempt and that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.In this episode, we take a look at that motion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.12.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In November 2024, country music star Garth Brooks filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss a sexual assault and battery lawsuit brought against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks contended that Roe's claims should be dismissed or transferred to Mississippi, where a related lawsuit he initiated against her was already pending. He argued that the allegations were part of an extortion attempt and that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.In this episode, we take a look at that motion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.12.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In October 2024, Garth Brooks faced a lawsuit from his former hairstylist and makeup artist, identified as "Jane Roe," alleging sexual assault and battery. The accusations include claims that Brooks exposed himself, made inappropriate sexual comments, and raped her during a 2019 trip to Los Angeles. Brooks has denied these allegations, labeling them as extortion attempts and filing a countersuit for defamation.Similarly, Sean "Diddy" Combs has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple individuals, including a personal trainer who alleges that Combs drugged and sexually assaulted him during a 2022 after-party. These allegations, alongside those against Brooks, highlight a broader issue within the music industry, where power dynamics can lead to exploitation and abuse. The prevalence of such accusations underscores the need for systemic changes to protect individuals from misconduct by those in positions of authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMP.pdf

In October 2024, Garth Brooks faced a lawsuit from his former hairstylist and makeup artist, identified as "Jane Roe," alleging sexual assault and battery. The accusations include claims that Brooks exposed himself, made inappropriate sexual comments, and raped her during a 2019 trip to Los Angeles. Brooks has denied these allegations, labeling them as extortion attempts and filing a countersuit for defamation.Similarly, Sean "Diddy" Combs has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple individuals, including a personal trainer who alleges that Combs drugged and sexually assaulted him during a 2022 after-party. These allegations, alongside those against Brooks, highlight a broader issue within the music industry, where power dynamics can lead to exploitation and abuse. The prevalence of such accusations underscores the need for systemic changes to protect individuals from misconduct by those in positions of authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMP.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

1969, Texas (EE.UU). La joven estadounidense Jane Roe se queda embarazada de su tercer hijo. Los dos primeros, los dio en adopción. Esta vez, no quiere pasar por lo mismo. Decide abortar. Pero no puede porque el estado de Texas lo prohíbe. Cuatro años más tarde, en 1973, tras una incansable lucha, Roe consigue que el Tribunal Supremo reconozca el aborto como un derecho constitucional en todo el país. Casi 50 años más tarde, el mismo Tribunal rectifica su decisión y devuelve al país a los años 60.

This week, we revisit Chloe Skye's episode on Norma McCorvey, or as you might know her: "Jane Roe" of the Roe v Wade case. We'll tell you right now - it's probably NOT the story you were expecting to hear.  After enduring a difficult childhood in Texas, Norma's young adulthood doesn't fair much better, and ultimately leads to her landmark court case Roe v Wade. But what happens after the Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal & protected under US Federal law? Does Norma carry her pregnancy to term? Does she join the ranks of women's rights activists? Does she become a beacon of hope for American women seeking the help she couldn't get in Texas? The answers are probably not what you think (and hope), that they are, making her a truly fascinating Broad You Should Know. — A Broad is a woman who lives by her own rules. Broads You Should Know is the podcast about the Broads who helped shape our world! 3 Ways you can help support the podcast: Write a review on Apple Podcasts Share your favorite episode on social media / tell a friend about the show! Send us an email with a broad suggestion, question, or comment at BroadsYouShouldKnow@gmail.com — Broads You Should Know is hosted by Sara Gorsky. IG: @SaraGorsky Web master / site design: www.BroadsYouShouldKnow.com — Broads You Should Know is produced by Sara Gorsky & edited by Chloe Skye

In October 2024, Garth Brooks faced a lawsuit from his former hairstylist and makeup artist, identified as "Jane Roe," alleging sexual assault and battery. The accusations include claims that Brooks exposed himself, made inappropriate sexual comments, and raped her during a 2019 trip to Los Angeles. Brooks has denied these allegations, labeling them as extortion attempts and filing a countersuit for defamation.Similarly, Sean "Diddy" Combs has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple individuals, including a personal trainer who alleges that Combs drugged and sexually assaulted him during a 2022 after-party. These allegations, alongside those against Brooks, highlight a broader issue within the music industry, where power dynamics can lead to exploitation and abuse. The prevalence of such accusations underscores the need for systemic changes to protect individuals from misconduct by those in positions of authority.(commercial at 7:57)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMP.pdf

In October 2024, Garth Brooks faced a lawsuit from his former hairstylist and makeup artist, identified as "Jane Roe," alleging sexual assault and battery. The accusations include claims that Brooks exposed himself, made inappropriate sexual comments, and raped her during a 2019 trip to Los Angeles. Brooks has denied these allegations, labeling them as extortion attempts and filing a countersuit for defamation.Similarly, Sean "Diddy" Combs has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple individuals, including a personal trainer who alleges that Combs drugged and sexually assaulted him during a 2022 after-party. These allegations, alongside those against Brooks, highlight a broader issue within the music industry, where power dynamics can lead to exploitation and abuse. The prevalence of such accusations underscores the need for systemic changes to protect individuals from misconduct by those in positions of authority.(commercial at 8:56)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMP.pdf

In October 2024, Garth Brooks faced a lawsuit from his former hairstylist and makeup artist, identified as "Jane Roe," alleging sexual assault and battery. The accusations include claims that Brooks exposed himself, made inappropriate sexual comments, and raped her during a 2019 trip to Los Angeles. Brooks has denied these allegations, labeling them as extortion attempts and filing a countersuit for defamation.Similarly, Sean "Diddy" Combs has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple individuals, including a personal trainer who alleges that Combs drugged and sexually assaulted him during a 2022 after-party. These allegations, alongside those against Brooks, highlight a broader issue within the music industry, where power dynamics can lead to exploitation and abuse. The prevalence of such accusations underscores the need for systemic changes to protect individuals from misconduct by those in positions of authority.(commercial at 12:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMP.pdf

In October 2024, Garth Brooks faced a lawsuit from his former hairstylist and makeup artist, identified as "Jane Roe," alleging sexual assault and battery. The accusations include claims that Brooks exposed himself, made inappropriate sexual comments, and raped her during a 2019 trip to Los Angeles. Brooks has denied these allegations, labeling them as extortion attempts and filing a countersuit for defamation.Similarly, Sean "Diddy" Combs has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple individuals, including a personal trainer who alleges that Combs drugged and sexually assaulted him during a 2022 after-party. These allegations, alongside those against Brooks, highlight a broader issue within the music industry, where power dynamics can lead to exploitation and abuse. The prevalence of such accusations underscores the need for systemic changes to protect individuals from misconduct by those in positions of authority.(commercial at 8:56)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMP.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In October 2024, Garth Brooks faced a lawsuit from his former hairstylist and makeup artist, identified as "Jane Roe," alleging sexual assault and battery. The accusations include claims that Brooks exposed himself, made inappropriate sexual comments, and raped her during a 2019 trip to Los Angeles. Brooks has denied these allegations, labeling them as extortion attempts and filing a countersuit for defamation.Similarly, Sean "Diddy" Combs has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple individuals, including a personal trainer who alleges that Combs drugged and sexually assaulted him during a 2022 after-party. These allegations, alongside those against Brooks, highlight a broader issue within the music industry, where power dynamics can lead to exploitation and abuse. The prevalence of such accusations underscores the need for systemic changes to protect individuals from misconduct by those in positions of authority.(commercial at 10:23)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMP.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In October 2024, Garth Brooks faced a lawsuit from his former hairstylist and makeup artist, identified as "Jane Roe," alleging sexual assault and battery. The accusations include claims that Brooks exposed himself, made inappropriate sexual comments, and raped her during a 2019 trip to Los Angeles. Brooks has denied these allegations, labeling them as extortion attempts and filing a countersuit for defamation.Similarly, Sean "Diddy" Combs has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple individuals, including a personal trainer who alleges that Combs drugged and sexually assaulted him during a 2022 after-party. These allegations, alongside those against Brooks, highlight a broader issue within the music industry, where power dynamics can lead to exploitation and abuse. The prevalence of such accusations underscores the need for systemic changes to protect individuals from misconduct by those in positions of authority.(commercial at 8:56)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMP.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On the 1997 set of "Men in Black," the set was evacuated for three hours due to Will Smith's farting. Garth Brooks is being sued by his former make-up artist, who is alleging sexual assaults. She is suing under the name Jane Roe. In Texas, a call was placed due to suspicious activity in a house that was under construction. Inside, police found a female teacher having sex with a young male student. Kamala Harris went on a recent media blitz during which she has appeared on such platforms as "60 Minutes," "The View," and "The Howard Stern Show." Legendary KISS rocker and walking self-parody Gene Simmons is in hot water for alleged sexism and racism as well as overly harsh scoring. The body of Alejandro Arcos, the 43-year-old mayor of the city of Chilpancingo, was found inside his pickup truck Sunday night while his head was propped on top of the vehicle. After more than a decade, Colorado's only lesbian bar has finally shut down. Guests: Don Jamieson & Jim Florentine Sponsors: Miracle Made Go to https://www.TryMiracle.com/NORMAL and use the code NORMAL to claim your FREE THREE-PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40%. BlazeTV We're offering our biggest discount yet: $40 off an annual subscription. If you love this show and you support what Blaze Media stands for, visit BlazeTV.com/NORMALWORLD and use code NORMAL40 at checkout to join the movement. America deserves the truth. You deserve the truth. Blaze Media is here to deliver it. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Country music star Garth Brooks is fighting back against a lawsuit in which his former makeup artist and hair stylist accused him of sexually assaulting her in 2019. Brooks filed documents naming the accuser who filed her lawsuit in California under the name "Jane Roe." Roe's attorneys are furious. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy looks at this latest in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Download the FREE Upside App at https://upside.app.link/crimefix to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.Host:Angenette Levy https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest:Erin Ehrlich Caro https://x.com/Erin_EhrlichCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A former makeup artist to singer Garth Brooks is suing him claiming the country music star raped her in a hotel room in Los Angeles in 2019. The anonymous woman, named only as "Jane Roe" in the suit, claims Brooks used vulgar language to talk about his sexual fantasies and groped her many times. Brooks calls the allegations "defamation of character." Law&Crime's Angenette Levy details the the most shocking claims in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you're ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/CrimeFixHost:Angenette Levy https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest:Jonathan Handel https://x.com/jhandelCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The right to privacy, a 22-year-old who went by the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” and one of the most famous court cases in United States history. Join us as we learn what happened leading up to Roe v. Wade, the fate of Norma McCorvey following the Supreme Court's ruling, and how this piece of history echoes in the present day. That is not the only ghost of 1973 history that is still relevant, though. If you're curious about how an oil embargo in the 70s impacts today's gas prices and oil reserves, and you'd like to better understand a piece of Israel's history and how it ties into present-day events, you're in the right place.Writer, Host, and Executive Producer: Sharon McMahonAudio Producer: Jenny SnyderWriters and Researchers: Amy Watkin, Mandy Reid, and Kari AntonProduction Coordinator: Andrea Champoux Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1970, a 22-year-old woman in Texas named Norma McCorvey tried and failed to get an abortion from her doctor. Abortion was illegal in Texas, just as it was in most states. Women hoping to terminate their pregnancies had few options, and many resorted to risky back-alley procedures.McCorvey was soon introduced to a pair of young lawyers who hoped to go to court to challenge the Texas law banning abortion. Before long, McCorvey became the plaintiff known only as “Jane Roe.”Her case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, where the Justices would rule on whether the constitutional right to privacy applied to abortion. The Court's landmark ruling changed the lives of American women, and unleashed intense controversy, dividing the nation for decades to come.Listen ad free with Wondery+. Join Wondery+ for exclusives, binges, early access, and ad free listening. Available in the Wondery App. https://wondery.app.link/historytellersSupport us by supporting our sponsors!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.