Podcast appearances and mentions of jane roe

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 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 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.

https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=158502 * As the Los Angeles Times editorialized [in 1942], “the theory that an alien invader has civil rights is absurd on its face.” * Before the United States entered the war, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940), the justices voted 8 – 1 in the government's favor. The case was brought by a family belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses, a Christian denomination whose beliefs proscribed saluting the flag. Felix Frankfurter's majority opinion exhibited little sympathy for them. “National unity is the basis of national security,” Frankfurter declared. “The flag is the symbol of our national unity, transcending all internal differences.” He concluded that if the government thought unity could best be achieved by a compulsory flag salute, the courts had no business saying otherwise. * Furman v. Georgia [invalidating the death penalty] would be the farthest the Court would go in reinventing criminal procedure. The backlash was immediate. The day after Furman was decided, legislators in five states announced they would introduce bills to bring back the death penalty. Within a few years, thirty – five states and the federal government had new statutes authorizing capital punishment. Popular support for the death penalty skyrocketed. Fifty percent of respondents favored capital punishment in a Gallup poll conducted a few months before Furman was decided. A few months after Furman , the figure had grown to 57%, and within a few years it reached 65%. In every part of the country, the death penalty became more popular than it had been in many years, as people who had not given much thought to capital punishment now decided that the Supreme Court was wrong to abolish it. * The right of privacy in matters of childbirth was a new constitutional right, but so were most of the constitutional rights the Court had recognized over the past two decades, such as the right to attend integrated schools, the right to advocate communism, the right to an attorney during questioning by the police, or the right to a vote that was worth as much as the votes of the people in the next county. When Roe v. Wade arrived at the Court, it looked like it would be just another in a long line of cases applying recently established rights in new contexts. Indeed, the district court in which the pseudonymous Jane Roe filed her suit had already anticipated this outcome. The district court relied on Griswold to rule that Roe was entitled to obtain an abortion because the Texas law prohibiting abortion infringed her constitutional right “to choose whether to have children.” In Roe 's companion case, Doe v. Bolton , another district court likewise invalidated parts of Georgia's abortion law on the ground that Griswold established “a right to privacy which apparently is also broad enough to include the decision to abort a pregnancy.” 62 To the extent Roe would involve any change in the law, the heavy lifting seemed to have already been done. Unlike contraception, however, abortion was still illegal in most states in most circumstances. And while some of these state laws were quite old, others were not. https://odysee.com/@LukeFordLive, https://rumble.com/lukeford, https://dlive.tv/lukefordlivestreams Superchat: https://entropystream.live/app/lukefordlive Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/lukeford/ Soundcloud MP3s: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593 Code of Conduct: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=125692 http://lukeford.net Email me: lukeisback@gmail.com or DM me on Twitter.com/lukeford, Best videos: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=143746 Support the show | https://www.streamlabs.com/lukeford, https://patreon.com/lukeford, https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback Facebook: http://facebook.com/lukecford Book an online Alexander Technique lesson with Luke: https://alexander90210.com Feel free to clip my videos. It's nice when you link back to the original.

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.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.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.(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.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.

In 1987, Garth, while still married to Sandy, met Trisha Yearwood at Kent Blazy's attic studio. Garth said: "It's strange because I felt that feeling like when you just meet your wife, but I've been married for 13 months." "People constantly wanting your attention and yanking and pulling on him," she said of what led to their divorce in the 2019 documentary, Garth Brooks: The Road I'm On. Years after making their red carpet debut at the 2002 Songwriters Hall of Fame, Garth and Trisha exchanged vows at a private ceremony at their home outside Tulsa, Okla. During a press conference in 2023, Garth revealed that his wife tried to legally change her name for their anniversary, but he declined it. A few months before Garth and Trisha's 19th wedding anniversary, a hairstylist and makeup artist, who goes by the name of Jane Roe, filed a lawsuit in California, alleging the Much Too Young singer raped her, changed clothes in front of her, exposed his private parts and sent sexually explicit messages in 2019.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

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 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 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 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 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 10:58)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 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.

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