POPULARITY
16 episodes with judge torres
7 episodes with judge torres
2 episodes with judge torres
2 episodes with judge torres
2 episodes with judge torres
Crypto News: Ripple drops appeal in SEC XRP case as Judge Torres pushes back on both parties. President Trump makes bullish statements about Bitcoin and Crypto. Dana White says he is all in on VeChain.Show Sponsor - ✅ VeChain is a versatile enterprise-grade L1 smart contract platform https://www.vechain.org/
This Day in Legal History: Federal Housing AdministrationOn June 27, 1934, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created through the National Housing Act, marking a major shift in the federal government's role in the housing market. The FHA was designed to address the housing crisis of the Great Depression, when foreclosures were rampant and private lenders were reluctant to issue long-term mortgages. By insuring loans made by private lenders, the FHA significantly reduced the risk of default, making it easier and more affordable for Americans to buy homes.The FHA introduced standardized, amortized 20- and 30-year mortgages—innovations that quickly became industry norms. These reforms expanded access to home financing for middle-class families and jump-started suburban development. However, the agency's early policies also entrenched racial segregation through redlining, where predominantly Black neighborhoods were systematically denied FHA-backed loans.While the FHA has since evolved and is now part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), its legacy is a mix of increased homeownership and the deepening of racial disparities in wealth and housing. The legal framework it helped establish continues to shape U.S. housing policy today, making it a pivotal moment in both real estate law and civil rights history. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy voiced alarm over the state of American political discourse during a recent international judicial forum, warning that the tone of current debates poses a threat to democracy and freedom. Speaking without directly referencing President Trump, Kennedy criticized the rise of identity politics and emphasized that civil discourse should be about issues, not partisan affiliations. He argued that judges are essential to a functioning democracy and must be protected—both physically and in terms of public respect.Other speakers, including South African jurist Richard Goldstone and U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, echoed Kennedy's concerns. Goldstone condemned personal attacks on judges who ruled against the current administration, while Salas highlighted the growing danger judges face, referencing her own experience with targeted violence and the record-high levels of threats now being reported in the U.S.The event underscored a growing consensus among jurists worldwide: that political attacks on the judiciary undermine democratic institutions and risk eroding the rule of law.Retired US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy warns 'freedom is at risk' | ReutersA federal judge has rejected a joint attempt by Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to finalize a reduced settlement in their long-running legal battle over unregistered XRP token sales. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres criticized both parties for proposing a $50 million fine in lieu of a previously imposed $125 million penalty and for attempting to nullify a permanent injunction she had ordered.Judge Torres ruled in 2023 that Ripple's public XRP sales weren't securities, but $728 million in sales to institutional investors violated federal securities laws. While both sides appealed, they later proposed to settle—if the court would cancel the injunction and approve the reduced fine. Torres refused, stating they lacked authority to override a court's final judgment involving a violation of congressional statute.She emphasized that exceptional circumstances justifying the request were not present and that vacating a permanent injunction would undermine the public interest and the administration of justice. The SEC and Ripple still have the option to continue their appeals or drop them entirely.The case is notable amid a broader shift under President Trump's second term, during which the SEC has dropped several high-profile crypto enforcement actions. XRP remains one of the top cryptocurrencies by market value.SEC, Ripple wants to settle crypto lawsuit, but US judge rebuffs them | ReutersThe Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to end automatic birthright citizenship by narrowing the scope of judicial injunctions. Previously, lower courts had issued nationwide injunctions blocking the policy, but the Court ruled these injunctions should apply only to the parties involved in the lawsuits. This means that the policy can now proceed in most states, except those like New Hampshire where separate legal challenges remain in effect. The Court's decision followed ideological lines, with the conservative majority backing the administration and liberal justices dissenting. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that courts must not overreach their authority even when they find executive actions unlawful. In contrast, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned the ruling could erode the rule of law by allowing inconsistent application of federal policy across states.The ruling does not address the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship, leaving that question open for future litigation. The Trump administration's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, reinterprets the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause to exclude children born in the U.S. to non-citizen or non-resident parents. This reinterpretation challenges the longstanding understanding established by the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens. The administration has argued that judges lack the authority to impose broad injunctions and that states challenging the policy lack standing. While the policy remains blocked in certain jurisdictions, the administration can now continue planning for its implementation and potentially face a patchwork of future legal challenges.Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship planIn a piece I wrote for Forbes yesterday, the Trump administration briefly floated Section 899, a provision dubbed the “revenge tax,” as a retaliatory measure against countries imposing taxes deemed discriminatory toward U.S. companies—particularly tech giants. This measure, hidden within the broader One Big Beautiful Bill Act, proposed punitive tax increases on income earned in the U.S. by individuals and entities linked to “discriminatory foreign countries.” The policy was a response to international developments like the OECD's Pillar 2 framework and digital services taxes (DSTs), which the U.S. perceived as disproportionately targeting American firms.Section 899 would have enabled the Treasury to impose annual 5% tax hikes on everything from dividends to real estate gains, even overriding exemptions for sovereign wealth funds. What made the provision particularly aggressive was its vague triggering criteria—any foreign tax Treasury considered “unfair” could activate the penalties, without congressional oversight.Despite its bold intent, Section 899 was ultimately abandoned. It generated concern among investors and foreign governments alike, with critics warning it would destabilize capital markets and act as an unofficial sanctions regime. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent eventually signaled its withdrawal, citing improved diplomatic relations. Though shelved for now, the idea may resurface if international tax disputes escalate.Section 899—The ‘Revenge Tax' That Didn't SurviveA double dose of me this week, another piece I wrote for Forbes:The Pro Codes Act, currently before Congress as H.R.4072, poses a serious threat to public access to the law by allowing private organizations to retain copyright over technical standards—even after those standards are incorporated by reference into statutes and regulations. Although pitched as a transparency measure, the bill effectively transforms enforceable legal obligations into intellectual property governed by restrictive licenses and online viewer limitations.The Act would require standards to be “publicly accessible,” but this access might mean only being able to view documents behind login walls, with no ability to download, search, or integrate them into legal or compliance tools. This is particularly troubling in areas like tax law, where these standards often form the basis for determining eligibility for deductions or credits.By commodifying access to legal standards, the Pro Codes Act would introduce a two-tiered system: well-resourced firms could pay for commercial access, while small legal clinics, nonprofits, and individuals could find themselves effectively barred from the rules they're legally obligated to follow. The result is an unequal legal landscape where justice becomes contingent on financial capacity.The bill directly undermines a key legal principle reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2020: laws and materials carrying the force of law cannot be copyrighted. Permitting private entities to control access to mandatory standards shifts power away from the public and toward entities seeking to monetize compliance.Pro Codes Act—Or, What If The Law Came Behind A Paywall?This week's closing theme is Variations sérieuses, Op. 54 by Felix Mendelssohn—a composer whose elegance, intellect, and structural precision made him one of the early Romantic era's brightest voices. Born into a wealthy, culturally vibrant German-Jewish family in 1809, Mendelssohn was a child prodigy whose musical maturity arrived astonishingly early. He played a pivotal role in reviving J.S. Bach's legacy and was admired for his orchestral works, choral music, and virtuosic piano writing.Composed in 1841, the Variations sérieuses reflect a side of Mendelssohn that is often overshadowed by his lighter, more lyrical pieces. Written as a contribution to a fundraising album for a monument to Beethoven, the work pays tribute to that master's weight and depth. In this set of 17 variations on a solemn original theme, Mendelssohn channels both Classical form and Romantic intensity. The variations begin introspectively but grow in technical difficulty and emotional force, culminating in a stormy, almost defiant finale.Unlike many variation sets of the time, which favored decorative flourishes, Mendelssohn's sérieuses live up to their name: they are dense, architecturally rigorous, and deeply expressive. The piece showcases his command of counterpoint, his sensitivity to dynamic contrasts, and his ability to build drama without sacrificing formal clarity. It's music that demands both interpretive depth and virtuosity—qualities that have kept it central to the serious piano repertoire for over 180 years. Mendelssohn once described music as a language too precise for words, and this piece speaks volumes in that tongue. It is a fitting and focused way to close the week.Without further ado, Variations sérieuses, Op. 54 by Felix Mendelssohn – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
In the case Graves v. Combs et al., 24-cv-07201, attorneys for Sean Combs—joined by co-defendant Joseph Sherman—have submitted a formal request to Judge Torres seeking a stay of the proceedings. The defendants argue that two pending appeals currently before the Second Circuit—Parker v. Alexander (No. 25-487) and Doe v. Black (No. 25-564)—will be determinative of the central legal issues raised in their motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 52-57). They maintain that the outcomes of these appellate cases are likely to directly impact the viability of the claims brought against them.The defense is asking that this matter be paused until thirty days after the Second Circuit renders decisions in both cited appeals. They note that such a stay would be consistent with the approach taken by the Court in a related matter, English v. Combs et al., 24 Civ. 05090, where Judge Torres granted a similar stay pending resolution of the same appellate questions. The request is presented as a measure of judicial efficiency and fairness, with the goal of avoiding potentially unnecessary litigation should the Second Circuit rulings render some or all of the current claims invalid.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628776.67.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court granted the accuser in a high-profile lawsuit against Jay-Z the ability to remain anonymous. The accuser, identified only as "Jane Doe," had filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault by the rapper and business mogul. Judge Torres acknowledged the significant public interest in the case but determined that the plaintiff's privacy and safety outweighed the need for public disclosure of her identity. The order emphasized the potential risks of harassment, intimidation, and stigma that could arise if her identity were revealed, particularly given Jay-Z's prominence and the heightened media scrutiny surrounding the case.The ruling does not impact the progression of the legal proceedings, as the court will ensure both parties have access to necessary information for a fair trial. However, it sets an important precedent in balancing the rights of accusers in sensitive cases with public transparency. Judge Torres underscored that allowing Jane Doe to proceed anonymously would not prejudice Jay-Z's defense or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.(commercial at 8:42)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.53.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Ripple Case BOMBSHELL: Judge Torres Just Shook Up the Settlement! In today's livestream, we break down the latest procedural twist in the Ripple v. SEC saga. Judge Torres has denied the motion, and top legal voices are weighing in. We'll cover key takeaways from Stu Alderoty, Eleanor Terrett's coverage, and what this means for XRP holders moving forward. ********** SUPPORT ON THE CHAIN GRAB A BADASS YETIS COFFEE – Fuel your crypto grind! ☕ Visit: otc.one/BadassYetisBrew MINT YOUR BADASS YETIS NFT – Own a piece of the legend! Visit: otc.one/mint OTC MERCH IS HERE! – Represent the community in style! Visit: onthechain.shop BUY US A COFFEE – Help keep the content flowing! Visit: otc.one/buy-us-a-coffee JOIN THE CHANNEL – Get exclusive perks & behind-the-scenes content! Visit: otc.one/join ********** ON THE CHAIN – CONNECT WITH US! Listen to the OTC Podcast – Never miss an update! Visit: otc.one/podcast Visit Our Website – The home of crypto insights! Visit: onthechain.io Follow OTC on Twitter – Stay updated in real time! Visit: otc.one/otc Join the OTC Community on Twitter – Be part of the discussion! Visit: twitter.com/i/communities/1599435678995062788 ********** FOLLOW THE OTC TEAM Follow Jeff on Twitter:
Crypto News: Coinbase suffers data breach with hackers demanding $20 million in Bitcoin. Mastercard partners with moonpay to expand stablecoin usage. Judge Torres blocks SEC and Ripple in XRP case. Show Sponsor -
Jay-Z's legal team has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit accusing the rapper of rape, arguing that the case is based on allegations tainted by "severe" legal misconduct. The accuser, who claims the incident occurred decades ago, gave a public interview that Jay-Z's lawyers contend violates legal norms, potentially prejudicing the case. They argue that the interview and the accuser's public statements were orchestrated to garner publicity and improperly influence the court proceedings. Additionally, Jay-Z's legal team insists that the claims are not only unsubstantiated but also barred by the statute of limitations, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.The motion highlights the inconsistencies and credibility issues in the accuser's narrative, alleging that her actions undermine the integrity of the legal process. Jay-Z's attorneys also stress that the public nature of her interview disregards legal protocols designed to ensure a fair trial. They maintain that the lawsuit is baseless and represents an abuse of the judicial system, urging the court to dismiss the case promptly. In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres criticized Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, for his aggressive legal tactics in the ongoing lawsuit where Jay-Z is accused of sexual assault. Judge Torres described Spiro's repeated filings, which included inflammatory language and personal attacks, as inappropriate and a waste of judicial resources. She emphasized that such combative motions are unlikely to benefit his client and stated, "The Court will not fast-track the judicial process merely because counsel demands it."Additionally, Judge Torres denied Spiro's motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to reveal the identity of the plaintiff, who is proceeding under the pseudonym "Jane Doe." She ruled that the plaintiff could remain anonymous at this stage of the litigation, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and the potential harm to the plaintiff's mental health and safety. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a fair legal process while protecting the rights of individuals involved in such serious allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Jay-Z's legal team has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit accusing the rapper of rape, arguing that the case is based on allegations tainted by "severe" legal misconduct. The accuser, who claims the incident occurred decades ago, gave a public interview that Jay-Z's lawyers contend violates legal norms, potentially prejudicing the case. They argue that the interview and the accuser's public statements were orchestrated to garner publicity and improperly influence the court proceedings. Additionally, Jay-Z's legal team insists that the claims are not only unsubstantiated but also barred by the statute of limitations, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.The motion highlights the inconsistencies and credibility issues in the accuser's narrative, alleging that her actions undermine the integrity of the legal process. Jay-Z's attorneys also stress that the public nature of her interview disregards legal protocols designed to ensure a fair trial. They maintain that the lawsuit is baseless and represents an abuse of the judicial system, urging the court to dismiss the case promptly. In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres criticized Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, for his aggressive legal tactics in the ongoing lawsuit where Jay-Z is accused of sexual assault. Judge Torres described Spiro's repeated filings, which included inflammatory language and personal attacks, as inappropriate and a waste of judicial resources. She emphasized that such combative motions are unlikely to benefit his client and stated, "The Court will not fast-track the judicial process merely because counsel demands it."Additionally, Judge Torres denied Spiro's motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to reveal the identity of the plaintiff, who is proceeding under the pseudonym "Jane Doe." She ruled that the plaintiff could remain anonymous at this stage of the litigation, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and the potential harm to the plaintiff's mental health and safety. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a fair legal process while protecting the rights of individuals involved in such serious allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court granted the accuser in a high-profile lawsuit against Jay-Z the ability to remain anonymous. The accuser, identified only as "Jane Doe," had filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault by the rapper and business mogul. Judge Torres acknowledged the significant public interest in the case but determined that the plaintiff's privacy and safety outweighed the need for public disclosure of her identity. The order emphasized the potential risks of harassment, intimidation, and stigma that could arise if her identity were revealed, particularly given Jay-Z's prominence and the heightened media scrutiny surrounding the case.The ruling does not impact the progression of the legal proceedings, as the court will ensure both parties have access to necessary information for a fair trial. However, it sets an important precedent in balancing the rights of accusers in sensitive cases with public transparency. Judge Torres underscored that allowing Jane Doe to proceed anonymously would not prejudice Jay-Z's defense or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres criticized Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, for his aggressive legal tactics in the ongoing lawsuit where Jay-Z is accused of sexual assault. Judge Torres described Spiro's repeated filings, which included inflammatory language and personal attacks, as inappropriate and a waste of judicial resources. She emphasized that such combative motions are unlikely to benefit his client and stated, "The Court will not fast-track the judicial process merely because counsel demands it."Additionally, Judge Torres denied Spiro's motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to reveal the identity of the plaintiff, who is proceeding under the pseudonym "Jane Doe." She ruled that the plaintiff could remain anonymous at this stage of the litigation, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and the potential harm to the plaintiff's mental health and safety. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a fair legal process while protecting the rights of individuals involved in such serious allegations.(commercial at 10:06)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource;Judge explodes at Jay-Z in child rape case and rules against rapper after 'relentless' courtroom plot | Daily Mail Onlinesource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.53.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court granted the accuser in a high-profile lawsuit against Jay-Z the ability to remain anonymous. The accuser, identified only as "Jane Doe," had filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault by the rapper and business mogul. Judge Torres acknowledged the significant public interest in the case but determined that the plaintiff's privacy and safety outweighed the need for public disclosure of her identity. The order emphasized the potential risks of harassment, intimidation, and stigma that could arise if her identity were revealed, particularly given Jay-Z's prominence and the heightened media scrutiny surrounding the case.The ruling does not impact the progression of the legal proceedings, as the court will ensure both parties have access to necessary information for a fair trial. However, it sets an important precedent in balancing the rights of accusers in sensitive cases with public transparency. Judge Torres underscored that allowing Jane Doe to proceed anonymously would not prejudice Jay-Z's defense or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres criticized Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, for his aggressive legal tactics in the ongoing lawsuit where Jay-Z is accused of sexual assault. Judge Torres described Spiro's repeated filings, which included inflammatory language and personal attacks, as inappropriate and a waste of judicial resources. She emphasized that such combative motions are unlikely to benefit his client and stated, "The Court will not fast-track the judicial process merely because counsel demands it."Additionally, Judge Torres denied Spiro's motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to reveal the identity of the plaintiff, who is proceeding under the pseudonym "Jane Doe." She ruled that the plaintiff could remain anonymous at this stage of the litigation, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and the potential harm to the plaintiff's mental health and safety. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a fair legal process while protecting the rights of individuals involved in such serious allegations.(commercial at 10:06)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource;Judge explodes at Jay-Z in child rape case and rules against rapper after 'relentless' courtroom plot | Daily Mail Onlinesource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.53.0.pdf
In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court granted the accuser in a high-profile lawsuit against Jay-Z the ability to remain anonymous. The accuser, identified only as "Jane Doe," had filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault by the rapper and business mogul. Judge Torres acknowledged the significant public interest in the case but determined that the plaintiff's privacy and safety outweighed the need for public disclosure of her identity. The order emphasized the potential risks of harassment, intimidation, and stigma that could arise if her identity were revealed, particularly given Jay-Z's prominence and the heightened media scrutiny surrounding the case.The ruling does not impact the progression of the legal proceedings, as the court will ensure both parties have access to necessary information for a fair trial. However, it sets an important precedent in balancing the rights of accusers in sensitive cases with public transparency. Judge Torres underscored that allowing Jane Doe to proceed anonymously would not prejudice Jay-Z's defense or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.(commercial at 8:42)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.53.0.pdf
In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres criticized Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, for his aggressive legal tactics in the ongoing lawsuit where Jay-Z is accused of sexual assault. Judge Torres described Spiro's repeated filings, which included inflammatory language and personal attacks, as inappropriate and a waste of judicial resources. She emphasized that such combative motions are unlikely to benefit his client and stated, "The Court will not fast-track the judicial process merely because counsel demands it."Additionally, Judge Torres denied Spiro's motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to reveal the identity of the plaintiff, who is proceeding under the pseudonym "Jane Doe." She ruled that the plaintiff could remain anonymous at this stage of the litigation, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and the potential harm to the plaintiff's mental health and safety. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a fair legal process while protecting the rights of individuals involved in such serious allegations.(commercial at 10:06)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource;Judge explodes at Jay-Z in child rape case and rules against rapper after 'relentless' courtroom plot | Daily Mail Online
The courtroom reverberated with tension as Judge Analisa Torres delivered a pivotal ruling that allowed Jane Doe, the woman accusing Sean “Diddy” Combs and Shawn “JAY-Z” Carter of rape, to maintain her anonymity—for now. This decision, coming from the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, sets the stage for what promises to be one of the most contentious legal battles in recent memory. The gravity of this ruling resonates far beyond the immediate parties involved, casting a spotlight on the intersection of celebrity culture, legal ethics, and the ongoing reckoning with sexual assault allegations in high-profile cases. While Jane Doe's identity remains concealed, the allegations at the heart of this case continue to ripple through the worlds of music, law, and public opinion, demanding scrutiny from every angle. The judge's decision, as reported on December 26, 2024, underscores the precarious balance between protecting a victim's privacy and ensuring a fair defense. Jane Doe's legal team argued that revealing her identity could exacerbate her fragile mental health, pointing to her diagnoses of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and a seizure disorder—all purportedly linked to the trauma of her alleged assault. Judge Torres acknowledged this, describing Jane Doe as “particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure.” This recognition reflects a growing awareness within the judicial system about the nuanced needs of survivors. However, the judge also noted that the decision might be revisited as the case unfolds, particularly during the discovery phase when the defendants—and their formidable legal teams—are likely to intensify their efforts to challenge her claims. This potential shift highlights the dynamic nature of such rulings, where the scales of justice are continually recalibrated as new evidence emerges. This ruling comes amidst an already fiery legal clash, marked by sharp exchanges between Jane Doe's attorney, Tony Buzbee, and the high-profile defense lawyers representing JAY-Z and Diddy. Alex Spiro, JAY-Z's lead attorney, has been particularly aggressive in his approach, filing motions described by the court as “combative” and replete with “inflammatory language and ad hominem attacks.” Judge Torres did not mince words in her criticism, calling these tactics “a waste of judicial resources” and cautioning against attempts to fast-track the judicial process. This critique underscores a broader tension within high-stakes litigation, where the zeal to protect a client's interests often collides with the procedural decorum expected in court. At the heart of the case lies a harrowing accusation: Jane Doe alleges that in 2000, at the age of 13, she was raped by both Diddy and JAY-Z at an afterparty for the MTV Video Music Awards. The lawsuit, initially filed in October against Diddy alone, was later amended to include JAY-Z. The claims have been met with vehement denials from both defendants. JAY-Z, through his representatives, has called the allegations a “cynical and calculated attempt to exploit his name and reputation.” Diddy's camp, for its part, has dismissed the case as baseless. Their defenses, though aligned in intent, differ in tone, with JAY-Z's approach characterized by an assertive dismissal and Diddy's marked by a strategic distancing from the claims. Despite the defendants' efforts to discredit her, Jane Doe has remained steadfast in her claims. She acknowledges inconsistencies in certain details of her account but attributes them to the psychological toll of the assault and the passage of time. Her legal team has framed these discrepancies as common among trauma survivors, arguing that they do not undermine the core allegations. This framing is supported by research into trauma memory, which often shows that survivors may struggle with recalling peripheral details while retaining vivid recollections of the central traumatic event. This nuanced understanding of trauma adds a layer of complexity to the case, challenging traditional notions of credibility in the courtroom. Judge Torres's ruling is a temporary victory for Jane Doe, but it also underscores the complexities of navigating such high-profile cases. The anonymity granted to her is not without consequences for the defense, as the judge herself noted. “This may cause prejudice to Defendants, making it more difficult for them to collect the facts necessary to mount a defense,” Torres stated, adding that the balance of interests could shift as the case progresses. This acknowledgment reveals the inherent tension in balancing the rights of all parties involved, where protecting one party's privacy may inadvertently hinder another's ability to defend themselves effectively. The broader implications of this lawsuit extend beyond the courtroom. For the legal community, it highlights the challenges of adjudicating cases involving powerful public figures and historical allegations. For the entertainment industry, it raises uncomfortable questions about accountability and the legacy of some of its most iconic artists. The case has also reignited debates about the ethics of media coverage, with commentators scrutinizing the motivations and methods of all parties involved. The public's response reflects a broader cultural moment, where the pursuit of justice often intersects with the court of public opinion, creating a volatile mix of advocacy, skepticism, and sensationalism. As the legal battle unfolds, the stakes are high for everyone. For Jane Doe, it is a fight for justice and validation in the face of immense scrutiny. For Diddy and JAY-Z, it is a battle to protect their reputations and legacies. And for the public, it is yet another reminder of the enduring complexities of power, privilege, and accountability in the #MeToo era. These complexities are further compounded by the high stakes of this particular case, where the convergence of celebrity, legal strategy, and social movements creates a uniquely charged atmosphere. The next phase of this case will likely be pivotal. Discovery, where both sides will exchange evidence and depose witnesses, could provide critical insights into the veracity of the allegations and the defense strategies. Judge Torres's indication that anonymity could be revisited during this phase adds another layer of uncertainty. This phase will test the resilience of both the plaintiff and the defendants, as well as the public's appetite for transparency and accountability. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
The courtroom reverberated with tension as Judge Analisa Torres delivered a pivotal ruling that allowed Jane Doe, the woman accusing Sean “Diddy” Combs and Shawn “JAY-Z” Carter of rape, to maintain her anonymity—for now. This decision, coming from the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, sets the stage for what promises to be one of the most contentious legal battles in recent memory. The gravity of this ruling resonates far beyond the immediate parties involved, casting a spotlight on the intersection of celebrity culture, legal ethics, and the ongoing reckoning with sexual assault allegations in high-profile cases. While Jane Doe's identity remains concealed, the allegations at the heart of this case continue to ripple through the worlds of music, law, and public opinion, demanding scrutiny from every angle. The judge's decision, as reported on December 26, 2024, underscores the precarious balance between protecting a victim's privacy and ensuring a fair defense. Jane Doe's legal team argued that revealing her identity could exacerbate her fragile mental health, pointing to her diagnoses of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and a seizure disorder—all purportedly linked to the trauma of her alleged assault. Judge Torres acknowledged this, describing Jane Doe as “particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure.” This recognition reflects a growing awareness within the judicial system about the nuanced needs of survivors. However, the judge also noted that the decision might be revisited as the case unfolds, particularly during the discovery phase when the defendants—and their formidable legal teams—are likely to intensify their efforts to challenge her claims. This potential shift highlights the dynamic nature of such rulings, where the scales of justice are continually recalibrated as new evidence emerges. This ruling comes amidst an already fiery legal clash, marked by sharp exchanges between Jane Doe's attorney, Tony Buzbee, and the high-profile defense lawyers representing JAY-Z and Diddy. Alex Spiro, JAY-Z's lead attorney, has been particularly aggressive in his approach, filing motions described by the court as “combative” and replete with “inflammatory language and ad hominem attacks.” Judge Torres did not mince words in her criticism, calling these tactics “a waste of judicial resources” and cautioning against attempts to fast-track the judicial process. This critique underscores a broader tension within high-stakes litigation, where the zeal to protect a client's interests often collides with the procedural decorum expected in court. At the heart of the case lies a harrowing accusation: Jane Doe alleges that in 2000, at the age of 13, she was raped by both Diddy and JAY-Z at an afterparty for the MTV Video Music Awards. The lawsuit, initially filed in October against Diddy alone, was later amended to include JAY-Z. The claims have been met with vehement denials from both defendants. JAY-Z, through his representatives, has called the allegations a “cynical and calculated attempt to exploit his name and reputation.” Diddy's camp, for its part, has dismissed the case as baseless. Their defenses, though aligned in intent, differ in tone, with JAY-Z's approach characterized by an assertive dismissal and Diddy's marked by a strategic distancing from the claims. Despite the defendants' efforts to discredit her, Jane Doe has remained steadfast in her claims. She acknowledges inconsistencies in certain details of her account but attributes them to the psychological toll of the assault and the passage of time. Her legal team has framed these discrepancies as common among trauma survivors, arguing that they do not undermine the core allegations. This framing is supported by research into trauma memory, which often shows that survivors may struggle with recalling peripheral details while retaining vivid recollections of the central traumatic event. This nuanced understanding of trauma adds a layer of complexity to the case, challenging traditional notions of credibility in the courtroom. Judge Torres's ruling is a temporary victory for Jane Doe, but it also underscores the complexities of navigating such high-profile cases. The anonymity granted to her is not without consequences for the defense, as the judge herself noted. “This may cause prejudice to Defendants, making it more difficult for them to collect the facts necessary to mount a defense,” Torres stated, adding that the balance of interests could shift as the case progresses. This acknowledgment reveals the inherent tension in balancing the rights of all parties involved, where protecting one party's privacy may inadvertently hinder another's ability to defend themselves effectively. The broader implications of this lawsuit extend beyond the courtroom. For the legal community, it highlights the challenges of adjudicating cases involving powerful public figures and historical allegations. For the entertainment industry, it raises uncomfortable questions about accountability and the legacy of some of its most iconic artists. The case has also reignited debates about the ethics of media coverage, with commentators scrutinizing the motivations and methods of all parties involved. The public's response reflects a broader cultural moment, where the pursuit of justice often intersects with the court of public opinion, creating a volatile mix of advocacy, skepticism, and sensationalism. As the legal battle unfolds, the stakes are high for everyone. For Jane Doe, it is a fight for justice and validation in the face of immense scrutiny. For Diddy and JAY-Z, it is a battle to protect their reputations and legacies. And for the public, it is yet another reminder of the enduring complexities of power, privilege, and accountability in the #MeToo era. These complexities are further compounded by the high stakes of this particular case, where the convergence of celebrity, legal strategy, and social movements creates a uniquely charged atmosphere. The next phase of this case will likely be pivotal. Discovery, where both sides will exchange evidence and depose witnesses, could provide critical insights into the veracity of the allegations and the defense strategies. Judge Torres's indication that anonymity could be revisited during this phase adds another layer of uncertainty. This phase will test the resilience of both the plaintiff and the defendants, as well as the public's appetite for transparency and accountability. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres criticized Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, for his aggressive legal tactics in the ongoing lawsuit where Jay-Z is accused of sexual assault. Judge Torres described Spiro's repeated filings, which included inflammatory language and personal attacks, as inappropriate and a waste of judicial resources. She emphasized that such combative motions are unlikely to benefit his client and stated, "The Court will not fast-track the judicial process merely because counsel demands it."Additionally, Judge Torres denied Spiro's motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to reveal the identity of the plaintiff, who is proceeding under the pseudonym "Jane Doe." She ruled that the plaintiff could remain anonymous at this stage of the litigation, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and the potential harm to the plaintiff's mental health and safety. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a fair legal process while protecting the rights of individuals involved in such serious allegations.(commercial at 10:06)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource;Judge explodes at Jay-Z in child rape case and rules against rapper after 'relentless' courtroom plot | Daily Mail Online
In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court granted the accuser in a high-profile lawsuit against Jay-Z the ability to remain anonymous. The accuser, identified only as "Jane Doe," had filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault by the rapper and business mogul. Judge Torres acknowledged the significant public interest in the case but determined that the plaintiff's privacy and safety outweighed the need for public disclosure of her identity. The order emphasized the potential risks of harassment, intimidation, and stigma that could arise if her identity were revealed, particularly given Jay-Z's prominence and the heightened media scrutiny surrounding the case.The ruling does not impact the progression of the legal proceedings, as the court will ensure both parties have access to necessary information for a fair trial. However, it sets an important precedent in balancing the rights of accusers in sensitive cases with public transparency. Judge Torres underscored that allowing Jane Doe to proceed anonymously would not prejudice Jay-Z's defense or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.(commercial at 8:42)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.53.0.pdf
Judge Torres condemned Jay-Z's attorney for trying to "fast track the judicial process ...and wasting court time." Jay-Z has been named in a lawsuit filed against him and Sean "Diddy" Combs after a then 13-year-old claims the two sexually assaulted her. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court granted the accuser in a high-profile lawsuit against Jay-Z the ability to remain anonymous. The accuser, identified only as "Jane Doe," had filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault by the rapper and business mogul. Judge Torres acknowledged the significant public interest in the case but determined that the plaintiff's privacy and safety outweighed the need for public disclosure of her identity. The order emphasized the potential risks of harassment, intimidation, and stigma that could arise if her identity were revealed, particularly given Jay-Z's prominence and the heightened media scrutiny surrounding the case.The ruling does not impact the progression of the legal proceedings, as the court will ensure both parties have access to necessary information for a fair trial. However, it sets an important precedent in balancing the rights of accusers in sensitive cases with public transparency. Judge Torres underscored that allowing Jane Doe to proceed anonymously would not prejudice Jay-Z's defense or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.(commercial at 8:42)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.53.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres criticized Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, for his aggressive legal tactics in the ongoing lawsuit where Jay-Z is accused of sexual assault. Judge Torres described Spiro's repeated filings, which included inflammatory language and personal attacks, as inappropriate and a waste of judicial resources. She emphasized that such combative motions are unlikely to benefit his client and stated, "The Court will not fast-track the judicial process merely because counsel demands it."Additionally, Judge Torres denied Spiro's motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to reveal the identity of the plaintiff, who is proceeding under the pseudonym "Jane Doe." She ruled that the plaintiff could remain anonymous at this stage of the litigation, citing the sensitive nature of the allegations and the potential harm to the plaintiff's mental health and safety. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a fair legal process while protecting the rights of individuals involved in such serious allegations.(commercial at 10:06)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource;Judge explodes at Jay-Z in child rape case and rules against rapper after 'relentless' courtroom plot | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The Downfall Of Diddy | The Case Against Sean 'Puffy P Diddy' Combs
The courtroom reverberated with tension as Judge Analisa Torres delivered a pivotal ruling that allowed Jane Doe, the woman accusing Sean “Diddy” Combs and Shawn “JAY-Z” Carter of rape, to maintain her anonymity—for now. This decision, coming from the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, sets the stage for what promises to be one of the most contentious legal battles in recent memory. The gravity of this ruling resonates far beyond the immediate parties involved, casting a spotlight on the intersection of celebrity culture, legal ethics, and the ongoing reckoning with sexual assault allegations in high-profile cases. While Jane Doe's identity remains concealed, the allegations at the heart of this case continue to ripple through the worlds of music, law, and public opinion, demanding scrutiny from every angle. The judge's decision, as reported on December 26, 2024, underscores the precarious balance between protecting a victim's privacy and ensuring a fair defense. Jane Doe's legal team argued that revealing her identity could exacerbate her fragile mental health, pointing to her diagnoses of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and a seizure disorder—all purportedly linked to the trauma of her alleged assault. Judge Torres acknowledged this, describing Jane Doe as “particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure.” This recognition reflects a growing awareness within the judicial system about the nuanced needs of survivors. However, the judge also noted that the decision might be revisited as the case unfolds, particularly during the discovery phase when the defendants—and their formidable legal teams—are likely to intensify their efforts to challenge her claims. This potential shift highlights the dynamic nature of such rulings, where the scales of justice are continually recalibrated as new evidence emerges. This ruling comes amidst an already fiery legal clash, marked by sharp exchanges between Jane Doe's attorney, Tony Buzbee, and the high-profile defense lawyers representing JAY-Z and Diddy. Alex Spiro, JAY-Z's lead attorney, has been particularly aggressive in his approach, filing motions described by the court as “combative” and replete with “inflammatory language and ad hominem attacks.” Judge Torres did not mince words in her criticism, calling these tactics “a waste of judicial resources” and cautioning against attempts to fast-track the judicial process. This critique underscores a broader tension within high-stakes litigation, where the zeal to protect a client's interests often collides with the procedural decorum expected in court. At the heart of the case lies a harrowing accusation: Jane Doe alleges that in 2000, at the age of 13, she was raped by both Diddy and JAY-Z at an afterparty for the MTV Video Music Awards. The lawsuit, initially filed in October against Diddy alone, was later amended to include JAY-Z. The claims have been met with vehement denials from both defendants. JAY-Z, through his representatives, has called the allegations a “cynical and calculated attempt to exploit his name and reputation.” Diddy's camp, for its part, has dismissed the case as baseless. Their defenses, though aligned in intent, differ in tone, with JAY-Z's approach characterized by an assertive dismissal and Diddy's marked by a strategic distancing from the claims. Despite the defendants' efforts to discredit her, Jane Doe has remained steadfast in her claims. She acknowledges inconsistencies in certain details of her account but attributes them to the psychological toll of the assault and the passage of time. Her legal team has framed these discrepancies as common among trauma survivors, arguing that they do not undermine the core allegations. This framing is supported by research into trauma memory, which often shows that survivors may struggle with recalling peripheral details while retaining vivid recollections of the central traumatic event. This nuanced understanding of trauma adds a layer of complexity to the case, challenging traditional notions of credibility in the courtroom. Judge Torres's ruling is a temporary victory for Jane Doe, but it also underscores the complexities of navigating such high-profile cases. The anonymity granted to her is not without consequences for the defense, as the judge herself noted. “This may cause prejudice to Defendants, making it more difficult for them to collect the facts necessary to mount a defense,” Torres stated, adding that the balance of interests could shift as the case progresses. This acknowledgment reveals the inherent tension in balancing the rights of all parties involved, where protecting one party's privacy may inadvertently hinder another's ability to defend themselves effectively. The broader implications of this lawsuit extend beyond the courtroom. For the legal community, it highlights the challenges of adjudicating cases involving powerful public figures and historical allegations. For the entertainment industry, it raises uncomfortable questions about accountability and the legacy of some of its most iconic artists. The case has also reignited debates about the ethics of media coverage, with commentators scrutinizing the motivations and methods of all parties involved. The public's response reflects a broader cultural moment, where the pursuit of justice often intersects with the court of public opinion, creating a volatile mix of advocacy, skepticism, and sensationalism. As the legal battle unfolds, the stakes are high for everyone. For Jane Doe, it is a fight for justice and validation in the face of immense scrutiny. For Diddy and JAY-Z, it is a battle to protect their reputations and legacies. And for the public, it is yet another reminder of the enduring complexities of power, privilege, and accountability in the #MeToo era. These complexities are further compounded by the high stakes of this particular case, where the convergence of celebrity, legal strategy, and social movements creates a uniquely charged atmosphere. The next phase of this case will likely be pivotal. Discovery, where both sides will exchange evidence and depose witnesses, could provide critical insights into the veracity of the allegations and the defense strategies. Judge Torres's indication that anonymity could be revisited during this phase adds another layer of uncertainty. This phase will test the resilience of both the plaintiff and the defendants, as well as the public's appetite for transparency and accountability. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
A seismic shift hits crypto markets as Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin liquidates $360,000 in meme coins, redirecting funds to embattled TornadoCash developers. Meanwhile, an apparent CryptoPunk NFT sale of $56.3M exposed as flash loan manipulation sends shockwaves through the digital art world. As BlackRock officially recognizes Bitcoin as a global monetary alternative, the SEC refuses to back down, appealing Judge Torres's landmark Ripple ruling. Market turbulence intensifies with an Ethereum whale offloading 19,000 ETH while Bitcoin Core rushes to patch critical vulnerabilities affecting one-sixth of all nodes. HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOU ASK? SUBSCRIBE:RARE BITS PODCAST WATCH: RAREBITS LIVE YOUTUBE READ: RARE BITS SUBSTACK Follow on X: BEATBROKER RARE BITS LIVE GET SOME MERCH RARE BITS GEAR:RARE BITS MERCH
Attorney Fred Rispoli discusses he SEC appealing Judge Torres ruling in the Ripple XRP case lawsuit. Topics:- Goal of the SEC Appeal and Timeline - Chances of SEC and Ripple winning - Ripple Cross Appeal - XRP ETF approval or will the SEC block it? - Crypto regulation impact on the SEC vs Ripple case- Trump vs Harris and Gary Gensler - Can XRP Holders sue the SEC? https://hodllaw.org/ Show Sponsor - ✅ VeChain is a versatile enterprise-grade L1 smart contract platform https://www.vechain.org/
Crypto News: The SEC & Gary Gensler have filed a Notice of Appeal of Judge Torres's Ruling in the Ripple XRP case lawsuit. This may mean the XRP ETF is DOA. Gurbir S. Grewal, SEC Director of the Division of Enforcement, is quitting.Show Sponsor - ⭐️ Learn about BitGo, one of the top crypto custodians - https://www.bitgo.com/
// Merlin - SIGN UP FREE 30 DAY TRIAL https://tinyurl.com/MerlinGMCYouTube //// T H E 3 T W A R R I O R A C A D E M Y // Join the 3T Warrior Academy: https://3twarrior.com/warrioracademy?affiliate_id=3827481 // Join our Free Discord: https://3twarrior.com/discord49541345 //// F O L L O W T H E T E A M // Official Good Morning Crypto https://linktr.ee/3tGMCrypto Twitter: https://twitter.com/3tGMCrypto // Abs Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/Abs3t/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AbsGMCrypto // Johnny Krypto https://linktr.ee/johnnykrypto Twitter: https://twitter.com/JohnnyKrypto00 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm-qyQNf1rnUaw6u20mKCVw // Gonzo Twitter: https://twitter.com/gonzo_3t Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/gonzo_3t/ // Mario | Node Defender https://linktr.ee/LinkWithMario Twitter: https://twitter.com/LinkWithMario Youtube: https://youtube.com/@LinkWithMario Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/LinkWithMario/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@LinkWithMario // Andrew Cashflow Website: https://www.andrewcashflow.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/andrewcashflow/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AndrewCashflow YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@andrewcashflow // NFTtones: https://linktr.ee/NFTtones //// Disclaimer: All of our videos are strictly personal opinions. Please make sure to do your own research. Never take one person's opinion for financial guidance. There are multiple strategies and not all strategies fit all people. Our videos ARE NOT financial advice. We are not financial advisers & this is not financial advice. #Crypto #CryptoNews #Bitcoin #BTC #ethereum #eth #ripple #xrp #chainlink #quant #polygon #qnt #cardano #xlm #hbar #cspr #algo #algorand #cspr #Abs #JohnnyKrypto #GoodMorningCrypto #stellar #fednow #ada #digitalcurrency #digitalassets #tokenization #ada #hbar #hedera #usdc #usdt #jennax #ripplewin #xdc #xinfin #rippleceo #bradgarlinghouse #nft #nfts #xrppump #chainlinks #swift #tokenizedassets #xrpltokenization #uphold #coinbase #visa #fidelity #bitcoinetf #micklexrp #xrpmickle #mickle #ripplepartnership Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In crypto news today Judge Jackson hands SEC a big loss in the Binance BNB case and validates Judge Torres ruling in the SEC Ripple XRP case. SEC sues MetaMask over staking service. The SCOTUS ruling overturning Chevron, reads as if written specifically with the SEC in mind. Solana ETF filed by VanEck and 21 Shares.
When she was nine years old, Xiomara Torres fled the civil war in her home country of El Salvador and came to the U.S. As a child, she adjusted to her new life in East Los Angeles before she was removed from her family and put into foster care—where she spent six years of her life moving from home to home. Now, she's the subject of a local play in Oregon titled, "Judge Torres." In this edition of “How I Made It,” Judge Torres shares how she overcame the hurdles of the foster system and made her way to the Oregon Circuit Court.This episode originally aired in 2019.
Attorney John Deaton joins me to discuss:- Judge Torres denying the SEC's Appeal attempt of the Ripple XRP ruling- LBRY appeal- SEC vs Coinbase- SEC vs Binance- SEC losing to Grayscale- SEC Gurbir Grewal and Bill Hinman Ethereum speechJohn's book https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CJH7S4RM?ref_=cm_sw_r_mwn_dp_FRKZFJF576JXMKTZQ3B0
In crypto news today Judge Torres denies the SEC appeal of the Ripple XRP ruling. Ripple gets license in Singapore. Big updates with SEC vs Coinbase and Binance lawsuits.
The Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) has been dealt another loss in the courts of the United States with District Judge Analisa Torres denying an appeal of the XRP decision that found the sale of XRP tokens on exchanges is not a security. "The SEC misconstrues the Court's holdings," Judge Torres said, indicating the lawyers at the SEC are either too biased or too incompetent when it comes to crypto.
After three years of legal battles Judge Torres ruled that secondary sales of XRP do not constitute security offerings. This is a landmark moment in crypto, but where does that leave us? What's going on with XRP and Ripple? And most importantly, what does all of this mean for the XRP Army as we look to the future and the next crypto bull run? Interested in Crypto Retirement Accounts? Check out iTrust Capital! ➡️ https://itrust.capital/Bitboy
In crypto news today the SEC and Gary Gensler want to appeal the Ripple XRP ruling from Judge Torres. Google Cloud is plotting more Web3-focused products to make its computing offerings the first choice for industry firms and developers. Interoperability protocol Rarimo is making Polygon ID, a verifiable credential infrastructure, available across multiple blockchains.
XRP isn't itself a security; it depends on how it's sold. So said a federal judge last Thursday in the SEC vs. Ripple case and the implications are significant. Jake Chervinsky, chief policy officer at the Blockchain Association, and lawyer Kayvan Sadeghi, partner at Jenner & Block, join the show to discuss two major ramifications. One: U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres dealt a major blow to the legal theory underpinning the SEC's case against Coinbase. Two: This order really “lights a fire” under U.S. lawmakers to act on a pair of crypto bills in Congress. Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Stitcher, Castbox, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Show highlights: why this is an “extraordinary victory” for the industry, according to Jake whether Judge Torres made the right decision how the SEC could seek an interlocutory appeal to halt the case, though it's unlikely what are the pending items in the case that need to be resolved why the order that Judge Torres issued is not a final judgment why it is more important to look at the transaction, not at the nature of the asset, to determine whether something should be deemed a security whether the SEC has the authority to call digital assets securities the significance of the “major questions doctrine” how the order in the Ripple case will affect other cases like the Coinbase one whether exchanges should re-list XRP why this case could be instrumental in steering the direction of crypto regulation in the U.S. whether other crypto tokens like SOL or MATIC should feel relieved with this new ruling why Jake says that this case will speed up the chances of crypto legislation getting passed what the differences are between the current crypto bills that are being proposed whether SEC Chair Gary Gensler should recuse himself from enforcement actions in the crypto industry Thank you to our sponsors! Crypto.com Arbitrum Foundation TOKEN2049 Guests: Jake Chervinsky, chief policy officer at the Blockchain Association Previous appearances on Unchained: The Chopping Block: Jake Chervinsky on How the SEC Has Lost Credibility All Things Crypto Regulation With Jake Chervinsky Everything You Need to Know About the Looming Battle Over Privacy in Crypto Can Crypto Be a Force in the Midterms? Yes, Say Kristin Smith and Jake Chervinsky Kayvan Sadeghi, partner at Jenner & Block and co-chair of the fintech and crypto assets practice. Links: Previous coverage of Unchained on the Ripple case: New Order in SEC vs. Ripple Over XRP Is a Win for Crypto: What Happens Now? The Chopping Block: Should XRP Holders Really Be Rejoicing? The SEC's Lawsuit Against Ripple and 2 Execs: What You Need to Know Ripple's XRP: Why Its Chances of Success Are Low SEC vs Ripple: Judge Rules XRP Sold on Exchanges Is Not a Security CoinDesk: Ripple, Crypto Industry Score Partial Win in SEC Court Fight Over XRP Ripple Labs Ruling Throws U.S. Crypto-Token Regulation into Disarray The Washington Post: Ripple ruling threatens SEC's crypto regulation push Chair Gensler Must Recuse Himself From Digital Asset Enforcement Decisions - Blockchain Association Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
XRP isn't itself a security; it depends on how it's sold. So said a federal judge last Thursday in the SEC vs. Ripple case and the implications are significant. Jake Chervinsky, chief policy officer at the Blockchain Association, and lawyer Kayvan Sadeghi, partner at Jenner & Block, join the show to discuss two major ramifications. One: U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres dealt a major blow to the legal theory underpinning the SEC's case against Coinbase. Two: This order really “lights a fire” under U.S. lawmakers to act on a pair of crypto bills in Congress. Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Stitcher, Castbox, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Show highlights: why this is an “extraordinary victory” for the industry, according to Jake whether Judge Torres made the right decision how the SEC could seek an interlocutory appeal to halt the case, though it's unlikely what are the pending items in the case that need to be resolved why the order that Judge Torres issued is not a final judgment why it is more important to look at the transaction, not at the nature of the asset, to determine whether something should be deemed a security whether the SEC has the authority to call digital assets securities the significance of the “major questions doctrine” how the order in the Ripple case will affect other cases like the Coinbase one whether exchanges should re-list XRP why this case could be instrumental in steering the direction of crypto regulation in the U.S. whether other crypto tokens like SOL or MATIC should feel relieved with this new ruling why Jake says that this case will speed up the chances of crypto legislation getting passed what the differences are between the current crypto bills that are being proposed whether SEC Chair Gary Gensler should recuse himself from enforcement actions in the crypto industry Thank you to our sponsors! Crypto.com Arbitrum Foundation TOKEN2049 Guests: Jake Chervinsky, chief policy officer at the Blockchain Association Previous appearances on Unchained: The Chopping Block: Jake Chervinsky on How the SEC Has Lost Credibility All Things Crypto Regulation With Jake Chervinsky Everything You Need to Know About the Looming Battle Over Privacy in Crypto Can Crypto Be a Force in the Midterms? Yes, Say Kristin Smith and Jake Chervinsky Kayvan Sadeghi, partner at Jenner & Block and co-chair of the fintech and crypto assets practice. Links: Previous coverage of Unchained on the Ripple case: New Order in SEC vs. Ripple Over XRP Is a Win for Crypto: What Happens Now? The Chopping Block: Should XRP Holders Really Be Rejoicing? The SEC's Lawsuit Against Ripple and 2 Execs: What You Need to Know Ripple's XRP: Why Its Chances of Success Are Low SEC vs Ripple: Judge Rules XRP Sold on Exchanges Is Not a Security CoinDesk: Ripple, Crypto Industry Score Partial Win in SEC Court Fight Over XRP Ripple Labs Ruling Throws U.S. Crypto-Token Regulation into Disarray The Washington Post: Ripple ruling threatens SEC's crypto regulation push Chair Gensler Must Recuse Himself From Digital Asset Enforcement Decisions - Blockchain Association Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
*SUPPORT ON THE CHAIN* *BADASS YETIS* GET A BADASS YETIS NFT https://otc.one/mint-badass-yetis GET BADASS YETIS COFFEE https://otc.one/BadassYetisBrew -------------- JOIN THE CHANNEL https://otc.one/join OTC MERCH https://onthechain.shop Support ON THE CHAIN https://otc.one/support -------------- *ON THE CHAIN* SUBSCRIBE TO THE OTC PODCAST: https://otc.one/podcast On The Web: https://onthechain.io Follow OTC on Twitter: https://otc.one/otc Join On The Chain Community on Twitter https://twitter.com/i/communities/1599435678995062788 -------------- *JEFF* Follow Jeff on Twitter: https://otc.one/jeff -------------- *CHIP* Follow Chip on Twitter: https://otc.one/chip Listen to Chip's music http://nojoyyet.com -------------- *DISCLAIMER:* _All opinions expressed by content contributors that appear on OTC are solely expressing their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors. Content contributors may have previously disseminated information on a social media platform, website, or another medium such as a podcast, television, or radio. OTC, Content Contributors, Affiliates, or Sponsors are not obligated to update or correct any information. The content contributors are sharing the information which they believe to be reliable. OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors cannot guarantee the accuracy of the opinion shared, and viewers, readers, and listeners should not rely on it. Opinions expressed are not financial advice. Please consult a licensed financial advisor before making any financial decisions. You must research before you invest in anything. Do not invest based on what someone else is doing or not doing, or based on other people's opinions._ #XRP #Ripple #cryptocurrency #news
The SEC and Ripple have been locked in a legal tug of war for years, stirring up waves of controversy and debate in the crypto community. Finally, Judge Analisa Torres has given an order establishing that XRP buyers trading on exchanges were not, in fact, engaging in a securities transaction, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for the industry. Lewis Cohen, co-founder of DLx Law, unpacks the details of this pivotal case and what it might mean for the future of cryptocurrency regulation. Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Stitcher, Castbox, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Show highlights: why the SEC lawsuit against Ripple has such historical significance in the crypto industry how Judge Torres split the case into two categories why the 'programmatic buyers' did not meet the four prongs of the Howey test why the institutional sales constituted an investment contract what makes the Ripple case different from the Kik and Telegram cases whether the new ruling by Judge Torres will have an impact on how other crypto projects deal with their offerings why, in the event of an appeal, Lewis expects a Second Circuit decision to take at least one year whether Judge Torres' decision will impact the ongoing cases against crypto exchanges like Coinbase why Lewis thinks the XRP order will not change the likelihood that spot bitcoin ETFs get approved how there's no way to deal with information asymmetries in digital assets now Thank you to our sponsors! Crypto.com Railgun DAO Ondo Finance Arbitrum Foundation Guest Lewis Cohen, Cofounder DLx Law Previous appearances on Unchained: The Lummis/Gillibrand Crypto Bill: Is the ‘Ancillary Token' Approach the Best Links Previous coverage of Unchained on the Ripple case: The SEC's Lawsuit Against Ripple and 2 Execs: What You Need to Know Ripple's XRP: Why Its Chances of Success Are Low CoinDesk: Ripple, Crypto Industry Score Partial Win in SEC Court Fight Over XRP The Ineluctable Modality of Securities Law: Why Fungible Crypto Assets Are not Securities Paradigm Files Amicus Brief in SEC's Lawsuit Against Ripple The Block: Lummis, Gillibrand to introduce revised comprehensive crypto bill Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Attorney Fred Rispoli joins me to breakdown Ripple's victory in the SEC XRP lawsuit. We discuss the Judge Torres ruling, Coinbase and exchanges relisting XRP, crypto industry using Ripple's victory for defense, can the SEC appeal, and can the California lawsuit overturn Judge Torres ruling and much more.
A New York court ruled on Thursday that Ripple's sale of XRP tokens on exchanges and through algorithms does not constitute an investment contract, but that the institutional sale of tokens violates federal securities laws. Judge Torres said that Ripple's Programmatic Sales, other distributions and XRP sales of Larsen and Garlinghouse do not constitute investment contracts.
On this day in history, July 14 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act of 1798 was a controversial law that criminalized the propagation of false or defamatory statements against the federal government. It was primarily deployed as a tool by the Adams administration to control dissenting speech, especially from the Jeffersonian press that took issue with the ideologies of the Federalist Party. Interestingly, the Act did not cover criticism aimed at the Vice President, a position held by Thomas Jefferson at the time, due to his adversarial stance against the Federalist-dominant Congress. In 1800, the Sedition Act was deliberately left to lapse, marking its end. The introduction and enforcement of this Act is believed to have played a significant role in Thomas Jefferson's victory in the presidential election the same year, as public sentiment turned against the suppression of free speech.A ruling by U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres found that Ripple Labs Inc.'s token, XRP, constitutes a security when sold to institutional investors, but not when sold to the general public. Judge Torres reasoned that sophisticated investors would perceive XRP as a speculative investment with potential for returns, aligning it with the definition of an investment contract under federal securities law. This did not hold for the broader public purchasing on crypto exchanges, given the lack of evidence that such investors would fully comprehend Ripple's numerous statements about XRP. The decision, viewed as a win for the crypto industry, sent XRP's value soaring and sparked a wider debate on the classification of cryptocurrencies as securities. However, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) maintains that XRP tokens were sold as investment contracts in violation of securities laws. The impact of this ruling could significantly limit the SEC's jurisdiction, particularly if adopted by other courts. Despite the mixed verdict, the SEC's case against Ripple on institutional-sales claims will continue.Ripple Tokens Sold to Public Are Not Securities, Judge Says (1)Ripple Labs notches landmark win in SEC case over XRP cryptocurrency | ReutersWalt Disney Co is seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit by the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District as part of its ongoing conflict with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. The lawsuit aims to nullify deals the district alleges were illegally made in favor of Disney with a previous district board. Meanwhile, Disney has its own lawsuit against Governor DeSantis, accusing him of leveraging state government against the company in response to its opposition to a Florida law prohibiting classroom discussions of sexuality and gender identity with younger children. In retaliation, DeSantis influenced the passage of bills that restructured the district, transferring board control to the governor and retroactively invalidating agreements Disney had made with the previous board. Disney argues the district's lawsuit should be dismissed since the company's agreements were already nullified by the state. This would enable Disney to concentrate on its federal case, which alleges DeSantis violated the company's right to free speech. The oversight district, however, wants its case to proceed, arguing that if the Disney agreements are invalidated, Disney's federal case claims will largely be undermined.Disney seeks to toss district lawsuit in DeSantis feud | ReutersThe IRS is intensifying its enforcement efforts against wealthy tax evaders, utilizing the funding provided in the Inflation Reduction Act, also known as the tax-and-climate law, according to Commissioner Danny Werfel. Recent actions include resolving around 175 tax delinquency cases for millionaires, yielding $38 million, and initiating measures against millionaires who do not file tax returns. The agency has also identified roughly 100 high-income individuals claiming benefits in Puerto Rico without satisfying certain criteria. Werfel emphasized that the IRS plans to use the funds to pursue delinquent millionaires more vigorously and to crack down on those employing abusive tax strategies. Furthermore, he outlined the agency's efforts to improve taxpayer services, including opening new taxpayer assistance centers and expanding online capabilities. Despite receiving $80 billion from the law, these funds might be cut to $60 billion due to a debt-limit agreement. Werfel warned against any further cuts, stating that they would impact the agency's enforcement and customer service abilities.IRS Targets Rich Tax Dodgers Using New Funds, Chief Werfel SaysTwitter Inc has been accused of refusing to pay a minimum of $500 million in promised severance to thousands of employees laid off after Elon Musk acquired the company, according to a lawsuit filed by Courtney McMillian, the former head of Twitter's employee benefits programs. McMillian alleges that a severance plan created by Twitter in 2019 promised most workers two months of their base pay plus an additional week of pay for each full year of service if they were laid off. Senior employees were supposed to receive six months of base pay. However, McMillian asserts that Twitter only provided at most one month of severance pay to laid-off workers, with many not receiving anything. The lawsuit accuses Twitter and Musk of violating a federal law regulating employee benefit plans. In response to these claims, Twitter stated that it has paid ex-employees in full. The company is also facing other lawsuits relating to the layoffs, including allegations of targeting women and workers with disabilities.Twitter owes ex-employees $500 million in severance, lawsuit claims | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
XRP - JOHN DEATON LIVE - Judge Torres Ruling - XRP NOT a Security *SUPPORT ON THE CHAIN* *BADASS YETIS* GET A BADASS YETIS NFT https://otc.one/mint-badass-yetis GET BADASS YETIS COFFEE https://otc.one/BadassYetisBrew -------------- JOIN THE CHANNEL https://otc.one/join OTC MERCH https://onthechain.shop Support ON THE CHAIN https://otc.one/support -------------- *ON THE CHAIN* SUBSCRIBE TO THE OTC PODCAST: https://otc.one/podcast On The Web: https://onthechain.io Follow OTC on Twitter: https://otc.one/otc Join On The Chain Community on Twitter https://twitter.com/i/communities/1599435678995062788 -------------- *JEFF* Follow Jeff on Twitter: https://otc.one/jeff -------------- *CHIP* Follow Chip on Twitter: https://otc.one/chip Listen to Chip's music http://nojoyyet.com -------------- *DISCLAIMER:* _All opinions expressed by content contributors that appear on OTC are solely expressing their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors. Content contributors may have previously disseminated information on a social media platform, website, or another medium such as a podcast, television, or radio. OTC, Content Contributors, Affiliates, or Sponsors are not obligated to update or correct any information. The content contributors are sharing the information which they believe to be reliable. OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors cannot guarantee the accuracy of the opinion shared, and viewers, readers, and listeners should not rely on it. Opinions expressed are not financial advice. Please consult a licensed financial advisor before making any financial decisions. You must research before you invest in anything. Do not invest based on what someone else is doing or not doing, or based on other people's opinions._ #XRP #Ripple #cryptocurrency #news
XRP claimed a MASSIVE victory today against the SEC as Judge Torres ruled that XRP is NOT a security! What does this mean for XRP and Cryptocurrency as a whole? This could be extremely bullish and also help pave the way to mass adoption! In this livestream I will be doing live TA on XRP, Bitcoin and all of your favorite altcoins!! At the end of the stream we will spin the wheel of pain & pleasure, giving you a chance to win some crypto or merch!
The SEC and Ripple have been locked in a legal tug of war for years, stirring up waves of controversy and debate in the crypto community. Finally, Judge Analisa Torres has given an order establishing that XRP buyers trading on exchanges were not, in fact, engaging in a securities transaction, a decision that could have far-reaching implications for the industry. Lewis Cohen, co-founder of DLx Law, unpacks the details of this pivotal case and what it might mean for the future of cryptocurrency regulation. Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Stitcher, Castbox, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Show highlights: why the SEC lawsuit against Ripple has such historical significance in the crypto industry how Judge Torres split the case into two categories why the 'programmatic buyers' did not meet the four prongs of the Howey test why the institutional sales constituted an investment contract what makes the Ripple case different from the Kik and Telegram cases whether the new ruling by Judge Torres will have an impact on how other crypto projects deal with their offerings why, in the event of an appeal, Lewis expects a Second Circuit decision to take at least one year whether Judge Torres' decision will impact the ongoing cases against crypto exchanges like Coinbase why Lewis thinks the XRP order will not change the likelihood that spot bitcoin ETFs get approved how there's no way to deal with information asymmetries in digital assets now Thank you to our sponsors! Crypto.com Railgun DAO Ondo Finance Arbitrum Foundation Guest Lewis Cohen, Cofounder DLx Law Previous appearances on Unchained: The Lummis/Gillibrand Crypto Bill: Is the ‘Ancillary Token' Approach the Best Links Previous coverage of Unchained on the Ripple case: The SEC's Lawsuit Against Ripple and 2 Execs: What You Need to Know Ripple's XRP: Why Its Chances of Success Are Low CoinDesk: Ripple, Crypto Industry Score Partial Win in SEC Court Fight Over XRP The Ineluctable Modality of Securities Law: Why Fungible Crypto Assets Are not Securities Paradigm Files Amicus Brief in SEC's Lawsuit Against Ripple The Block: Lummis, Gillibrand to introduce revised comprehensive crypto bill Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
XRP - Judge Torres Ruling - BAD NEWS for XRP Investors *SUPPORT ON THE CHAIN* *BADASS YETIS* GET A BADASS YETIS NFT https://otc.one/mint-badass-yetis GET BADASS YETIS COFFEE https://otc.one/BadassYetisBrew -------------- JOIN THE CHANNEL https://otc.one/join OTC MERCH https://onthechain.shop Support ON THE CHAIN https://otc.one/support -------------- *ON THE CHAIN* SUBSCRIBE TO THE OTC PODCAST: https://otc.one/podcast On The Web: https://onthechain.io Follow OTC on Twitter: https://otc.one/otc Join On The Chain Community on Twitter https://twitter.com/i/communities/1599435678995062788 -------------- *JEFF* Follow Jeff on Twitter: https://otc.one/jeff -------------- *CHIP* Follow Chip on Twitter: https://otc.one/chip Listen to Chip's music http://nojoyyet.com -------------- *DISCLAIMER:* _All opinions expressed by content contributors that appear on OTC are solely expressing their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors. Content contributors may have previously disseminated information on a social media platform, website, or another medium such as a podcast, television, or radio. OTC, Content Contributors, Affiliates, or Sponsors are not obligated to update or correct any information. The content contributors are sharing the information which they believe to be reliable. OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors cannot guarantee the accuracy of the opinion shared, and viewers, readers, and listeners should not rely on it. Opinions expressed are not financial advice. Please consult a licensed financial advisor before making any financial decisions. You must research before you invest in anything. Do not invest based on what someone else is doing or not doing, or based on other people's opinions._ #XRP #Ripple #cryptocurrency #news
In crypto news today Former SEC Chair Jay Clayton says Bitcoin spot etfs should be approved, investigation into Prometheum has been launched, Standard Chartered Bank issues bitcoin price prediction, and when will Judge Torres rule in the Ripple XRP lawsuit.
Attorney Fred Rispoli is the founder of HODL law. In this interview we discuss Judge Torres denying the SEC's motion to block the Bill Hinman documents, Summary Judgement and conclusion of the SEC Ripple XRP lawsuit, and Coinbase suing the SEC.
XRP - Ripple the SEC - Hinman Emails and Judge Torres BIG Decision *SUPPORT ON THE CHAIN* JOIN THE CHANNEL https://otc.one/join OTC MERCH https://onthechain.shop BUY US A COFFEE https://otc.one/buy-us-a-coffee Support ON THE CHAIN https://otc.one/support -------------- *ON THE CHAIN* SUBSCRIBE TO THE OTC PODCAST: https://otc.one/podcast Subscribe to our other Youtube Channel: https://otc.one/onthechain On The Web: https://onthechain.io Follow OTC on Twitter: https://otc.one/otc Join On The Chain Community on Twitter https://twitter.com/i/communities/1599435678995062788 Join our FREE Telegram Roundtable channel: https://t.me/onthechain_roundtable -------------- *JEFF* Follow Jeff on Twitter: https://otc.one/jeff -------------- *CHIP* Follow Chip on Twitter: https://otc.one/chip Listen to Chip's music http://nojoyyet.com -------------- *DISCLAIMER:* _All opinions expressed by content contributors that appear on OTC are solely expressing their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors. Content contributors may have previously disseminated information on a social media platform, website, or another medium such as a podcast, television, or radio. OTC, Content Contributors, Affiliates, or Sponsors are not obligated to update or correct any information. The content contributors are sharing the information which they believe to be reliable. OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors cannot guarantee the accuracy of the opinion shared, and viewers, readers, and listeners should not rely on it. Opinions expressed are not financial advice. Please consult a licensed financial advisor before making any financial decisions. You must research before you invest in anything. Do not invest based on what someone else is doing or not doing, or based on other people's opinions._ #XRP #Ripple #cryptocurrency #news
In crypto news today Judge Torres denies the SEC's Motion to Seal the Bill Hinman documents in the Ripple XRP lawsuit. Ledger wallet makes big update to recovery.
XRP - Ripple - That Time Judge Torres Ruled Against the SEC - Red Team is Talking Crypto Regs - More Bank Failures? *Rules for Giveaways on Our YouTube Channel* https://onthechain.io/rules-for-giveaways-on-our-youtube-channel/ *SUPPORT ON THE CHAIN* JOIN THE CHANNEL https://otc.one/join OTC MERCH https://onthechain.shop BUY US A COFFEE https://otc.one/buy-us-a-coffee Support ON THE CHAIN https://otc.one/support -------------- *ON THE CHAIN* SUBSCRIBE TO THE OTC PODCAST: https://otc.one/podcast Subscribe to our other Youtube Channel: https://otc.one/onthechain On The Web: https://onthechain.io Follow OTC on Twitter: https://otc.one/otc Join On The Chain Community on Twitter https://twitter.com/i/communities/1599435678995062788 Join our FREE Telegram Roundtable channel: https://t.me/onthechain_roundtable -------------- *JEFF* Follow Jeff on Twitter: https://otc.one/jeff -------------- *CHIP* Follow Chip on Twitter: https://otc.one/chip Listen to Chip's music http://nojoyyet.com -------------- *DISCLAIMER:* _All opinions expressed by content contributors that appear on OTC are solely expressing their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors. Content contributors may have previously disseminated information on a social media platform, website, or another medium such as a podcast, television, or radio. OTC, Content Contributors, Affiliates, or Sponsors are not obligated to update or correct any information. The content contributors are sharing the information which they believe to be reliable. OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors cannot guarantee the accuracy of the opinion shared, and viewers, readers, and listeners should not rely on it. Opinions expressed are not financial advice. Please consult a licensed financial advisor before making any financial decisions. You must research before you invest in anything. Do not invest based on what someone else is doing or not doing, or based on other people's opinions._ #XRP #Ripple #cryptocurrency #news
SEC v Ripple - XRP: Petition to Intervene - Access to Hinman Emails - Lawyer for Roselyn Layton to Judge Torres TONIGHT ON THE CHAIN - HEAR LIVE FROM Carl Cecere Attorney for Roslyn Layton. Roslyn Layton, attorney, Carl Cecere petitioned court to intervene in the SEC v Ripple Legal Case asking the Court for access to a set of internal SEC documents relating to a speech that former SEC Director of Corporation Finance William Hinman gave June 2018 *** *SUPPORT ON THE CHAIN* JOIN THE CHANNEL https://otc.one/join OTC MERCH https://onthechain.shop BUY US A COFFEE https://otc.one/buy-us-a-coffee Support ON THE CHAIN https://otc.one/support -------------- *ON THE CHAIN* SUBSCRIBE TO THE OTC PODCAST: https://otc.one/podcast Subscribe to our other Youtube Channel: https://otc.one/onthechain On The Web: https://onthechain.io Follow OTC on Twitter: https://otc.one/otc Join On The Chain Community on Twitter https://twitter.com/i/communities/1599435678995062788 Join our FREE Telegram Roundtable channel: https://t.me/onthechain_roundtable -------------- *JEFF* Follow Jeff on Twitter: https://otc.one/jeff -------------- *CHIP* Follow Chip on Twitter: https://otc.one/chip Listen to Chip's music http://nojoyyet.com -------------- *DISCLAIMER:* _All opinions expressed by content contributors that appear on OTC are solely expressing their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors. Content contributors may have previously disseminated information on a social media platform, website, or another medium such as a podcast, television, or radio. OTC, Content Contributors, Affiliates, or Sponsors are not obligated to update or correct any information. The content contributors are sharing the information which they believe to be reliable. OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors cannot guarantee the accuracy of the opinion shared, and viewers, readers, and listeners should not rely on it. Opinions expressed are not financial advice. Please consult a licensed financial advisor before making any financial decisions. You must research before you invest in anything. Do not invest based on what someone else is doing or not doing or based on other people's opinions._ #XRP #Ripple
Kevin O'Leary says Gary Gensler stopped him from getting FTX bailed out. Judge Torres approvals the majority of Ripple Amicus Briefs in the XRP lawsuit.
Eleanor Terrett is a Journalist at Fox Business who has been covering the SEC Ripple XRP lawsuit. In this interview we discuss her research, the big updates in the lawsuit, Judge Torres telling the SEC to hand over the Hinman documents, multiple amicus briefs filed, Bill Hinman conflicts of interest, settlement and outcome in the lawsuit, and much more.
Keith and C-Mac break down the Yankees' mini sweep of the rival Red Sox, who are really down bad of late. Just days after seemingly hitting rock bottom on Derek Jeter's Hall of Fame night, the Yanks are back on track with precious breathing room in the AL East. Plus, differing beliefs on who should be the team's game one starter come October. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices
The Yankees offense explodes again, as Rizzo, Stanton, Judge & Torres all homer.
Goldman Sachs has offered its first Bitcoin backed loan. Panama approved Bitcoin and crypto law. JPMorgan's crypto veteran Christine Moy joins investment firm Apollo. Judge Torres has updated the timeline in the SEC Ripple XRP lawsuit. New regulation proposal for CFTC to take control of crypto exchanges away from the SEC.
James O'Keefe, Founder and CEO of Project Veritas, published a shocking video showing that over a period of sixteen months, Biden's DOJ and the SDNY spied on journalists by filing a series of secret warrants, orders, and a subpoena to surreptitiously collect from Microsoft and other companies our privileged, and constitutionally protected, communications. Microsoft was bound by a secrecy order not to divulge what the SDNY was doing. The net effect is their conduct directly violated Judge Analisa Torres' order appointing a Special Master who is compelled to apply journalistic privileges to our journalists' materials. The SDNY chose not to inform Judge Torres, or the Special Master, Judge Barbara Jones. Project Veritas filed a motion this week to require the SDNY to comply with the Special Master order by stopping their review of the surreptitiously obtained materials. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Big crypto news today - Elon Musk tweets he is building a case against the SEC. Huge Ripple XRP news as Judge Torres issues a denial to the SEC. Ripple's top lawyer slams SEC for ‘offensive' use of unsealed legal memos. The secret service launched a crypto awareness hub to remain at the forefront of both educating the public and combating financial fraud. Blockchain Backer interview - https://youtu.be/NO89sfz70QUChris Swenor interview - https://youtu.be/7ZH2Y4M59pwhttps://www.Algorand.comhttps://taxbit.com/invite/thinkingcrypto/?fpr=thinkingcrypto
Judge Torres gave a big update in the SEC Ripple XRP lawsuit today. Gary Gensler talks crypto regulations and enforcement actions. Ripple partners with Modulr. A bipartisan bill was reintroduced in the US Congress to eliminate taxes for small crypto transactions. Nasdaq listed company Mawson to build a new 100MW bitcoin mining facility in Pennsylvania. Stacks has raised $150M for a new entity to build the largest ecosystem of Bitcoin applications. HBAR Foundation has partnered with Ubisoft, Hedera's newest governing council member.Greg Dickerson interview - https://youtu.be/usc4UXmEkdUHong Fang interview - https://youtu.be/xD8Lsrr_Z3IMuneeb Ali interview - https://youtu.be/ArxUpGVE_1YSponsors.https://www.Algorand.comhttps://taxbit.com/invite/thinkingcrypto/?fpr=thinkingcrypto--
Big crypto news today as Bank of America Corp published its first research coverage focused on cryptocurrencies and other digital assets today. Massive SEC Ripple XRP lawsuit news as Judge Torres grants amici status to attorney John E Deaton and Movants. SEC chair Gary Gensler will testify tomorrow in the House Financial Services Committee (HFSC).Warsaw-based crypto startup Ramp hits $300 million valuation in Series A raise.Dan Tapiero Interview - https://youtu.be/ZyOk_8pT18kMarathon CEO Fred Thiel - https://youtu.be/mZMU7I-MGWE
In this episode, the instant Recap from NYY Recaps as the Yankees defeat the Tigers 6-4 behind a strong Jameson Taillon, who picked up his first win with the Yankees (and first win in exactly 2 years.)
SEC v Ripple - ORDER by Judge Torres to John Deaton - Clayton and Hinman Conflict of Interest? RESERVE a SPOT - Virtual Meet-up #2 https://otc.one/meetup SUPPORT ON THE CHAIN BUY US A COFFEE https://otc.one/buy-us-a-coffee -------------- SUBSCRIBE TO THE OTC PODCAST: https://otc.one/podcast -------------- FOLLOW ON THE CHAIN: Subscribe to our other Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/c/OnTheChain On The Web: https:/onthechain.io Follow OTC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/on_the_chain Join our FREE Telegram Roundtable channel: https://t.me/onthechain_roundtable -------------- JEFF Follow Jeff on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thehodlreview -------------- CHIP Follow Chip on Twitter: https://twitter.com/stephenchip Follow Chip's Coil Blog: http://mindtoss.com -------------- DISCLAIMER: All opinions expressed by content contributors that appear on OTC are solely expressing their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors. Content contributors may have previously disseminated information on a social media platform, website, or another medium such as a podcast, television, or radio. OTC, Content Contributors, Affiliates, or Sponsors are not obligated to update or correct any information. The content contributors are sharing the information which they believe to be reliable. OTC, its affiliates, or sponsors cannot guarantee the accuracy of the opinion shared, and viewers, readers, and listeners should not rely on it. Opinions expressed are not financial advice. Please consult a licensed financial advisor before making any financial decisions. It is imperative that before you invest in anything you research before investing. Do not invest based on what someone else is doing or not doing, or based on other people's opinions.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
