Podcasts about legal team

Legal Team, this week we're breaking down Real Housewives of Atlanta star Brittany Eady's lawsuit against Bravo. From her past in the insurance world to her time as a video vixen and reality star, Brittany's background is as layered as her legal claims. We get into the details of the lawsuit, why the filing location in New York raises eyebrows, and how this case draws striking parallels to Leah McSweeney's. Plus, a look at Brittany's off-screen controversies, including unpaid vendors, credit card lawsuits, and more.    What's on the docket?   Brittany Eady's background, from insurance entrepreneur to reality TV and video vixen  The fallout from her infamous country club party, including unpaid vendors  Her husband Mike's legal trouble with AMEX and what a garnishment order actually means  A full breakdown of Brittany's lawsuit against Bravo and the claims she's making  The legal difference between false light and defamation  Why this case isn't heading straight to arbitration like others we've seen    Access additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠                  The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.                Thank you to our incredible sponsors!        Quince: Visit ⁠⁠⁠Quince.com/docket⁠⁠⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.    Rula: Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at ⁠⁠⁠https://www.rula.com/bravodocket⁠⁠⁠      Wayfair: Head to ⁠⁠⁠Wayfair.com⁠⁠⁠ right now to shop a huge outdoor selection.    Dupe: Stop wasting money on brand names and start saving with ⁠⁠⁠Dupe.com⁠⁠⁠ today.    Indacloud: If you're 21 or older, get 25% OFF your first order + free shipping with code BRAVODOCKET at ⁠⁠inda.shop/BRAVODOCKET⁠⁠   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On November 3, 2024, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team submitted a letter to the federal judge overseeing his case, urgently requesting the implementation of a gag order. This plea was prompted by recent public statements from Courtney Burgess, a grand jury witness, who claimed to possess videos allegedly depicting Combs in compromising situations. Combs' attorneys argue that such statements have led to a "deluge of improper pretrial publicity," jeopardizing his right to a fair trial and undermining the integrity of the grand jury proceedings.In this episode, we dive into the latest developments and see where things  stand.(commercial at 8:15)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Diddy makes shock attempt to silence grand jury witness who made bombshell claims about rapper's 'freak-off' parties | Daily Mail Online

In a recent development from the federal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, legal experts note that the defense team's apparent decision to streamline or potentially shorten its presentation may signal a calculated strategic shift rather than a defensive retreat. As the prosecution nears the conclusion of its case-in-chief, sources close to the proceedings and trial analysts suggest the defense might now believe that the government has failed to present a sufficiently persuasive case. By minimizing their own witness list or not calling Combs to testify, the defense could be aiming to highlight the perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the prosecution's argument rather than risk opening new vulnerabilities.This strategy, often employed when defense counsel perceives prosecutorial overreach or a lack of clear burden fulfillment, may also be designed to maintain a laser focus on reasonable doubt. A shorter defense case can prevent jurors from being overwhelmed or confused, and avoids introducing unnecessary evidence that prosecutors could use to their advantage on rebuttal. Experts emphasize that such a move doesn't necessarily mean Combs' team is surrendering ground; instead, it may reflect confidence that the jury has already begun to question the strength or coherence of the government's narrative.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs' defense shortens timeline in federal racketeering trial | Fox News

In a recent development from the federal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, legal experts note that the defense team's apparent decision to streamline or potentially shorten its presentation may signal a calculated strategic shift rather than a defensive retreat. As the prosecution nears the conclusion of its case-in-chief, sources close to the proceedings and trial analysts suggest the defense might now believe that the government has failed to present a sufficiently persuasive case. By minimizing their own witness list or not calling Combs to testify, the defense could be aiming to highlight the perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the prosecution's argument rather than risk opening new vulnerabilities.This strategy, often employed when defense counsel perceives prosecutorial overreach or a lack of clear burden fulfillment, may also be designed to maintain a laser focus on reasonable doubt. A shorter defense case can prevent jurors from being overwhelmed or confused, and avoids introducing unnecessary evidence that prosecutors could use to their advantage on rebuttal. Experts emphasize that such a move doesn't necessarily mean Combs' team is surrendering ground; instead, it may reflect confidence that the jury has already begun to question the strength or coherence of the government's narrative.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs' defense shortens timeline in federal racketeering trial | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bryan Kohberger and his defense team are setting themselves up for an epic battle in the courtroom with the prosecutors over the DNA evidence and whether or not that DNA belongs to Bryan Kohberger. According to a new documentary, the fact that the house on King Road was a "Party House" and that there was other DNA of unknown males found at the house, Kohberger's team could sink their teeth into that and try to harness it in their favor. In this epiosde, we take a look at that as a strategy and how Kohberger might atempt to harness it and what the proseuction might do to shoot it down. (commercial at 8:18)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho murders suspect Bryan Kohberger could claim in his trial that home where four students were murdered was 'party house' which would explain why his DNA was found there | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a recent development from the federal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, legal experts note that the defense team's apparent decision to streamline or potentially shorten its presentation may signal a calculated strategic shift rather than a defensive retreat. As the prosecution nears the conclusion of its case-in-chief, sources close to the proceedings and trial analysts suggest the defense might now believe that the government has failed to present a sufficiently persuasive case. By minimizing their own witness list or not calling Combs to testify, the defense could be aiming to highlight the perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the prosecution's argument rather than risk opening new vulnerabilities.This strategy, often employed when defense counsel perceives prosecutorial overreach or a lack of clear burden fulfillment, may also be designed to maintain a laser focus on reasonable doubt. A shorter defense case can prevent jurors from being overwhelmed or confused, and avoids introducing unnecessary evidence that prosecutors could use to their advantage on rebuttal. Experts emphasize that such a move doesn't necessarily mean Combs' team is surrendering ground; instead, it may reflect confidence that the jury has already begun to question the strength or coherence of the government's narrative.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs' defense shortens timeline in federal racketeering trial | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Lori Vallow Daybell did not receive the death penalty due to a combination of factors primarily related to the management and timing of evidence disclosures by the prosecution. The defense argued that the prosecution's late submission of thousands of documents and pieces of evidence impeded their ability to adequately prepare for trial. Judge Steven Boyce ruled to remove the death penalty to ensure that Vallow Daybell's constitutional rights were protected, allowing her defense team sufficient time to review the evidence. The judge emphasized that his decision was not to penalize the state but to avoid potential reversible errors that could arise from discovery issues if a death sentence were imposed​.  The implications of this decision might influence Bryan Kohberger's case, as his defense team could leverage similar arguments regarding evidence handling and procedural fairness. Kohberger, charged with the murders of four University of Idaho students, is facing the death penalty. His defense has been actively challenging the prosecution on various procedural grounds, including the handling and disclosure of DNA evidence and other investigative materials​.In this episode, we dive in and take a look at the possibility of Bryan Kohberger avoiding the death penalty due to prosecutorial misconduct.(commercial at 9:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho suspect Bryan Kohberger's team could use same tactic as cult mom Lori Vallow to avoid death penalty if convicted | The US Sun (the-sun.com)

In this letter addressed to Judge Subramanian, the Government responds to the defense's renewed objections to the removal of Juror #6 in the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs. The prosecution firmly denies the defense's repeated claims that its efforts to remove the juror were racially motivated, calling the accusation “baseless.” It emphasizes that the juror was dismissed due to multiple inconsistencies in his statements during voir dire and subsequent questioning—specifically regarding basic biographical details like his residence. The Government asserts that it merely flagged the issue of candor to the Court, which independently concluded removal was warranted after its own review of the record.The Government further notes that nothing in the defense's latest letter undermines the Court's rationale for the juror's dismissal. While stating it does not oppose further inquiry into a separate juror mentioned in the defense letter, the Government criticizes the rest of the submission as a barrage of unfounded personal attacks on the prosecution team. It asks the Court to both disregard and formally rebuke those portions of the defense's letter as inappropriate and irrelevant to the matter at hand.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.405.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this letter addressed to Judge Subramanian, the Government responds to the defense's renewed objections to the removal of Juror #6 in the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs. The prosecution firmly denies the defense's repeated claims that its efforts to remove the juror were racially motivated, calling the accusation “baseless.” It emphasizes that the juror was dismissed due to multiple inconsistencies in his statements during voir dire and subsequent questioning—specifically regarding basic biographical details like his residence. The Government asserts that it merely flagged the issue of candor to the Court, which independently concluded removal was warranted after its own review of the record.The Government further notes that nothing in the defense's latest letter undermines the Court's rationale for the juror's dismissal. While stating it does not oppose further inquiry into a separate juror mentioned in the defense letter, the Government criticizes the rest of the submission as a barrage of unfounded personal attacks on the prosecution team. It asks the Court to both disregard and formally rebuke those portions of the defense's letter as inappropriate and irrelevant to the matter at hand.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.405.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this letter addressed to Judge Subramanian, the Government responds to the defense's renewed objections to the removal of Juror #6 in the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs. The prosecution firmly denies the defense's repeated claims that its efforts to remove the juror were racially motivated, calling the accusation “baseless.” It emphasizes that the juror was dismissed due to multiple inconsistencies in his statements during voir dire and subsequent questioning—specifically regarding basic biographical details like his residence. The Government asserts that it merely flagged the issue of candor to the Court, which independently concluded removal was warranted after its own review of the record.The Government further notes that nothing in the defense's latest letter undermines the Court's rationale for the juror's dismissal. While stating it does not oppose further inquiry into a separate juror mentioned in the defense letter, the Government criticizes the rest of the submission as a barrage of unfounded personal attacks on the prosecution team. It asks the Court to both disregard and formally rebuke those portions of the defense's letter as inappropriate and irrelevant to the matter at hand.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.405.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Legal Team talks about how you can get involved with VAR through committees and the Board of Directors. For more information, click here: https://virginiarealtors.org/about-us/our-team/committee-overview/

This week on Mea Culpa, Michael finds himself at peak frustration as the Trump Train barrels this country towards oblivion. How can a nation that is built upon reason find itself in such an unreasonable position, where a two-bit, wannabe despot can work the corners of our legal system to halt the entire transition of power? With the country exhausted from the trauma of this never ending election and the looming specter of death from COVID, we all are stuck in a terrible limbo. Searching for answers and rational thought, Michael speaks with Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law, Laurence Tribe. One of the main architects of Al Gore's recount fight from the 2000 election, Tribe has argued 35 cases in front of the Supreme Court and finds himself mired in the current mess; advising the Biden team from afar as one frivolous lawsuit after another is filed. His words provide a balm for the ever present irritation of Trump and his team of legal crows. Also, make sure to check o... This week on Mea Culpa, Michael finds himself at peak frustration as the Trump Train barrels this country towards oblivion. How can a nation that is built upon reason find itself in such an unreasonable position, where a two-bit, wannabe despot can work the corners of our legal system to halt the entire transition of power? With the country exhausted from the trauma of this never ending election and the looming specter of death from COVID, we all are stuck in a terrible limbo. Searching for answers and rational thought, Michael speaks with Harvard University Professor of Constitutional Law, Laurence Tribe. One of the main architects of Al Gore's recount fight from the 2000 election, Tribe has argued 35 cases in front of the Supreme Court and finds himself mired in the current mess; advising the Biden team from afar as one frivolous lawsuit after another is filed. His words provide a balm for the ever present irritation of Trump and his team of legal crows. Also, make sure to check out Mea Culpa: The Election Essays for the definitive political document of 2020. Fifteen chapters of raw and honest political writings on Donald Trump from the man who knows him best. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M5VKQ6T/ For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch 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

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror's perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government's action is not a legitimate concern about the juror's qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdf

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror's perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government's action is not a legitimate concern about the juror's qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdf

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror's perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government's action is not a legitimate concern about the juror's qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdf

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror's perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government's action is not a legitimate concern about the juror's qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror's perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government's action is not a legitimate concern about the juror's qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror's perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government's action is not a legitimate concern about the juror's qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror's perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government's action is not a legitimate concern about the juror's qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror's perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government's action is not a legitimate concern about the juror's qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), the defense objects to the government's motion to strike a juror, arguing that such an action would severely prejudice Mr. Combs. They contend that the juror's perceived inconsistencies in answering the Court's questions are insufficient grounds for removal, citing Fazio as legal precedent that limits the Court's discretion in such matters. The defense maintains that there is no valid factual basis for the motion to dismiss the juror.Additionally, the defense challenges the government's claim that the motion is a good-faith effort to address the juror's integrity. They argue that this motion should be evaluated in the broader context of the case, given the history of the investigation and prosecution. The defense asserts that the government's action is not a legitimate concern about the juror's qualifications but rather an attempt to exploit an opportunity to remove a juror, potentially based on racial or strategic motives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.404.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In United States v. Combs, 24-cr-542 (AS), counsel for Mr. Sean Combs submitted a reply supporting the motion to limit extrajudicial statements made by potential witnesses and their attorneys, as referenced in ECF No. 42. This filing responds to the government's opposition (ECF No. 53) following the Court's directive on November 4, 2024 (ECF No. 58). In its opposition, the government contends that granting the motion would either necessitate a broad order covering all civil complainants and their legal representatives or compel the government to reveal its victims and witnesses ahead of schedule.Mr. Combs' counsel argues that either outcome is reasonable. The defense believes limiting public statements by witnesses and their counsel is essential for preserving a fair trial environment and preventing undue influence on public opinion. Furthermore, they assert that requiring the government to disclose potential witnesses or victims early would not be prejudicial, as it would promote transparency and fairness in the proceedings.(commercial at 7:49)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:2024.11.05 Combs 23.1 letter 110524

Legal Team, the ladies are back together and catching up on several cases from the Vanderpump Rules and Valley universe. We break down the ongoing legal mess between Tom Sandoval, Ariana Madix, and Rachel Leviss including house disputes, lawsuits, anti-SLAPP motions, and discovery drama. We also check in on Faith Stowers' lawsuit against NBCUniversal and why it's now heading to arbitration. And finally, we touch on a bizarre AI-generated lawsuit involving Jax Taylor, a good reminder not to believe everything you read online.    What's on the docket?   The latest on Tom and Ariana's house — yes, Tom's still living there.  How Tom accidentally sued Ariana, blamed his lawyer, and fired him… via Instagram.  Details of Rachel's lawsuit against Tom and Ariana, including claims that Ariana knew about the affair earlier than portrayed.  Updates on Ariana's anti-SLAPP motion.  Tom's discovery drama: missed deadlines and more fallout after firing his attorney.  Faith's lawsuit against NBCUniversal has been ordered to arbitration — and what that means.  The truth behind Jax Taylor's alleged lawsuit.    Access additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠                The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.                Thank you to our incredible sponsors!       Quince: Visit ⁠Quince.com/docket⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.      Rula: Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at ⁠https://www.rula.com/bravodocket⁠       Wayfair: Head to ⁠Wayfair.com⁠ right now to shop a huge outdoor selection.      Dupe: Stop wasting money on brand names and start saving with ⁠Dupe.com⁠ today.     Indacloud: If you're 21 or older, get 25% OFF your first order + free shipping with code BRAVODOCKET at inda.shop/BRAVODOCKET    IRestore: Subscribe & Save for 25% off or more + free shipping on the iRestore REVIVE+ Max Growth Kit, and unlock HUGE savings on the iRestore Elite with the code BRAVODOCKET at https://www.irestore.com/BRAVODOCKET!    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. (commercial at 9:29)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jay-Z's lawyers ask to dismiss rape lawsuit after accuser's interview amid 'severe' legal misconduct | Daily Mail Online

The Legal Team discusses a new cryptocurrency scam that is targeting real estate professionals.

The telephone conference in the case of 24 Civ. 1475 (JPO) took place between attorneys Zakarin and Blackburn, with Judge J. Paul Oetken presiding. The discussion primarily centered on procedural issues, including the timeline for motions and discovery. Zakarin argued for an expedited schedule to address key evidentiary matters critical to his client's position, citing potential prejudice if delays continued. Blackburn countered by emphasizing the need for thorough discovery to ensure all relevant materials were accounted for, arguing against rushing the process. Both sides agreed on the importance of resolving these disputes efficiently but differed significantly on the approach.Judge Oetken stressed the need for cooperation between the parties and highlighted his preference for minimizing unnecessary motions. He set preliminary deadlines for document production and urged counsel to work collaboratively on narrowing disputes before formal filings. The judge indicated a tentative schedule for a future hearing, contingent on the progress of discovery, while cautioning both parties against dilatory tactics. The call concluded with the judge emphasizing the importance of clear communication between counsel to avoid escalating procedural disagreements.(commercial at 8:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:o49rJONc

The telephone conference in the case of 24 Civ. 1475 (JPO) took place between attorneys Zakarin and Blackburn, with Judge J. Paul Oetken presiding. The discussion primarily centered on procedural issues, including the timeline for motions and discovery. Zakarin argued for an expedited schedule to address key evidentiary matters critical to his client's position, citing potential prejudice if delays continued. Blackburn countered by emphasizing the need for thorough discovery to ensure all relevant materials were accounted for, arguing against rushing the process. Both sides agreed on the importance of resolving these disputes efficiently but differed significantly on the approach.Judge Oetken stressed the need for cooperation between the parties and highlighted his preference for minimizing unnecessary motions. He set preliminary deadlines for document production and urged counsel to work collaboratively on narrowing disputes before formal filings. The judge indicated a tentative schedule for a future hearing, contingent on the progress of discovery, while cautioning both parties against dilatory tactics. The call concluded with the judge emphasizing the importance of clear communication between counsel to avoid escalating procedural disagreements.(commercial at 8:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:o49rJONc

Legal Team, this week we're replaying a timely episode following the news that President Trump has pardoned Todd and Julie Chrisley, leading to their release from prison. At the top of the episode, we break down what a presidential pardon actually means—and what it doesn't. Then we dive into the Chrisleys' dramatic fall from grace. Todd and Julie, stars of Chrisley Knows Best, were convicted of fraudulently obtaining millions in loans using forged documents and evading taxes, but their legal troubles started long before reality TV. This jam-packed episode covers everything from early schemes dating back to 2009 to messy family drama, multiple state and federal investigations, scorned exes, and a laundry list of allegations: RICO, bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion, extortion, defamation, and more.    More Chrisley content!   https://open.spotify.com/episode/0kwCOWq3DWoacBVXcxG0hp?si=8acb4461139c41ae  https://open.spotify.com/episode/7wruk5hWEy4JB0kxq7Yx9n?si=4b52524e0827487a    Access additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠              The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.              Thank you to our incredible sponsors!      Quince: Visit Quince.com/docket for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.    Rula: Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at https://www.rula.com/bravodocket     Wayfair: Head to Wayfair.com right now to shop a huge outdoor selection.    Dupe: Stop wasting money on brand names and start saving with Dupe.com today.    Oneskin: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code BRAVODOCKET at https://www.oneskin.co/     Indacloud: Visit https://indacloud.co/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Legal Team discusses some of the nuances around disclosing material adverse facts.

Jeff Holman is the founder of Intellectual Strategies, a groundbreaking legal services firm changing how startups and scaling companies access legal support. With a background in engineering, law, and business, Jeff combines technical know-how with strategic legal insight to support entrepreneurs navigating growth and complexity.   Jeff emphasizes the critical but often overlooked concept of "freedom to operate," helping businesses avoid legal landmines that can stall growth.   Jeff discusses the importance of documentation, proactive legal planning, and having trusted advisors, especially for CEOs who often carry the weight of the business alone.    Jeff advocates that leaders embrace experimentation, lean into their blind spots, and build with confidence, knowing they have the right support.   Website: Intellectual Strategies  LinkedIn: Jeff Holman   Check out our CEO Hack Buzz Newsletter–our premium newsletter with hacks and nuggets to level up your organization. Sign up HERE.  I AM CEO Handbook Volume 3 is HERE and it's FREE. Get your copy here: http://cbnation.co/iamceo3. Get the 100+ things that you can learn from 1600 business podcasts we recorded. Hear Gresh's story, learn the 16 business pillars from the podcast, find out about CBNation Architects and why you might be one and so much more. Did we mention it was FREE? Download it today!

Legal Team, this week Cesie's flying solo while Angela's in trial, and we're diving deep into the highly requested divorce drama between Drew Sidora and Ralph Pittman from Real Housewives of Atlanta. We break down the sealed (then unsealed, then sealed again?!) court records, go through their petitions which include Drew's claims of infidelity, and Ralph's motion for sanctions against Drew for allegedly violating Court orders. Plus, why Ralph's plea for privacy has us side-eyeing him and why Cesie thinks he might just slide into the Bravo Docket DMs after this one drops.   What's on the docket?  A look at Drew and Ralph's relationship timeline and how their split unfolded publicly.  Breakdown of what each party filed in their divorce petitions and how their claims differ.  Drew accuses Ralph of infidelity and says his mistresses sent her explicit messages.  The mutual restraining order from 2021 raises questions about the timing of their filings.  Ralph claims Drew violated the order and responds with a motion for sanctions.  Ralph's claims that Drew is keeping money from him.   Access additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠            The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.            Thank you to our incredible sponsors!     Graza - Head to Graza.co and use DOCKET to get 10% off of TRIO which includes Sizzle, Frizzle and Drizzle, and get to cookin' your next chef-quality meal!    Quince: Visit ⁠⁠Quince.com/docket⁠⁠ for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.        Rula: Head on over to ⁠⁠Rula.com/bravodocket⁠⁠ to get started today. After you sign up they ask you where you heard about them. PLEASE support our show and tell them our show sent you.  L-Nutra Prolon: Visit ⁠⁠ProlonLife.com/DOCKET⁠⁠ to claim your 15% discount and your $40 bonus gift.        CashApp: Download Cash App Today: ⁠⁠https://capl.onelink.me/vFut/rtvdo27r⁠⁠ #CashAppPod *Referral Reward Disclaimer: As a Cash App partner, I may earn a commission when you sign up for a Cash App account.     Wayfair: Shop the best selection of home improvement online. Get renovating with Wayfair. Head to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Wayfair.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ right now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Combs Defendants have notified the Court of their intent to file a motion to dismiss the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Dawn Richard under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Richard's Complaint asserts 21 causes of action against more than two dozen defendants, alleging a wide-ranging sex trafficking conspiracy. However, the Combs Defendants argue that the claims are baseless, stating that even if the alleged facts were true (which they deny), they do not substantiate the claims made in the Complaint.The Defendants further contend that the claims are insufficiently pled, lack legal merit, and are barred due to being untimely by several years. Additionally, they highlight that contractual releases signed by the Plaintiff preclude these claims. The Defendants characterize the Complaint as an attempt to sensationalize what they describe as a straightforward commercial dispute.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628103.121.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a letter to Judge Buchwald, attorneys representing Sean Combs and his associated companies—Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Sean John Clothing LLC, and Daddy's House Recordings, Inc.—requested a pre-motion conference to discuss their intent to file a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. They argue that the plaintiff's claim is preempted by New York State law and fails to establish a viable legal basis for holding the corporate entities liable, seeking dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).In a letter to the court, attorneys for Plaintiff Crystal McKinney oppose Defendants' request for a pre-motion conference regarding their anticipated Motion to Dismiss her Amended Complaint. The Defendants claim that the NYC Gender Motivated Violence Protection Act (GMVA) is preempted by state law; however, McKinney's attorneys argue that this argument has already been rejected by the Appellate Division. They contend that McKinney's Amended Complaint contains well-pled allegations of sexual assault, physical abuse, and/or forcible drugging, which meet the requirements of the GMVA, and therefore, the motion to dismiss should fail.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.27.0.pdfsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.26.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Legal Team talks about the septic report and liability for false information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Taylor Swift's response is due in court today! In a shocking twist, Justin Baldoni's legal team has withdrawn their subpoena, as Swift's legal team appears to have provided the evidence they were seeking against Blake Lively! Plus, was her dad Scott the one that tipped off Justin Baldoni's team? And Ryan Reynolds now wants sanctions on Baldoni's team! Special guests Lauren Neidigh  @LethalLauren904   from Court of Random Opinion and Leanne Newton  @leannenewton1572   join to weigh-in on the latest legal drama.    9:10 - Kim Kardashian Graduates Law School 10:25 - Travis Kelce's Hairy Back! 15:20 - Blake & Ryan's Motions for Sanctions 21:40 - Taylor Swift's Dad Joins the Fight! 27:45 - Blake Refuses to Participate in Investigation Into Her Claims 47:50 - Baldoni Drops Subpoena After Taylor Turns Over Info   Subscribe to Lauren: https://www.youtube.com/@LethalLauren904    Subscribe to Leanne: https://www.youtube.com/@leannenewton1572    Spike Detox your body! Use code NOFILTER for 15% Off + Free Shipping on every order. www.twc.health/nofilter   Get your tour tickets to see No Filter with Zack Peter LIVE: https://www.x1entertainment.com/zackpeter    Shop New Merch now: https://merchlabs.com/collections/zack-peter?srsltid=AfmBOoqqnV3kfsOYPubFFxCQdpCuGjVgssGIXZRXHcLPH9t4GjiKoaio   Book a personalized message on Cameo: https://v.cameo.com/e/QxWQhpd1TIb   Listen to The Pop Report: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-pop-report/id1746150111   Watch Disaster Daters: https://open.spotify.com/show/3L4GLnKwz9Uy5dT8Ey1VPi   Join the Zack Pack Community to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs3Zs51YaK-xw2U5ypi5eqg/join   Couldn't get enough? Follow @justplainzack or @nofilterwithzack

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week on Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. But they're facing an uphill battle, since — as the court's liberals happily remind them — they've lost every case on this issue so far. For background, Trump signed an executive order banning birthright citizenship in the United States. But there's one major problem: the first sentence of the 14th amendment says all people born in the United States are automatically citizens. The White House has defended the policy, saying the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allows the suspension of habeas corpus rights during an invasion. Trump's odds were looking slim in court, given we're not under an invasion of any kind. But that all changed over the weekend, when an antique Mexican naval vessel accidentally crashed into the Brooklyn bridge.

The Legal Team reviews Agency and the different types of agency relationships that can be established with clients.

Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team faces a delicate and dangerous balancing act as they prepare to cross-examine the accusers in his federal sex trafficking trial. On one hand, the defense must challenge the credibility of the witnesses to weaken the prosecution's case—scrutinizing timelines, motivations, and inconsistencies without appearing dismissive of traumatic testimony. On the other hand, these are accusers alleging severe abuse, coercion, and exploitation. If the defense appears too aggressive or tone-deaf during questioning—particularly toward witnesses like Cassie Ventura, whose testimony has been emotional, graphic, and widely publicized—they risk alienating the jury and reinforcing the perception of a power imbalance at the heart of the government's case.This high-wire strategy carries the potential to completely backfire. Federal juries are often attuned to the dynamics of abuse, especially in cases involving intimate partners or sexual exploitation. If the cross-examinations are perceived as victim-blaming or overly combative, it could backfire by humanizing the accusers further and drawing sympathy toward them. Moreover, in this trial—already saturated in public scrutiny—the defense has to counteract not just the testimony itself but the overwhelming narrative forming around it. A misstep during cross could solidify the prosecution's framing: that Combs used his wealth and power to manipulate and silence vulnerable individuals. The more combative the tone, the more it risks reinforcing the very abuse the defense is trying to deny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Inside Diddy's 'toxic strategy' to get out of human trafficking charges | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:05pm- Dr. Wilfred Reilly—Professor of Political Science at Kentucky State University & Author of “Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss a bizarre commercial for men's razors, a multi-trillion-dollar reparations bill being proposed by House Democrats, and progressive New Jersey lawmakers confronting ICE. 4:30pm- Hans von Spakovsky—Senior Legal Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from The Republican National Lawyers Association's (RNLA) 2025 National Policy Conference in Washington D.C. where he discusses Supreme Court oral argument in Trump v. CASA, Washington, New Jersey which could determine if there are constitutional limitations to birthright citizenship as well as the legality of nationwide injunctions on executive orders via district court judge rulings. 4:50pm- David Gelman—Criminal Defense Attorney, Former Prosecutor, & Surrogate for Donald Trump's Legal Team—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from The Republican National Lawyers Association's (RNLA) 2025 National Policy Conference in Washington D.C.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (05/16/2025): 3:05pm- The Rich Zeoli Show is broadcasting LIVE from The Republican National Lawyers Association's (RNLA) 2025 National Policy Conference & 40th Anniversary Celebration in Washington D.C. 3:10pm- On Friday, Pope Leo XIV delivered an address to the Vatican where he emphasized the importance of protecting unborn children. He also stated that family is “founded upon the stable union between a man and a woman.” 3:15pm- During a business roundtable in Doha, Qatar, President Donald Trump revealed that the domestic investments he has secured while visiting the Middle East could result in as many as 4 million new American jobs and an estimated $3.5 to 4 trillion. As a consequence of his successes overseas and measurable improvements in tariff negotiations, Reuters/ISPOS polling shows the president's net approval rating has surged 7% since the end of April. 3:30pm- On Friday, the House Budget Committee failed to advance a Republican tax and spending bill through the committee vote—with Republican Congressmen Chip Roy, Ralph Norman, Josh Brecheen, Andrew Clyde, and Lloyd Smucker voting no on the measure. The final tally was 16-21. The committee is expected to vote on the bill again late Sunday night. 3:40pm- Carrie Severino—President of Judicial Network—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from The Republican National Lawyers Association's (RNLA) 2025 National Policy Conference in Washington D.C. where she discusses Supreme Court oral argument in Trump v. CASA, Washington, New Jersey which could determine if there are constitutional limitations to birthright citizenship as well as the legality of nationwide injunctions on executive orders via district court judge rulings. 4:05pm- Dr. Wilfred Reilly—Professor of Political Science at Kentucky State University & Author of “Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss a bizarre commercial for men's razors, a multi-trillion-dollar reparations bill being proposed by House Democrats, and progressive New Jersey lawmakers confronting ICE. 4:30pm- Hans von Spakovsky—Senior Legal Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from The Republican National Lawyers Association's (RNLA) 2025 National Policy Conference in Washington D.C. where he discusses Supreme Court oral argument in Trump v. CASA, Washington, New Jersey which could determine if there are constitutional limitations to birthright citizenship as well as the legality of nationwide injunctions on executive orders via district court judge rulings. 4:50pm- David Gelman—Criminal Defense Attorney, Former Prosecutor, & Surrogate for Donald Trump's Legal Team—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from The Republican National Lawyers Association's (RNLA) 2025 National Policy Conference in Washington D.C. 5:05pm- Will Chamberlain— Senior Counsel at the Article III Project & Internet Accountability Project—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from The Republican National Lawyers Association's (RNLA) 2025 National Policy Conference in Washington D.C. to discuss the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Supreme Court temporarily blocking the Trump Administration's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act for deportations (the case will now head back to an appeals court), and does the use of an autopen negate the power to pardon? 5:30pm- Linda Kerns—Attorney & Pennsylvania Election Integrity Counsel for the Republican National Committee and Donald Trump—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from The Republican National Lawyers Association's (RNLA) 2025 National Policy Conference. Thanks to her efforts, the show was able to broadcast on location from Washington D.C. today! 6:05pm- On Friday, the House Budget Committee failed to advance a Republican tax and spending bill through the committee vote—with Republican Congressmen Chip Roy, Ralph Norman, Josh Brecheen, Andrew Clyde, and Lloyd Smucker voting no on the measure. The final tall ...

Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team faces a delicate and dangerous balancing act as they prepare to cross-examine the accusers in his federal sex trafficking trial. On one hand, the defense must challenge the credibility of the witnesses to weaken the prosecution's case—scrutinizing timelines, motivations, and inconsistencies without appearing dismissive of traumatic testimony. On the other hand, these are accusers alleging severe abuse, coercion, and exploitation. If the defense appears too aggressive or tone-deaf during questioning—particularly toward witnesses like Cassie Ventura, whose testimony has been emotional, graphic, and widely publicized—they risk alienating the jury and reinforcing the perception of a power imbalance at the heart of the government's case.This high-wire strategy carries the potential to completely backfire. Federal juries are often attuned to the dynamics of abuse, especially in cases involving intimate partners or sexual exploitation. If the cross-examinations are perceived as victim-blaming or overly combative, it could backfire by humanizing the accusers further and drawing sympathy toward them. Moreover, in this trial—already saturated in public scrutiny—the defense has to counteract not just the testimony itself but the overwhelming narrative forming around it. A misstep during cross could solidify the prosecution's framing: that Combs used his wealth and power to manipulate and silence vulnerable individuals. The more combative the tone, the more it risks reinforcing the very abuse the defense is trying to deny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Inside Diddy's 'toxic strategy' to get out of human trafficking charges | Daily Mail Online

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back, Legal Team! In part three of our Leah McSweeney coverage, we're unpacking the motion to dismiss hearing and how NBC, Bravo, and Andy Cohen are relying on First Amendment protections to defend against Leah's claims. We break down the key arguments from both sides, including how a landmark lawsuit against The Bachelor is being used to set precedent for reality TV casting and production decisions. Plenty of legal drama this week — and even more ahead!      What's on the docket?   Defendants (NBC/Bravo/Andy Cohen) present their arguments on their motion to dismiss  Transcript highlights from the hearing held on November 14, 2024   Arguments in defense of Andy Cohen regarding drug use and sexist discrimination allegations   Leah's attorney responds to the motion   Detailed overview of The Bachelor lawsuit and how it's being used as precedent to defend creative and casting decisions in Leah's case  Access additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠⁠⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠⁠⁠        The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.        Thank you to our incredible sponsors!  iRestore: Our listeners are getting a HUGE discount on the iRestore Elite when you use code BRAVODOCKET at iRestore.com    Oneskin: You can try OneSkin with 15% off using code BRAVODOCKET at oneskin.co.    Quince: Visit Quince.com/docket for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.    Rula: Head on over to Rula.com/bravodocket to get started today. After you sign up they ask you where you heard about them. PLEASE support our show and tell them our show sent you.    L-Nutra Prolon: Visit ProlonLife.com/DOCKET to claim your 15% discount and your $40 bonus gift.    CashApp: Download Cash App Today using code BRAVODOCKET #CashAppPod   Wayfair: Shop the best selection of home improvement online. Get renovating with Wayfair. Head to ⁠⁠⁠Wayfair.com⁠⁠⁠ right now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The crew dives into the start of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ explosive trial, where his legal team admits he may have been violent but denies any involvement in sex trafficking. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of The Rickey Smiley Morning Show Podcast, the crew dives into the start of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ explosive trial, where his legal team admits he may have been violent but denies any involvement in sex trafficking. Meanwhile, R&B artist Al B. Sure teases revelations from his upcoming memoir Do You Believe Me Now, claiming he’s been speaking the truth about Diddy for years and is finally ready to tell it all. The conversation takes a surprising turn into Beyoncé’s childhood after Tina Knowles’ new book Matriarch shares that one of Bey’s teachers once suggested she should repeat a grade—a revelation that sparks debate about how early criticism can shape greatness. Website: https://www.urban1podcasts.com/rickey-smiley-morning-show See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sean "Diddy" Combs has assembled a formidable legal team to defend him against federal charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and related offenses. Leading the defense is Marc Agnifilo, a seasoned attorney known for representing high-profile clients such as NXIVM leader Keith Raniere and "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli. Joining him is Teny Geragos, daughter of renowned defense lawyer Mark Geragos, bringing experience from complex federal cases. Brian Steel, recognized for his defense of rapper Young Thug in a lengthy racketeering trial, adds his expertise to the team. Xavier Donaldson, a respected New York-based attorney with a strong background in criminal defense, also plays a key role. Additionally, Alexandra Shapiro, known for her appellate work, contributes her skills to the defense strategy. The team is further supported by jury consultant Linda Moreno, who assists in selecting an impartial jury.This high-powered legal team reflects the seriousness of the charges Combs faces and his commitment to mounting a robust defense. Legal experts estimate that Combs may spend over $10 million on his defense, considering the caliber of attorneys involved and the complexity of the case. Each lawyer brings a unique set of skills and experience, aiming to challenge the prosecution's narrative and protect Combs' interests throughout the trial. The defense is expected to scrutinize the credibility of witnesses and question the interpretation of evidence, including surveillance footage and testimonies from alleged victims. As the trial unfolds, this legal team will be instrumental in navigating the intricate legal landscape and advocating on behalf of Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs legal team: Here are the lawyers defending hip-hop mogul - ABC News

In a letter addressed to Judge Arun Subramanian, attorneys for Sean "Diddy" Combs responded to the government's renewed effort to block the defense from introducing evidence or testimony about consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals who are not identified as victims in the case. The government had filed a motion in limine on April 28, 2025, seeking to exclude this category of evidence, arguing it was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial. However, Combs' legal team contends that the government's latest filing offers no new legal grounds or substantive arguments that weren't already addressed in earlier briefs and hearings.The defense urged the court to uphold its prior decision, made during a hearing on April 25, in which the judge acknowledged the defense had presented a valid legal foundation for introducing such evidence. Citing the transcript of that hearing, where the court stated the defense "has articulated a basis for the admission of this evidence," the letter reinforces the argument that these consensual encounters may be relevant to establish context, rebut specific claims, or support the credibility of the defense's narrative. Accordingly, Combs' attorneys asked the court to deny the government's renewed motion and allow the previously approved evidence to be presented at trial.In a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, federal prosecutors responded to Sean Combs' April 28, 2025, claim that introducing racketeering acts at trial which were not specifically presented to the grand jury would violate his Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury. Combs' defense argued that attempting to try him on unindicted acts would amount to an unconstitutional expansion of the charges, undermining the foundational requirement that federal felony charges originate from a grand jury indictment.The government firmly rejected this argument, stating that there has been no constitutional violation and that Combs' claim lacks legal merit. Prosecutors maintain that the defendant is being tried on charges properly returned by a grand jury, and that additional racketeering acts, even if not individually enumerated in the indictment, can still be introduced at trial as part of the overarching RICO conspiracy. They urged the court to dismiss the defense's position and allow the trial to proceed without limiting the scope of evidence supporting the racketeering charges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.310.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.306.0.pdf

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will decide whether parents have the right to opt their children out of LGBT indoctrination in schools. The side against parental rights humiliated itself badly throughout the arguments. We'll play some of the clips. Also, Tesla profits drop by over 70 percent as the coordinated campaign of violence against the company continues. Now woke DAs are refusing to press charges against the vandals. And Trump is considering a plan to give financial rewards to women who have kids. Plus, representative Nancy Mace has spent most of this week complaining about a man who allegedly harassed and threatened her. But the video of this encounter tells a very different story. Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6 Ep.1581 - - - DailyWire+: We're leading the charge again and launching a full-scale push for justice. Go to https://PardonDerek.com right now and sign the petition. Now is the time to join the fight. Watch the hit movies, documentaries, and series reshaping our culture. Go to https://dailywire.com/subscribe today. Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj - - - Today's Sponsors: Dose Daily - Save 30% on your first month subscription by going to https://dosedaily.co/WALSH or entering WALSH at checkout. Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Visit https://gcu.edu today. Good Ranchers - Visit https://goodranchers.com and subscribe to any box using code WALSH to claim $40 off + free meat for life! - - - Socials:  Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs