Podcasts about legal team

Legal Team, with Real Housewives of Orange County back on air, we're turning our attention to the OG from the OC, Vicki Gunvalson, and the financial elder abuse lawsuit she's now facing. The case, which Vicki now says she wants to take to trial, involves claims of financial elder abuse tied to annuity and life insurance sales, raising serious questions about what was promised, what was delivered, and what the law says about protecting vulnerable adults. We break down Vicki's background in insurance, what the plaintiff alleges, how annuities work, and why this case has Reddit and Us Weekly buzzing.  What's on the docket?  A refresher on Vicki Gunvalson's background and career in insurance  How you can take a life insurance policy out on someone  The key claims in Diane Field's financial elder abuse lawsuit against Vicki  Annuities 101: what they are, the different types, and why they matter here  Alleged misrepresentations in the sale of the insurance   The California laws that govern elder financial abuse and insurance sales  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: Go to 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 explore a HUGE outdoor selection.    Dupe: Go to Dupe.com today and find similar products for less. It's 100% free to use. Stop wasting money on brand names and start saving with Dupe.com today.    Function Health: Learn more and join using our/my link. The first 1000 get a $100 credit toward their membership. Visit www.functionhealth.com/BRAVODOCKET or use gift code BRAVODOCKET at sign-up.    Graza: Head to Graza.co and use DOCKET to get 10% off of the TRIO    Monarch Money: Get 50% Off Monarch Money, the all-in-one financial tool at www.monarchmoney.com/DOCKET  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Legal Team talks about the definition of “days” in real estate contracts.

Legal Team, we're back with part two of our Chrisley trial coverage. This week, we're focusing on the witness testimonies that helped seal Todd and Julie's fate. From Nanny Faye's “I don't know” strategy to the producers behind Chrisley Knows Best, and the bombshells dropped by Todd's former business partner Mark Braddock, it's a lineup of drama, deception, and damning receipts. Plus, what Lindsay Chrisley had to say on the stand and the family sex tape scandal that came with it.  What's on the docket?  Annie Kate Ponds' role in launching Chrisley Knows Best and her ties to Chrisley Asset Management  Behind-the-scenes insights into Chrisley Knows Best, including how the cast got paid  Mark Braddock's explosive testimony about fraud, secret emails, and his personal relationship with Todd  Elizabeth “Nanny Faye” Chrisley's testimony and her memorable strategy on the stand  Lindsay Chrisley takes the stand and addresses the alleged sex tape extortion scandal  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: Go to 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 explore a HUGE outdoor selection.    Function Health: Function is offering 160+ Lab Tests for $365 to anyone who signs up between July 7th and July 11th. To learn more and get started, visit www.functionhealth.com/BRAVODOCKET     Ollie - Head to Ollie.com/DOCKET, tell them all about your dog, and use code DOCKET to get 60% off your Welcome Kit when you subscribe today!  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Legal Team talks about whether you need to disclose lead pipes. For more information: www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule-implementation-tools

In this powerful episode of After the Crash, David Craig is joined by litigation supervisor Ashley Napier to break down what truly goes into handling a commercial motor vehicle case—from the emotional toll to the legal complexity.They discuss:✔️ Why truck accident cases are nothing like regular car crashes✔️ How file managers and paralegals support families behind the scenes✔️ The challenges of holding unsafe drivers and companies accountable✔️ Why it takes an entire team—not just one lawyer—to get justice✔️ The growing concerns around driverless semis and industry reform✔️ What sets Craig, Kelley & Faultless apart in truck wreck litigationWhether you've been involved in a crash or are helping a loved one find the right legal team, this episode will help you understand what to look for—and what to avoid—when the stakes couldn't be higher.01:52 – What Makes Truck Wreck Cases Different from Regular Injury Cases05:42 – One Piece of Advice for New Lawyers Handling Truck Cases07:35 – Why Paralegals and File Managers Are Critical in Truck Cases09:36 – How Our Legal Team Supports Families After a Truck Wreck12:54 – Why Experience and Education Matter in Truck Accident Litigation14:05 – The Difference Between Lawyers Focused on Clients vs. Money15:34 – Why Truck Wreck Cases Require a Full Legal Team, Not Just One Lawyer16:10 – The Dangers and Legal Challenges of Driverless Semi-Trucks19:46 – Are All Truck Drivers Bad? The Truth About the Industry22:34 – How to Drive Safely Around Semi-Trucks26:58 – How First-Hand Trucking Experience Strengthens Legal Strategy28:50 – Why Improving Trucking Safety Through Legislation Is So Difficult32:35 – Why Truck Drivers Should Be Held to Higher Safety Standards36:03 – How Craig, Kelley & Faultless Stands Out in Truck Accident Cases39:40 – Our Client-Centered Approach to Life After a Truck Wreck—Why Listen to After the Crash?Navigating the aftermath of a trucking accident can feel overwhelming, but you don't have to face it alone. This podcast is designed to educate and empower victims and their families, helping you make informed decisions about your future.—Learn About the Firm:At Craig, Kelley & Faultless, LLC, we've dedicated over 30 years to fighting for trucking accident victims. From preserving evidence to holding negligent trucking companies accountable, our mission is to protect your rights and secure the justice you deserve.—Download Semitruck Wreck for FREE:https://www.ckflaw.com/truck-accident-ebook/Follow Us on Socials:Website: https://www.ckflaw.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/ckflawLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/craig-kelley-&-faultless-attorneys-at-lawContact Us:Email: info@ckflaw.comPhone: 1-800-ASK-DAVID#TruckWreckLawyer #TruckAccidentLawyer #TruckingAccident #PersonalInjuryLawyer #TruckCrashLawyer #CommercialVehicleLaw #AfterTheCrash #CraigKelleyFaultless #CKFLaw #BoardCertifiedAttorney

The Chrisleys are officially free—and there's still so much to unpack. Legal Team, we're diving back into the case with brand-new insight now that we finally have the full trial transcripts. We break down what Todd and Julie were convicted of, the prosecution's case themes, and the defense's arguments for their innocence. Plus, what Trump's pardon really means, the timeline of events from conviction to release, and who else was pardoned alongside them. Stay tuned for part two, where we'll get into the most dramatic moments and and testimony from the trial.  What's on the docket?  What Todd and Julie Chrisley were convicted of  Timeline from conviction to appeal  Trump's pardon and what it actually means, plus their release timeline  Who else was pardoned alongside the Chrisleys  Restitution: what they owed and why they no longer have to pay it  What a “case theme” is and how it shaped the trial  The alleged relationship between Todd Chrisley and Mark Braddock  Key takeaways from the prosecution and defense opening statements  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!        OneSkin: For a limited time, you can try OneSkin with 15% off using code BRAVODOCKET at oneskin.co    Quince: Go to Quince.com/DOCKET for free shipping on your order and three hundred and 365 day returns.   Rula: Head on over to Rula.com/bravodocket to get started today.    Wayfair: Head to Wayfair.com right now to explore a HUGE outdoor selection.  Dupe - Go to Dupe.com today and find similar products for less. It's 100% free to use. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Legal Team discusses some of the risks and pitfalls that come along with buyer love letters.

From the archives: 3-9-23As we continue to slowly make our way closer to Bryan Kohberger's trial, things are certainly in motion behind the scenes at the judicial level. One of those moves that we have seen take place recently was the request to add another lawyer to Bryan Kohberger's team. This was a request that was approved by Judge Marshall and another signal that this case will be tried as a a capital murder case.Let's dive in!(commercial at 6:49)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger's Lawyer Is Calling for Backup (newsweek.com)

Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense strategy centers on discrediting his accusers by requesting the court to disclose their identities. His legal team argues that the anonymity of the accusers hampers their ability to prepare an effective defense, suggesting that some allegations may be frivolous or fabricated. They emphasize that the current situation forces Combs to "play a guessing game" regarding the accusers' identities, which they contend is unfair and prejudicial.By unveiling the accusers' names, Combs' attorneys aim to scrutinize their credibility, explore potential ulterior motives, and challenge the validity of their claims. This approach is designed to shift the focus onto the accusers' backgrounds and possible biases, thereby undermining their allegations and strengthening Combs' defense.(commercial at 12:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Diddy's Flurry of Lawsuits Can Rattle His Sex Trafficking Case - Business InsiderBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bryan Kohberger, accused of the November 2022 stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students, is scheduled for a court appearance today in Boise, Idaho. His defense team has filed motions to suppress key evidence, arguing that the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) violated his constitutional rights. They contend that law enforcement's application of IGG, which involves using DNA from public genealogy databases to identify potential suspects, was conducted without proper warrants, rendering the subsequent evidence inadmissible. Additionally, the defense claims that search warrants for Kohberger's phone, car, and residences were obtained through misleading information presented to the court.In a broader strategy to remove the death penalty as a potential sentence, Kohberger's attorneys have previously argued that capital punishment violates contemporary standards of decency and international treaties against prisoner torture. They also assert that prolonged periods on death row constitute cruel and unusual punishment. However, these arguments were rejected by the court in November 2024, allowing the death penalty to remain on the table if Kohberger is convicted.   The outcome of today's hearing could significantly impact the admissibility of critical evidence and the overall trajectory of the case as it moves toward trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger looks to dodge death penalty with Lori Vallow's playbook | Fox News

From the archives: 3-9-23As we continue to slowly make our way closer to Bryan Kohberger's trial, things are certainly in motion behind the scenes at the judicial level. One of those moves that we have seen take place recently was the request to add another lawyer to Bryan Kohberger's team. This was a request that was approved by Judge Marshall and another signal that this case will be tried as a a capital murder case.Let's dive in!(commercial at 6:49)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger's Lawyer Is Calling for Backup (newsweek.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Bryan Kohberger, accused of the November 2022 stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students, is scheduled for a court appearance today in Boise, Idaho. His defense team has filed motions to suppress key evidence, arguing that the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) violated his constitutional rights. They contend that law enforcement's application of IGG, which involves using DNA from public genealogy databases to identify potential suspects, was conducted without proper warrants, rendering the subsequent evidence inadmissible. Additionally, the defense claims that search warrants for Kohberger's phone, car, and residences were obtained through misleading information presented to the court.In a broader strategy to remove the death penalty as a potential sentence, Kohberger's attorneys have previously argued that capital punishment violates contemporary standards of decency and international treaties against prisoner torture. They also assert that prolonged periods on death row constitute cruel and unusual punishment. However, these arguments were rejected by the court in November 2024, allowing the death penalty to remain on the table if Kohberger is convicted.   The outcome of today's hearing could significantly impact the admissibility of critical evidence and the overall trajectory of the case as it moves toward trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bryan Kohberger looks to dodge death penalty with Lori Vallow's playbook | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

The Legal Team talks about the form changes on July 1st. View the changes here: https://virginiarealtors.org/law-ethics/form-updates/

Ned Kelly was executed in 1880, yet he remains one of the most iconic and divisive figures in Australian history. For more than a century, a question has haunted historians, scientists, and the public alike: What happened to his remains? In this episode, we follow the high-stakes forensic investigation that set out to uncover the truth. Professor David Ranson from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, takes host Liz Porter inside the two-year effort to reconstruct history from fragments of bone, historical news clippings, and long-forgotten medical records, eventually untangling fact from folklore.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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 OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/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 News

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 NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/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.

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.

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.

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

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 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 ...

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.

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