POPULARITY
Categories
135 episodes with Memorandum
134 episodes with Memorandum
81 episodes with Memorandum
11 episodes with Memorandum
20 episodes with Memorandum
10 episodes with Memorandum
8 episodes with Memorandum
6 episodes with Memorandum
180 episodes with Memorandum
16 episodes with Memorandum
9 episodes with Memorandum
4 episodes with Memorandum
4 episodes with Memorandum
6 episodes with Memorandum
3 episodes with Memorandum
5 episodes with Memorandum
4 episodes with Memorandum
3 episodes with Memorandum
5 episodes with Memorandum
4 episodes with Memorandum
4 episodes with Memorandum
8 episodes with Memorandum
3 episodes with Memorandum
4 episodes with Memorandum
8 episodes with Memorandum
4 episodes with Memorandum
7 episodes with Memorandum
2 episodes with Memorandum
3 episodes with Memorandum
11 episodes with Memorandum
11 episodes with Memorandum
2 episodes with Memorandum
2 episodes with Memorandum
8 episodes with Memorandum
3 episodes with Memorandum
4 episodes with Memorandum
With the United States and Israel discussing a follow-up to a US$38 billion ten-year Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries, which is set to expire in 2028, Israeli officials are warming to the notion of a paradigm shift in US-Israeli military relations.
The U.S. Virgin Islands' Memorandum in Support of Excluding Expert Testimony from JP Morgan was a direct strike at the bank's legal strategy of hiding behind highly paid specialists to sanitize its conduct. The filing argued that JP Morgan's proposed experts weren't there to provide neutral, technical insight—they were being deployed to confuse the jury, shift blame, and whitewash the bank's longstanding financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI pointed out that these experts attempted to dress up common sense issues—like due diligence, suspicious transactions, and regulatory compliance—as matters of complex banking science, when in reality the facts spoke plainly: the bank continued to profit off Epstein long after his 2008 conviction and obvious red flags. In essence, the memorandum framed JP Morgan's “experts” as mouthpieces meant to cloud responsibility, not clarify it.By moving to bar this testimony, the USVI was making a broader argument about accountability. If JP Morgan was allowed to weaponize expert witnesses to downplay its failures, the survivors' pursuit of justice would be buried under jargon and pseudo-objectivity. The memorandum emphasized that letting these experts testify would not only mislead the jury but also distort the purpose of the trial, turning it into a battle of résumés rather than a reckoning with the bank's choices. The USVI's position was clear: the facts don't need interpretation from consultants paid millions to protect a financial giant—they need to be weighed on their own merits. This was an attempt to strip away the camouflage JP Morgan hoped to use, forcing the court to confront the bank's role in sustaining Epstein's trafficking operation without distraction or distortion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The U.S. Virgin Islands' Memorandum in Support of Excluding Expert Testimony from JP Morgan was a direct strike at the bank's legal strategy of hiding behind highly paid specialists to sanitize its conduct. The filing argued that JP Morgan's proposed experts weren't there to provide neutral, technical insight—they were being deployed to confuse the jury, shift blame, and whitewash the bank's longstanding financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI pointed out that these experts attempted to dress up common sense issues—like due diligence, suspicious transactions, and regulatory compliance—as matters of complex banking science, when in reality the facts spoke plainly: the bank continued to profit off Epstein long after his 2008 conviction and obvious red flags. In essence, the memorandum framed JP Morgan's “experts” as mouthpieces meant to cloud responsibility, not clarify it.By moving to bar this testimony, the USVI was making a broader argument about accountability. If JP Morgan was allowed to weaponize expert witnesses to downplay its failures, the survivors' pursuit of justice would be buried under jargon and pseudo-objectivity. The memorandum emphasized that letting these experts testify would not only mislead the jury but also distort the purpose of the trial, turning it into a battle of résumés rather than a reckoning with the bank's choices. The USVI's position was clear: the facts don't need interpretation from consultants paid millions to protect a financial giant—they need to be weighed on their own merits. This was an attempt to strip away the camouflage JP Morgan hoped to use, forcing the court to confront the bank's role in sustaining Epstein's trafficking operation without distraction or distortion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The U.S. Virgin Islands' Memorandum in Support of Excluding Expert Testimony from JP Morgan was a direct strike at the bank's legal strategy of hiding behind highly paid specialists to sanitize its conduct. The filing argued that JP Morgan's proposed experts weren't there to provide neutral, technical insight—they were being deployed to confuse the jury, shift blame, and whitewash the bank's longstanding financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI pointed out that these experts attempted to dress up common sense issues—like due diligence, suspicious transactions, and regulatory compliance—as matters of complex banking science, when in reality the facts spoke plainly: the bank continued to profit off Epstein long after his 2008 conviction and obvious red flags. In essence, the memorandum framed JP Morgan's “experts” as mouthpieces meant to cloud responsibility, not clarify it.By moving to bar this testimony, the USVI was making a broader argument about accountability. If JP Morgan was allowed to weaponize expert witnesses to downplay its failures, the survivors' pursuit of justice would be buried under jargon and pseudo-objectivity. The memorandum emphasized that letting these experts testify would not only mislead the jury but also distort the purpose of the trial, turning it into a battle of résumés rather than a reckoning with the bank's choices. The USVI's position was clear: the facts don't need interpretation from consultants paid millions to protect a financial giant—they need to be weighed on their own merits. This was an attempt to strip away the camouflage JP Morgan hoped to use, forcing the court to confront the bank's role in sustaining Epstein's trafficking operation without distraction or distortion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
The U.S. Virgin Islands' Memorandum in Support of Excluding Expert Testimony from JP Morgan was a direct strike at the bank's legal strategy of hiding behind highly paid specialists to sanitize its conduct. The filing argued that JP Morgan's proposed experts weren't there to provide neutral, technical insight—they were being deployed to confuse the jury, shift blame, and whitewash the bank's longstanding financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI pointed out that these experts attempted to dress up common sense issues—like due diligence, suspicious transactions, and regulatory compliance—as matters of complex banking science, when in reality the facts spoke plainly: the bank continued to profit off Epstein long after his 2008 conviction and obvious red flags. In essence, the memorandum framed JP Morgan's “experts” as mouthpieces meant to cloud responsibility, not clarify it.By moving to bar this testimony, the USVI was making a broader argument about accountability. If JP Morgan was allowed to weaponize expert witnesses to downplay its failures, the survivors' pursuit of justice would be buried under jargon and pseudo-objectivity. The memorandum emphasized that letting these experts testify would not only mislead the jury but also distort the purpose of the trial, turning it into a battle of résumés rather than a reckoning with the bank's choices. The USVI's position was clear: the facts don't need interpretation from consultants paid millions to protect a financial giant—they need to be weighed on their own merits. This was an attempt to strip away the camouflage JP Morgan hoped to use, forcing the court to confront the bank's role in sustaining Epstein's trafficking operation without distraction or distortion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
The U.S. Virgin Islands' Memorandum in Support of Excluding Expert Testimony from JP Morgan was a direct strike at the bank's legal strategy of hiding behind highly paid specialists to sanitize its conduct. The filing argued that JP Morgan's proposed experts weren't there to provide neutral, technical insight—they were being deployed to confuse the jury, shift blame, and whitewash the bank's longstanding financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI pointed out that these experts attempted to dress up common sense issues—like due diligence, suspicious transactions, and regulatory compliance—as matters of complex banking science, when in reality the facts spoke plainly: the bank continued to profit off Epstein long after his 2008 conviction and obvious red flags. In essence, the memorandum framed JP Morgan's “experts” as mouthpieces meant to cloud responsibility, not clarify it.By moving to bar this testimony, the USVI was making a broader argument about accountability. If JP Morgan was allowed to weaponize expert witnesses to downplay its failures, the survivors' pursuit of justice would be buried under jargon and pseudo-objectivity. The memorandum emphasized that letting these experts testify would not only mislead the jury but also distort the purpose of the trial, turning it into a battle of résumés rather than a reckoning with the bank's choices. The USVI's position was clear: the facts don't need interpretation from consultants paid millions to protect a financial giant—they need to be weighed on their own merits. This was an attempt to strip away the camouflage JP Morgan hoped to use, forcing the court to confront the bank's role in sustaining Epstein's trafficking operation without distraction or distortion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The U.S. Virgin Islands' Memorandum in Support of Excluding Expert Testimony from JP Morgan was a direct strike at the bank's legal strategy of hiding behind highly paid specialists to sanitize its conduct. The filing argued that JP Morgan's proposed experts weren't there to provide neutral, technical insight—they were being deployed to confuse the jury, shift blame, and whitewash the bank's longstanding financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI pointed out that these experts attempted to dress up common sense issues—like due diligence, suspicious transactions, and regulatory compliance—as matters of complex banking science, when in reality the facts spoke plainly: the bank continued to profit off Epstein long after his 2008 conviction and obvious red flags. In essence, the memorandum framed JP Morgan's “experts” as mouthpieces meant to cloud responsibility, not clarify it.By moving to bar this testimony, the USVI was making a broader argument about accountability. If JP Morgan was allowed to weaponize expert witnesses to downplay its failures, the survivors' pursuit of justice would be buried under jargon and pseudo-objectivity. The memorandum emphasized that letting these experts testify would not only mislead the jury but also distort the purpose of the trial, turning it into a battle of résumés rather than a reckoning with the bank's choices. The USVI's position was clear: the facts don't need interpretation from consultants paid millions to protect a financial giant—they need to be weighed on their own merits. This was an attempt to strip away the camouflage JP Morgan hoped to use, forcing the court to confront the bank's role in sustaining Epstein's trafficking operation without distraction or distortion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Sean Brodrick, Editor of Wealth Megatrends and contributing analyst to Weiss Ratings Daily, joins me to outline why he still remains bullish and holding positions in gold, silver, rare earths, uranium, utilities, and defense stocks. We start off reviewing the positive trends in gold and silver producers after the market digested Q2 earnings newsflow, and how his portfolio of PM stocks shared with his subscribers has outperformed. Next we got into the rally we've seen in some of the rare earth stocks on the back of Chinese export bans, and bringing more attention to the downstream processors. We noted the incoming US Department of Defense funds and Apple strategic investment into MP Materials Corp. (NYSE: MP), which really ignited a further boom in the sector. Next Sean highlighted the recent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Energy Fuels Inc. (NYSE American: UUUU); (TSX: EFR), a U.S. producer of rare earth element oxides from their mineral sands projects, and Vulcan Elements, a U.S. manufacturer of rare earth permanent magnets. These companies have agreed to collaborate on creating a resilient domestic supply chain for rare earth magnets independent of China. The trends higher in nuclear, uranium, and utilities stocks have been another sector that Sean has been exposed to across those different stages of companies. The small modular reactor stocks, utilities exposed to nuclear power, and the uranium stocks have gained more traction with a wider audience of generalist investors, and Sean believes they can run much higher from here due to the longer-term bullish macro fundamentals for electricity demand and the advantages of nuclear power. We discuss the potential for merger and acquisition deals between the handful of smaller US uranium producers, and that while small, the can outperform based on meaningful incremental improvements in their operations. We go on to discuss the large group of junior uranium developers and explorers in Canada, pointing out that Denison Mines Corp. (TSX: DML)(NYSE AMERICAN: DNN) is the closest company to new uranium production, but that is all the way out in 2028. Sean mentions the strategy of waiting to position in some of the smaller Canadian juniors until after dilutive financing news has been announced, and once clear catalysts and work programs are established and already funded for better entry points. Wrapping up we discuss the opportunities still present in many defense stocks, from drones and counter-drones to hypersonic rockets and next generation smaller defense software, hardware, and energy stocks. This leads into the conflicting forces investors deal with not liking government intervention in the markets, but also being cognizant of the flow of funds and contracts into certain sectors, and why this presents opportunities for positioning alongside those trends. Click here to follow along with Sean's work at Weiss Ratings Daily and Wealth Megatrends Click here to learn more about Resource Trader
American Resources Corp CEO Mark Jensen joined Steve Darling to announce that its subsidiary, ReElement Technologies Corporation, has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Principal Mineral Co. Inc. to co-develop what is set to become the most advanced rare earth production capability in the United States. The agreement outlines a plan to integrate separation, fluoride production, and metallization into a singular, streamlined process under one roof—creating a world-leading midstream platform that is both highly flexible and extremely efficient. According to Jensen, this new capability is designed to bolster U.S. defense readiness, strengthen supply chain resilience, and expand domestic rare earth production capacity, all of which are critical to national security and industrial growth. Under the MOU, the two companies are considering several co-location sites, including ReElement's existing supersite in Marion, Indiana, Principal Mineral's critical minerals campus in Camden, South Carolina, and additional potential facilities currently under review. The combined facility will leverage each partner's strengths with ReElement Technologies contributing its ability to produce ultra-high purity separated rare earth oxides from both recycled sources and mined feedstocks. Principal Mineral will provide downstream capabilities in producing rare earth fluorides and metals, with a particular focus on serving the U.S. defense sector and other industrial applications. This strategic integration of the full midstream value chain—from recycled and mined raw materials, to high-purity fluoride, to finished metals—into a single U.S.-based facility represents a groundbreaking step in reshoring and advancing America's rare earth independence. By co-locating operations, the companies expect to achieve greater efficiency, reduce costs for customers, and eliminate key processing bottlenecks that have historically slowed the U.S. rare earth supply chain. Jensen emphasized that this collaboration is not only about commercial opportunity but also about advancing national priorities, ensuring that critical materials are processed and secured domestically. #proactiveinvestors #americanresourcescorporation #nasdaq #arec #SustainableMining, #MineralRefining, #RecyclingInnovation, #CriticalMinerals, #RareEarthRecycling, #EVRecycling, #BatteryRecycling, #princialminerals #adamjohnson
One of the three Canadian companies planning a partnership with Germany borders Labrador. How could our province play a key role in the route to export critical minerals. We speak with the head of Quebec-based Torngal Metals... fresh off signing a Memorandum of Understanding to mine and market critical minerals. (Krissy Holmes with Yves Leduc)
In this case before the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, the co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, filed a reply brief supporting their expedited motion to vacate liens placed by the Government of the Virgin Islands. The estate and its affiliated entities—including the 1953 Trust, various LLCs, and corporate holdings—are defendants in a civil action seeking damages connected to Epstein's trafficking network. The government had imposed liens on estate assets, effectively freezing large portions of Epstein's wealth, to secure potential recovery in its lawsuit.The co-executors argue in their reply brief that the liens are improper and should be lifted immediately, claiming the government has overreached its authority and is unfairly restricting the administration of the estate. They contend that the liens impede their legal responsibilities to manage and distribute assets, and that alternative legal safeguards already exist to protect the government's claims. The filing stresses urgency, pointing to potential harm caused by the restrictions, and asks the court to expedite relief by vacating the liens.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DisplayFile.aspx (vicourts.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
James Staley's reply memorandum in support of his motion for summary judgment argues that he should not be held liable in the case brought by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. He asserts that there is no evidence proving his involvement in or knowledge of any alleged misconduct, specifically emphasizing that the claims lack material facts directly linking him to any fraudulent activities or conspiracies. Staley requests the court to dismiss the claims against him based on the lack of substantive evidence, arguing that the legal standards for summary judgment have been.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.332.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
James Staley's reply memorandum in support of his motion for summary judgment argues that he should not be held liable in the case brought by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. He asserts that there is no evidence proving his involvement in or knowledge of any alleged misconduct, specifically emphasizing that the claims lack material facts directly linking him to any fraudulent activities or conspiracies. Staley requests the court to dismiss the claims against him based on the lack of substantive evidence, arguing that the legal standards for summary judgment have been.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.332.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
video: https://youtu.be/xbAxLonf9iQ Comment on the TWIL Forum (https://thisweekinlinux.com/forum) This week in Linux, there's some big distro news because we got a brand new version of Debian, probably, and openSUSE Leap 16 just hit release candidate status. We've also got some cool news from Nvidia including their stance against adding backdoors to their hardware. Plus, we've got new app releases from the Mastodon client Tuba and the awesome screenshot tool Flameshot. All of this and more on This Week in Linux, the weekly news show that keeps you up to date with what's going on in the Linux and Open Source world. Now let's jump right into Your Source for Linux GNews! Download as MP3 (https://aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/2389be04-5c79-485e-b1ca-3a5b2cebb006/c097383d-e87d-43d4-92f5-31d64b7afb00.mp3) Support the Show Become a Patron = tuxdigital.com/membership (https://tuxdigital.com/membership) Store = tuxdigital.com/store (https://tuxdigital.com/store) Chapters: 00:00 Intro 01:06 Debian 13 Trixie Released (maybe) 04:12 NVIDIA says NO! to Backdoors and Kill Switches 07:49 OpenSUSE Leap 16.0 reaches RC status 10:32 Sandfly Security, agentless Linux security [ad] 12:57 Automotive Industry wants Open Source Collaboration 15:38 Flameshot 13 released 18:43 Tuba v0.10.0 released 20:46 Humble Bundles 22:37 Outro Links: Debian 13 Trixie Released (maybe) https://www.debian.org (https://www.debian.org) https://www.debian.org/releases/trixie/release-notes.en.pdf (https://www.debian.org/releases/trixie/release-notes.en.pdf) https://www.phoronix.com/review/debian-13-benchmarks (https://www.phoronix.com/review/debian-13-benchmarks) NVIDIA says NO! to Backdoors and Kill Switches https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/no-backdoors-no-kill-switches-no-spyware/ (https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/no-backdoors-no-kill-switches-no-spyware/) https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-toolkit-release-notes/index.html (https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-toolkit-release-notes/index.html) https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2025/08/nvidia-are-working-on-a-general-optimization-for-vkd3d-directx12-games-on-linux/ (https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2025/08/nvidia-are-working-on-a-general-optimization-for-vkd3d-directx12-games-on-linux/) OpenSUSE Leap 16.0 reaches RC status https://news.opensuse.org/2025/08/04/leap-16-rc/ (https://news.opensuse.org/2025/08/04/leap-16-rc/) https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2025/08/opensuse-leap-16-0-will-need-steam-gamers-to-install-some-extras-due-to-no-32-bit/ (https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2025/08/opensuse-leap-16-0-will-need-steam-gamers-to-install-some-extras-due-to-no-32-bit/) https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/07/opensuseleap16reachesrc/ (https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/07/opensuse_leap_16_reaches_rc/) Sandfly Security, agentless Linux security [ad] https://thisweekinlinux.com/sandfly (https://thisweekinlinux.com/sandfly) Automotive Industry wants Open Source Collaboration https://www.electrive.com/2025/06/25/automotive-industry-launches-alliance-for-software-development/ (https://www.electrive.com/2025/06/25/automotive-industry-launches-alliance-for-software-development/) https://www.sovereign.tech/tech (https://www.sovereign.tech/tech) https://www.opendesk.eu/en (https://www.opendesk.eu/en) https://opencode.de/en (https://opencode.de/en) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44370494 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44370494) https://www.vda.de/en/press/press-releases/2025/250624PMAutomotiveindustrysignsMemorandumof_Understanding (https://www.vda.de/en/press/press-releases/2025/250624_PM_Automotive_industry_signs_Memorandum_of_Understanding) Flameshot 13 released https://flameshot.org/ (https://flameshot.org/) https://github.com/flameshot-org/flameshot/releases/tag/v13.0.0 (https://github.com/flameshot-org/flameshot/releases/tag/v13.0.0) https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2025/08/flameshot-13 (https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2025/08/flameshot-13) Tuba v0.10.0 released https://tuba.geopjr.dev/ (https://tuba.geopjr.dev/) https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2025/08/tuba-0-10-mastodon-client-linux-new-features (https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2025/08/tuba-0-10-mastodon-client-linux-new-features) Humble Bundles WB Games = https://humblebundleinc.sjv.io/09K6DE (https://humblebundleinc.sjv.io/09K6DE) Co-Op = https://humblebundleinc.sjv.io/3J0K3k (https://humblebundleinc.sjv.io/3J0K3k) Other Bundles = https://humblebundleinc.sjv.io/4Gn7Yr (https://humblebundleinc.sjv.io/4Gn7Yr)
PODCAST: This Week in Amateur Radio Edition #1378 - Full Version (With repeater ID breaks every 10 minutes) Release Date: July 26, 2025 Here is a summary of the news trending...This Week in Amateur Radio. This week's edition is anchored by Jordan Kurtz, KE9BPO, Chris Perrine, KB2FAF, Denny Haight, NZ8D, Don Hulick, K2ATJ, Ed Johnson. W2PH, Eric Zittel, KD2RJX, George Lama, KC2OXJ, Josh Marler, AA4WX, George Bowen, W2XBS, and Jessica Bowen, KC2VWX Produced and edited by George Bowen, W2XBS Approximate Running Time: 1:26:41 Podcast Download: https://bit.ly/TWIAR1378 Trending headlines in this week's bulletin service 1. AMSAT: 2025 AMSAT Board Of Directors Election Underway 2. AMSAT: AMSAT-UK Supports Student Payload On Sub-Orbital Launch From Oman 3. WIA: Radio Amateurs Of Canada Issues New Question Pools 4. FCC: FCC Pirate Radio Crackdown Hits Washington Ranch 5. FCC: 91 Years Ago Marks The Birth Of The Federal Communications Commission 6. ARRL: Amateur Radio Helps Locate Missing Mother and Son 7. ARRL: ARRL July Board Meeting Highlights 8. ARRL: QSL Manager Joseph L. Arcure, Jr., W3HNK, Passes Away At 91 9. ARRL: ARRL Files Comments To Protect The 70 Centimeter Amateur Band 10. ARRL: Beginning In Early August, Amateur Radio Frequencies Will Be Active With Feline and Canine QSO's 11. Field Testing At World RadioSport Site Conducted By Its Organizers 12. FCC Explores Overhauling The Emergency Alert System and Regains Authority For Spectrum Auction 13. British Amateurs To Activate UK Waterways Special Activations 14. AMSAT: ARISS Call for proposals for future school contacts now underway 15. WIA: Global Semiconductor production could be affected by current copper shortage 16. ARRL: Flex Radio equips the ARRL with a complete FlexRadio 8000 series station for W1AW 17. ARRL: The league urges members to take part in HamSci's Meteor Scatter QSO Party 18. ARRL: Antenna Safety - Look Up and Live 19. ARRL: Changes announced to the ARRL Pacific Division, Atlantic Division, and Sacramento Valley Section 20. RAC: Radio Amateurs of Canada announce that amateurs in the Yukon Territory now are a seperate RAC Section 21. ARRL: The ARRL and Radio Relay International sign a Memorandum of Understanding Plus these Special Features This Week: * Working Amateur Radio Satellites with Bruce Paige, KK5DO - AMSAT Satellite News * Foundations of Amateur Radio with Onno Benschop VK6FLAB, will tell us "There's Promotion, and Then There's Amateur Radio" * The DX Corner with Bill Salyers, AJ8B with all the latest news on DXpeditions, DX, upcoming Radio Sport contests, and more * Weekly Propagation Forecast from the ARRL * Bill Continelli, W2XOY (SK) - The Ancient Amateur Archives. This week, Bill returns in this encore presentation of one of his most popular segments: A Brief History of Amateur Radio Repeaters ----- Full Podcast (ID breaks every 10 mins for use on ham frequencies): https://www.twiar.net/twiarpodcast.rss Full Podcast (No ID Breaks for LPFM or personal listening): https://www.twiar.net/twiarpodcastlpfm.rss Truncated Podcast (Approximately 1 hour in length): https://www.twiar.net/twiarpodcast60.rss Website: https://www.twiar.net X: https://x.com/TWIAR Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/twiar.bsky.social Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/twiari YouTube: https://bit.ly/TWIARYouTube RSS News: https://twiar.net/?feed=rss2 Automated (Full Static file, updated weekly): https://twiar.net/TWIARHAM.mp3 Automated (1-hour Static file, updated weekly): https://www.twiar.net/TWIAR1HR.mp3 This Week in Amateur Radio is produced by Community Video Associates in upstate New York, and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. If you would like to volunteer with us as a news anchor or special segment producer please get in touch with our Executive Producer, George, via email at w2xbs77@gmail.com. Thanks to FortifiedNet.net for the server space! Thanks to Archive.org for the audio space.
Slovenija ostaja zanesljiva partnerica Ukrajini tudi v prihodnje, zaradi dozdajšnjega sodelovanja ji ukrajinska vlada ponuja tudi priložnosti pri obnovi države, kljub omejitvam zaradi vojne pa je na številnih področjih tudi poslovnih priložnosti v Ukrajini več kot kadarkoli prej. To je nekaj sporočil podpredsednika vlade in finančnega ministra Klemna Boštjančiča po pravkar končanem dvodnevnem delovnem obisku v Kijevu in Buči. Med drugim se je sešel s podpredsednikom Oleksijem Kulebom in ministri za finance, gospodarstvo ter evroatlantske integracije in s slovenskimi gospodarstveniki, ki poslujejo v Ukrajini. Ostali poudarki oddaje: - Izraelska blokada dobave humanitarne pomoči v Gazi zahteva vse več življenj. - Se bodo ranljive skupine prebivalcev od jeseni lahko prednostno opredelile pri osebnem zdravniku? - Društva za zaščito živali in kmetje na nasprotnih bregovih zaradi zakonske spremembe glede kastracije pujskov.
Reading the state's memorandum on sentencing for Lori Vallow Daybell. Sentencing is Friday, July 25thALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.
In this raw and vulnerable solo episode of The Q-Chat, host Shronda Armstrong invites listeners into a deeply personal space of reflection following the unexpected passing of Malcolm-Jamal Warner. With heavy hearts and open minds, we explore the impact of sudden loss—not just of a beloved figure many of us grew up with, but of time, opportunity, and the unspoken words we often leave behind.Shronda shares candid thoughts on mortality, grief, and how celebrity deaths can stir something profound within us. This conversation journeys through the importance of mending relationships, letting go of resentment, and choosing to live each day with intention. From her own challenges with forgiveness to the urgency of honoring our loved ones while they're still here, this episode is an emotional reminder of how fragile life truly is.As you listen, you'll be encouraged to reevaluate your connections, cherish your time, walk in your purpose, and find joy in the present moment—even on the hard days. Because in the end, death reminds us of one simple truth: we must live while we're still here.Timestamps:00:00 – Reflections on Mortality and Celebrity Deaths11:31 – The Impact of Death on Personal Relationships21:14 – Living with Purpose and Gratitude31:32 – Embracing Life and Overcoming Fear41:55 – Closing Message: Live, Love, and Geaux Love Ya'selfConnect with Shronda at www.geauxqueen.com for podcast episodes, magazine features, Pink Reign calls, and in-person empowerment events in Dallas. And remember: Geaux reclaim your power. Geaux walk in your truth. And most importantly—Geaux love ya'self.
PODCAST: This Week in Amateur Radio Edition #1377 - Full Version (With repeater ID breaks every 10 minutes) Release Date: July 19, 2025 Here is a summary of the news trending...This Week in Amateur Radio. This week's edition is anchored by Jordan Kurtz, KE9BPO, Dave Wilson, WA2HOY. Don Hulick, K2ATJ, George Lama, KC2OXJ, Ed Johnson, W2PH, Joshua Marlor, AA4DX, Eric Zittel, KD2RJX, George Bowen, W2XBS, and Jessica Bowen, KC2VWX Produced and edited by George Bowen, W2XBS Approximate Running Time: 1:37:38 Podcast Download: https://bit.ly/TWIAR1377 Trending headlines in this week's bulletin service 1. AMSAT: ARISS Slow Scan Television Event Starts July 14th And Runs Through July 20th 2. AMSAT: ARISS Call for Proposals for School Contacts Now Underway 3. AMSAT: Satellite Shorts From All Over 4. WIA: FCC West Coast Pirate Radio Enforcement 5. WIA: Global Semiconductor Production Could Be Affected By Copper Shortage 6. WIA/NL: Let's Go With The Flow...New Contest "Toilets On The Air" 7. ARD: Opposition to NextNav and AST SpaceMobile Encroachment on Amateur Radio Spectrum Continues. 8. FCC: Emergency Alert System Reform Added To Carr's FCC Priorities 9. ARRL: FlexRadio Equips ARRL With FLEX-8000 Series Station For W1AW 10. ARRL: Take Part In HamSCI's Meteor Scatter QSO Party 11. ARRL: Safety Stand-Down: Look Up and Live 12. ARRL: Changes in the ARRL Pacific Division, Atlantic Division, and Sacramento Valley Section Are Announced 13. AST Satellites Experimental License Clears Amateur Band Use 14. Teen Hams On Dave Kalter Memorial DX Adventure Are Calling CQ 15. RAC: Canadian Amateurs In The Yukon Territory Get A New Separate RAC Section 16. Solar Car Special Event Gets Great Mileage With Amateurs 17. Junior Youth On The Air Camp Holds Its First Session 18. Daughter Missing For Eight Years Is Reunited With Her Family By Amateurs 19. ARRL: Radio Relay International and ARRL Sign a Memorandum of Understanding 20. ARRL: 2025 Field Day numbers are fantastic so far 21. ARRL: Upcoming Regional Conventions and RadioSport Contest Listings 22. FCC: FCC proposes Fast Track Regulation to streamline obsolete rules 23. WIA: Solar Storm causes Global Positioning System to be off by up to 70 meters 24. RW: National Voice Of America Museum celebrates makeover in renovated facility 25. RW: FCC reaches $10,000 settlement with a Boston Pirate Radio Operator 26. FCC: FCC finally gets its spectrum authority reinstated 27. FCC: Miami radio pirate blasts as unconstitutional FCC fines in landmark pirate radio court challenge 28. HH: Hamshack Hotline releases a public announcement bidding a fond farewell shutting down at the end of August 29. ARRL: Amateur Radio volunteers are providing communications during the severe floods Plus these Special Features This Week: * Working Amateur Radio Satellites with Bruce Paige, KK5DO - AMSAT Satellite News * Foundations of Amateur Radio with Onno Benschop VK6FLAB, will talk about various ways of Decoding a Signal. * The DX Corner with Bill Salyers, AJ8B with all the latest news on DXpeditions, DX, upcoming radio sport contests, and more.. * Weekly Propagation Forecast from the ARRL * Our original amateur radio historian, the late Bill Continelli, W2XOY returns with a special encore presentation of a classic edition of The Ancient Amateur Archives, this week, Bill takes us back in time to teach us all about the early warning communication system known in the United States as CONELRAD. ----- Full Podcast (ID breaks every 10 mins for use on ham frequencies): https://www.twiar.net/twiarpodcast.rss Full Podcast (No ID Breaks for LPFM or personal listening): https://www.twiar.net/twiarpodcastlpfm.rss Truncated Podcast (Approximately 1 hour in length): https://www.twiar.net/twiarpodcast60.rss Website: https://www.twiar.net X: https://x.com/TWIAR Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/twiar.bsky.social Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/twiari YouTube: https://bit.ly/TWIARYouTube RSS News: https://twiar.net/?feed=rss2 Automated (Full Static file, updated weekly): https://twiar.net/TWIARHAM.mp3 Automated (1-hour Static file, updated weekly): https://www.twiar.net/TWIAR1HR.mp3 This Week in Amateur Radio is produced by Community Video Associates in upstate New York, and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. If you would like to volunteer with us as a news anchor or special segment producer please get in touch with our Executive Producer, George, via email at w2xbs77@gmail.com. Thanks to FortifiedNet.net for the server space! Thanks to Archive.org for the audio space.
In this episode of The Midweek Takeaway, we're joined by Ben Clube, CEO of EnergyPathways plc, to discuss the company's groundbreaking move into clean hydrogen production. EnergyPathways has just signed a major Memorandum of Understanding with Hazer Group Ltd to deploy its cutting-edge methane pyrolysis technology—marking a bold step toward decarbonising the UK's energy supply. Under the agreement, the Hazer-KBR alliance brings world-leading hydrogen production capabilities to the UK for the first time, with exclusive access granted to EnergyPathways for 12 months. Ben shares how this initiative will integrate with the company's flagship MESH energy storage project—transforming it into one of the UK's largest hubs for clean hydrogen, low-carbon ammonia, and critical minerals like synthetic graphite. We also dive into the strategic importance of domestic ammonia production, the UK Government's evolving energy policy, and how this project tackles Scope 3 emissions while supporting national re-industrialisation goals. A forward-looking conversation at the intersection of energy innovation, sustainability, and national resilience. Disclaimer & Declaration of Interest This podcast may contain paid promotions, including but not limited to sponsorships, endorsements, or affiliate partnerships. The information, investment views, and recommendations provided are for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any financial products related to the companies discussed. Any opinions or comments are made to the best of the knowledge and belief of the commentators; however, no responsibility is accepted for actions based on such opinions or comments. The commentators may or may not hold investments in the companies under discussion. Listeners are encouraged to perform their own research and consult with a licensed professional before making any financial decisions based on the content of this podcast.
In this episode, Pete Codella, managing director of business services at the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity, talks with Anil Singh, founder and president of Saras AI Institute. Singh shares his journey, from growing up in a small village in India to becoming a successful entrepreneur, highlighting how education transformed his life and inspired him to establish Saras AI Institute. The institute offers fully online AI education, including certificate, associate, and bachelor's degree programs, with a unique project-based learning approach that eliminates traditional exams. Singh discusses the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Saras AI Institute and the Indian Institute of Technology to advance AI education in India. He emphasizes that AI is not here to replace humans but to augment them, creating millions of new jobs and solving humanity's greatest challenges. Singh encourages anyone interested in AI to embrace it as a tool and offers advice on how to get started, recommending readily available tools like ChatGPT. He also highlights Saras AI Institute's beginner-friendly "Powers of AI" course, designed to help individuals confidently enter the AI field, regardless of their background.
Velo Protocol, which is a blockchain financial protocol enabling digital credit issuance and borderless asset transfers for businesses using a smart contract system. Velo is bridging Stellar to Solana as well. Building on a recent Memorandum of Understanding with the Solana Foundation, this initiative employs Solana as the blockchain settlement layer, with Velo as the infrastructure backbone and clearing house for Laos' digital gold transactions. This partnership boosts the efficiency and security of PLG Gold transactions, ensuring strong interoperability and connectivity across blockchain networks.Guest: Korapat Arunanondchai (Pat) is the Chief Operating Officer of Velo LabsFollow Velo on X ~ https://x.com/veloprotocol~This episode is sponsored by Velo~00:00 Intro00:44 Velo updates01:42 Growth02:40 Trading competition03:35 Tokenized Gold06:00 DeFi: restaking07:20 RWA potential10:45 Messari's Q1 2025 highlights12:22 2025 Roadmap13:30 Orbit: Loyalty platform14:18 Next Generation Vision16:00 Outro#Solana #Velo #Gold~Tokenized Gold Transactions on Solana
While the headlines focus on control of the Panama Canal, there is another extremely important and strategic location which could change the course of trade dominance in the Western Hemisphere: on the Pacific Ocean side of South America, in Chile, lies CopiaPort-E, billed as the “Rotterdam of the Pacific." Todd Calllender, CEO of the Cotswold Group, which has set up a Memorandum of Understanding with Chinese Representatives to purchase equity and the rights to develop the Super Port project, is working with members of the Trump Administration to have the U.S. control and develop the deep-water port -- one the CCP wants as well. Callender talks with Dr. Corsi about CopisPortE, why its control is important and its potential to increase international trading dominance for the nation which owns the rights on Corsi Nation.Visit The Corsi Nation website: https://www.corsination.comIf you like what we are doing, please support our Sponsors:MyVitalC https://www.thetruthcentral.com/myvitalc-ess60-in-organic-olive-oil/Swiss America: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/CorsiRMP.phpGet Dr. Corsi's new book, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis: Forensic Analysis of the JFK Autopsy X-Rays Proves Two Headshots from the Right Front and One from the Rear, here: https://www.amazon.com/Assassination-President-John-Kennedy-Headshots/dp/B0CXLN1PX1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=20W8UDU55IGJJ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ymVX8y9V--_ztRoswluApKEN-WlqxoqrowcQP34CE3HdXRudvQJnTLmYKMMfv0gMYwaTTk_Ne3ssid8YroEAFg.e8i1TLonh9QRzDTIJSmDqJHrmMTVKBhCL7iTARroSzQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=jerome+r.+corsi+%2B+jfk&qid=1710126183&sprefix=%2Caps%2C275&sr=8-1Join Dr. Jerome Corsi on Substack: https://jeromecorsiphd.substack.com/Visit The Truth Central website: https://www.thetruthcentral.comGet your FREE copy of Dr. Corsi's new book with Swiss America CEO Dean Heskin, How the Coming Global Crash Will Create a Historic Gold Rush by calling: 800-519-6268Follow Dr. Jerome Corsi on X: @corsijerome1Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/corsi-nation--5810661/support.
In the case of Doe v. Combs et al., No. 1:24-cv-01457-JPO, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging personal injury. The court issued a Memorandum and Order addressing several key motions. Firstly, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, allowing her to maintain anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the allegations. Secondly, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, finding that the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently plausible to proceed to discovery.Additionally, the court addressed the defendants' motion to strike certain allegations from the complaint, which was denied. The court found that the contested allegations were relevant to the plaintiff's claims and did not prejudice the defendants. The Memorandum and Order concluded by setting a schedule for discovery and encouraging both parties to consider settlement discussions. This decision allows the case to move forward, with both sides preparing for the next stages of litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v. Combs Sanctions Order.pdf
In the Memorandum of Law supporting Sean Combs's Motion to Dismiss Count Three of the Superseding Indictment in case 1:24-cr-00542-AS, the defense argues that the charge is legally insufficient and fails to meet the required statutory elements. They contend that the indictment lacks specificity, particularly in detailing the alleged conduct and its connection to the purported criminal enterprise. Furthermore, the defense asserts that the prosecution's interpretation of the statute is overly broad, potentially criminalizing behavior beyond the law's intent. They emphasize that without clear evidence linking Combs to the alleged illegal activities in Count Three, the charge should be dismissed to uphold the principles of fair notice and due process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.153.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Seven nations with active citizenship by investment programs face potential visa bans under a new US State Department directive.View the full article here.Subscribe to the IMI Daily newsletter here.
In the Memorandum of Law supporting Sean Combs's Motion to Dismiss Count Three of the Superseding Indictment in case 1:24-cr-00542-AS, the defense argues that the charge is legally insufficient and fails to meet the required statutory elements. They contend that the indictment lacks specificity, particularly in detailing the alleged conduct and its connection to the purported criminal enterprise. Furthermore, the defense asserts that the prosecution's interpretation of the statute is overly broad, potentially criminalizing behavior beyond the law's intent. They emphasize that without clear evidence linking Combs to the alleged illegal activities in Count Three, the charge should be dismissed to uphold the principles of fair notice and due process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.153.0.pdf
In the case of Doe v. Combs et al., No. 1:24-cv-01457-JPO, the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a lawsuit against Sean Combs and associated entities, alleging personal injury. The court issued a Memorandum and Order addressing several key motions. Firstly, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym, allowing her to maintain anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the allegations. Secondly, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, finding that the plaintiff's claims were sufficiently plausible to proceed to discovery.Additionally, the court addressed the defendants' motion to strike certain allegations from the complaint, which was denied. The court found that the contested allegations were relevant to the plaintiff's claims and did not prejudice the defendants. The Memorandum and Order concluded by setting a schedule for discovery and encouraging both parties to consider settlement discussions. This decision allows the case to move forward, with both sides preparing for the next stages of litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v. Combs Sanctions Order.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Here's what happened last night: Saying Goodbye: Committee Member Lima Barbosa announced that next month's meeting will be her last. Her departure will create an opening on the Committee, yet we did not hear about the process of filling her seat. Host Ross Wilson announced that he will look into potentially joining the committee in her stead. Public Comment: Eid, Henderson, and Equity: The Eid Coalition Group dominated public comment as multiple speakers urged the district to close schools on Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. The parents, students, and advocates highlighted the difficulty of having to choose whether they must miss a school day or an important holiday. Additionally, parents from the Henderson Inclusion School gave a moving statement about how the school's original inclusive mission has eroded, illustrating greater concerns raised over the past year about its decline. Votes, Votes, Votes: The School Committee ticked off a number of unanimous votes on various matters that had been previously brought up before the members. These included: authorization for student activity funds, superintendent approval authority over trust expenditures, Boston Green Academy's charter renewal, Urban Achievers High School private school application, graduation requirements amendment for alternative education, and the competency determination for the Class of 2026. Notably, there was little inquiry from any School Committee members on graduation rates for this past year. We will be on the lookout for further information about this during future meetings. Superintendent's Report: Progress, But Few Details Superintendent Mary Skipper opened her report with a thank you to this year's retiring BPS staff. She then introduced a new Memorandum of Understanding with the Boston Police Department, which outlines limited circumstances under which schools will share information with law enforcement. The agreement maintains the district's commitment to restorative justice and explicitly prohibits inquiries into students' immigration status. The quarterly update on transformation schools noted “slow and steady” progress, particularly with more coaching and monitoring around grade-level curriculum as well as excitement and school culture improvements. The Superintendent also stated that there remains major issues with chronic absenteeism throughout these schools. Superintendent Evaluation: “Proficient” The Committee presented its annual evaluation of Superintendent Skipper, giving her an overall rating of 4.0 out of 5 and labeling her “proficient.” According to the report, she showed improvement in every category over the past year. However, the evaluation relied on a BPS-specific rubric, diverging from the state's DESE model, raising questions about alignment and transparency. More critically, the Committee did not address major issues in its evaluation, including: the long-term facilities plan, ballooning White Stadium costs, declining enrollment, transportation controversy, and federal funding uncertainty. Exam Schools: Bonus Points No More? The night's final report focused on the exam school admissions policy. While no changes were proposed, as the district made clear their presentation was just an analysis, data simulations hinted at a likely shift away from the controversial “bonus points” system, especially as exam school applicants have dropped by more than 1,000 students over the past five years. Vice Chair O'Neill expressed concern about the unintended consequences of the current tier-based residency system, despite having supported the policy in the past. Two public speakers critiqued the district for their actions, stating that the information they presented was clear when they began the process of changing the admissions policy. Looking Ahead The School Committee's next meeting is scheduled for July 9th, when it will formally vote on Superintendent Skipper's evaluation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
In the case of Doe v. Combs (No. 1:24-cv-08054-MKV), the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a Memorandum of Law supporting her motion for reconsideration of the court's decision denying her request to proceed under a pseudonym. She also sought permission to file a supporting declaration under seal. The plaintiff argued that the court had overlooked critical factors, including the highly sensitive nature of the allegations and the potential for significant harm if her identity were disclosed. She emphasized that revealing her identity could lead to severe emotional distress and possible retaliation, given the prominence of the defendant, Sean Combs.Additionally, the plaintiff contended that allowing her to proceed anonymously would not prejudice the defendants and would serve the public interest by encouraging victims of sexual assault to come forward without fear of exposure. The request to file the declaration under seal was made to protect the confidentiality of detailed personal information pertinent to her motion.(commercial at 7:07)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.21.0.pdf
In Case 1:24-cv-08054-MKV, the defendants have filed a Memorandum of Law opposing the plaintiff's amended motion for the pro hac vice admission of attorney Anthony Buzbee. Pro hac vice admission allows an out-of-state lawyer to participate in a specific case in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed to practice regularly. The defendants argue that Buzbee's admission should be denied due to concerns about his prior professional conduct, which they believe could negatively impact the proceedings. They emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of the court and ensuring that all participating attorneys adhere to the highest ethical standards.Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that Buzbee's involvement is necessary for their case, especially considering the availability of other qualified counsel who are already licensed in the jurisdiction. They assert that granting the motion could set a concerning precedent, potentially allowing attorneys with questionable conduct records to participate in cases without proper scrutiny. The memorandum concludes by urging the court to carefully consider these factors and deny the amended motion for Buzbee's pro hac vice admission to uphold the court's standards and ensure a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
In Case 1:24-cv-08054-MKV, the defendants have filed a Memorandum of Law opposing the plaintiff's amended motion for the pro hac vice admission of attorney Anthony Buzbee. Pro hac vice admission allows an out-of-state lawyer to participate in a specific case in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed to practice regularly. The defendants argue that Buzbee's admission should be denied due to concerns about his prior professional conduct, which they believe could negatively impact the proceedings. They emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of the court and ensuring that all participating attorneys adhere to the highest ethical standards.Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that Buzbee's involvement is necessary for their case, especially considering the availability of other qualified counsel who are already licensed in the jurisdiction. They assert that granting the motion could set a concerning precedent, potentially allowing attorneys with questionable conduct records to participate in cases without proper scrutiny. The memorandum concludes by urging the court to carefully consider these factors and deny the amended motion for Buzbee's pro hac vice admission to uphold the court's standards and ensure a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In this filing, plaintiff Anthony Tate submits a Memorandum of Law opposing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the civil case against Sean Combs and his affiliated corporate entities, including Daddy's House Recordings, Combs Global, and various Bad Boy Entertainment subsidiaries. Tate argues that his complaint sufficiently states claims for relief and that dismissal is unwarranted at this stage. The opposition contends that the complaint provides detailed factual allegations that meet the pleading standards required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), addressing each of the Defendants' arguments for dismissal. Tate emphasizes that the alleged conduct—spanning personal misconduct by Combs and organizational liability through the named corporate entities—is sufficiently documented to move forward to discovery.Furthermore, the memorandum asserts that the corporate defendants should not be dismissed merely because Combs is a named individual defendant; instead, Tate argues that the corporate entities were allegedly used to facilitate or conceal the unlawful acts in question. The opposition also challenges any argument that certain claims are time-barred, asserting that various legal doctrines—including equitable tolling and the discovery rule—preserve the plaintiff's ability to pursue those claims. Ultimately, Tate urges the Court to deny the Motion to Dismiss in full and allow the case to proceed, arguing that the defendants' motion relies heavily on factual disputes inappropriate for resolution at the motion-to-dismiss stage.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632026.46.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Doc 1: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, A Student Demonstration of Sorts in Tiananmen Square (11/21/85) Doc 2: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, Government Arrests Student Demonstrators (11/25/85) Doc 3: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, More Student Demonstrations (12/23/85) Doc 4: From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, Student Demonstrations Update (12/24/86) Doc 5: IPAC Daily Intelligence Summary 1-87, China: Student Demonstrations (01/02/87) Doc 6: IPAC Daily Intelligence Summary 10-87, China: Hu Yaobang Resigns (01/17/87) Doc 7: Memorandum of Conversation, [George Bush] Meeting with Wan Li, Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and Member of the Politburo, People's Republic of China (05/23/89) Doc 8: Secretary of State's Morning Summary for 06/0289, China: Stalemate Continues Doc 9: Secretary of State's Morning Summary for 06/03/89, China: Police Use Tear Gas on Crowds Doc 10: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, SITREP No. 27: Martial Law with Chinese Characteristics (06/03/89) Doc 11: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, SITREP No. 28: Ten to Fifteen Thousand Armed Troops Stopped at City Perimeter by Human and Bus Barricades (06/03/89) Doc 12: Cable, From: Department of State, Wash DC, To: U.S. Embassy Beijing, and All Diplomatic and Consular Posts, TFCHO1: SITREP 1, 1700 EDT (06/03/89) Doc 13: Secretary of State's Morning Summary for 06/04/89, China: Troops Open Fire Doc 14: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, SITREP No. 32 (06/04/89) Doc 15: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, SITREP No. 33 (06/04/89) Doc 16: Cable, From: Department of State, Wash DC, To: U.S. Embassy Beijing, China Task Force Situation Report No. 3 (06/04/89) Doc 17: Secretary of State's Morning Summary for 06/05/89, China: After the Bloodbath Doc 18: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, SITREP No. 35 (06/05/89) Doc 19: Secretary of State's Morning Summary for 06/06/89, China: Descent into Chaos Doc 20: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, TFCH01--SITREP No. 37 (06/06/89) Doc 21: Secretary of State's Morning Summary for 06/07/89, China: Tense Standoff Continues Doc 22: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, TFCH01--SITREP No. 38 (06/07/89) Doc 23: Secretary of State's Morning Summary for 06/9/89, China: Uneasy Calm Doc 24: Department of State Intelligence Brief, "Current Situation in China: Background and Prospects" (Ca. 06/10/89) Doc 25: Secretary of State's Morning Summary for 06/10/89, China: Mixed Signals on Purge Doc 26: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, SITREP No. 49, (06/11/89) Doc 27: Secretary of State's Morning Summary for 06/14/89, China: Back to Business, But Crackdown Continues Doc 28: Secretary of State's Morning Summary for 06/15/89, China: Accusation over Fang Lizhi Doc 29: Secretary of State's Morning Summary for 06/21/89, China: Swift Justice Doc 30: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, Eyewitness Account of June 4 PLA Tank Crushing 11 Students and Related Early Morning Events in Tiananmen Square (06/22/89) Doc 31: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, What Happened on the Night of June 3/4? (06/22/89) Doc 32: Cable, From: U.S. Embassy Beijing, To: Department of State, Wash DC, TFCH01: SITREP No. 65 (06/27/89) Doc 33: State Department document entitled "Themes" (06/29/89) Doc 34: State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, "Status Report on Situation in China as of 07/ 26/89" Doc 35: State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, "China: Aftermath of the Crisis" (07/27/89) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx
In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx
In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docx
Diddy has fired back at Joi Dickerson Neal and her allegations against him and in this episode, we are going to get a look at what Diddy had to say. A "Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint" is a legal document filed by defendants in a lawsuit. Let's break down what each component means:Memorandum of Law: This is a written legal document that presents arguments and supporting authorities (such as statutes, regulations, and case law) in support of a specific legal position. It is used to persuade the court to rule in favor of the party presenting the memorandum.Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss: A motion to dismiss is a request made by one party in a lawsuit to terminate the case before it goes to trial. In this case, the defendants are asking the court to dismiss only certain parts of the complaint filed against them. This motion is "partial" because it seeks dismissal of only some claims or allegations, rather than the entire complaint.The Complaint: This refers to the initial document filed by the plaintiff(s) in a lawsuit, which outlines the claims and allegations against the defendant(s). The defendants' motion to dismiss is a response to the complaint, arguing that some or all of the claims in the complaint should be dismissed for various reasons, such as failure to state a legal claim, lack of jurisdiction, or other deficiencies in the complaint.So, the "Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint" would be a document prepared by the defendants' legal team that lays out the legal arguments and authorities supporting their request to dismiss certain parts of the complaint. It would likely include analysis of relevant case law, statutes, and legal principles to demonstrate why the court should grant their motion to dismiss.(commercial at 10:34)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:diddy-motion.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Diddy has fired back at Joi Dickerson Neal and her allegations against him and in this episode, we are going to get a look at what Diddy had to say. A "Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint" is a legal document filed by defendants in a lawsuit. Let's break down what each component means:Memorandum of Law: This is a written legal document that presents arguments and supporting authorities (such as statutes, regulations, and case law) in support of a specific legal position. It is used to persuade the court to rule in favor of the party presenting the memorandum.Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss: A motion to dismiss is a request made by one party in a lawsuit to terminate the case before it goes to trial. In this case, the defendants are asking the court to dismiss only certain parts of the complaint filed against them. This motion is "partial" because it seeks dismissal of only some claims or allegations, rather than the entire complaint.The Complaint: This refers to the initial document filed by the plaintiff(s) in a lawsuit, which outlines the claims and allegations against the defendant(s). The defendants' motion to dismiss is a response to the complaint, arguing that some or all of the claims in the complaint should be dismissed for various reasons, such as failure to state a legal claim, lack of jurisdiction, or other deficiencies in the complaint.So, the "Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint" would be a document prepared by the defendants' legal team that lays out the legal arguments and authorities supporting their request to dismiss certain parts of the complaint. It would likely include analysis of relevant case law, statutes, and legal principles to demonstrate why the court should grant their motion to dismiss.(commercial at 10:34)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:diddy-motion.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the Memorandum of Law supporting Sean Combs's Motion to Dismiss Count Three of the Superseding Indictment in case 1:24-cr-00542-AS, the defense argues that the charge is legally insufficient and fails to meet the required statutory elements. They contend that the indictment lacks specificity, particularly in detailing the alleged conduct and its connection to the purported criminal enterprise. Furthermore, the defense asserts that the prosecution's interpretation of the statute is overly broad, potentially criminalizing behavior beyond the law's intent. They emphasize that without clear evidence linking Combs to the alleged illegal activities in Count Three, the charge should be dismissed to uphold the principles of fair notice and due process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.153.0.pdf
A memorandum in law in opposition to a motion for sanctions is a legal document filed by a party in a lawsuit to argue against the imposition of sanctions that have been requested by the opposing party. Here are the key components and purposes of this document:Purpose:Counter Argument: The memorandum aims to counter the claims made in the motion for sanctions, presenting reasons why the court should not grant the requested sanctions.Defense: It serves as a defense against allegations of improper conduct or violations of court rules or orders.Content:Introduction: An introduction that outlines the context and purpose of the memorandum.Statement of Facts: A section that provides a factual background, often challenging or clarifying the facts as presented in the motion for sanctions.Legal Arguments: Detailed legal arguments explaining why the motion for sanctions should be denied. This includes citing relevant laws, rules, and case precedents.Justification of Conduct: Explanation and justification of the actions or behavior that led to the motion for sanctions, demonstrating that there was no misconduct or that any alleged misconduct does not warrant sanctions.Conclusion: A conclusion summarizing the main points and reiterating the request for the court to deny the motion for sanctions.Common Arguments:Compliance: Demonstrating that the party has complied with all court orders and procedural rules.Lack of Harm: Arguing that the alleged conduct did not cause any significant harm or prejudice to the opposing party.Good Faith: Showing that any actions taken were in good faith and not intended to obstruct or delay the legal process.Proportionality: Arguing that the proposed sanctions are disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.Supporting Evidence:The memorandum may include supporting evidence such as affidavits, exhibits, and other documents that back up the arguments presented.Legal Standards:It will address the legal standards that the court must apply when deciding on a motion for sanctions, explaining why those standards have not been met in this case.In this episode, we dive back into the Diddy situation and this time we are taking a look at Tyrone Blackburn's memorandum in law in opposition to sanctions.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A memorandum in law in opposition to a motion for sanctions is a legal document filed by a party in a lawsuit to argue against the imposition of sanctions that have been requested by the opposing party. Here are the key components and purposes of this document:Purpose:Counter Argument: The memorandum aims to counter the claims made in the motion for sanctions, presenting reasons why the court should not grant the requested sanctions.Defense: It serves as a defense against allegations of improper conduct or violations of court rules or orders.Content:Introduction: An introduction that outlines the context and purpose of the memorandum.Statement of Facts: A section that provides a factual background, often challenging or clarifying the facts as presented in the motion for sanctions.Legal Arguments: Detailed legal arguments explaining why the motion for sanctions should be denied. This includes citing relevant laws, rules, and case precedents.Justification of Conduct: Explanation and justification of the actions or behavior that led to the motion for sanctions, demonstrating that there was no misconduct or that any alleged misconduct does not warrant sanctions.Conclusion: A conclusion summarizing the main points and reiterating the request for the court to deny the motion for sanctions.Common Arguments:Compliance: Demonstrating that the party has complied with all court orders and procedural rules.Lack of Harm: Arguing that the alleged conduct did not cause any significant harm or prejudice to the opposing party.Good Faith: Showing that any actions taken were in good faith and not intended to obstruct or delay the legal process.Proportionality: Arguing that the proposed sanctions are disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.Supporting Evidence:The memorandum may include supporting evidence such as affidavits, exhibits, and other documents that back up the arguments presented.Legal Standards:It will address the legal standards that the court must apply when deciding on a motion for sanctions, explaining why those standards have not been met in this case.In this episode, we dive back into the Diddy situation and this time we are taking a look at Tyrone Blackburn's memorandum in law in opposition to sanctions.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A memorandum in law in opposition to a motion for sanctions is a legal document filed by a party in a lawsuit to argue against the imposition of sanctions that have been requested by the opposing party. Here are the key components and purposes of this document:Purpose:Counter Argument: The memorandum aims to counter the claims made in the motion for sanctions, presenting reasons why the court should not grant the requested sanctions.Defense: It serves as a defense against allegations of improper conduct or violations of court rules or orders.Content:Introduction: An introduction that outlines the context and purpose of the memorandum.Statement of Facts: A section that provides a factual background, often challenging or clarifying the facts as presented in the motion for sanctions.Legal Arguments: Detailed legal arguments explaining why the motion for sanctions should be denied. This includes citing relevant laws, rules, and case precedents.Justification of Conduct: Explanation and justification of the actions or behavior that led to the motion for sanctions, demonstrating that there was no misconduct or that any alleged misconduct does not warrant sanctions.Conclusion: A conclusion summarizing the main points and reiterating the request for the court to deny the motion for sanctions.Common Arguments:Compliance: Demonstrating that the party has complied with all court orders and procedural rules.Lack of Harm: Arguing that the alleged conduct did not cause any significant harm or prejudice to the opposing party.Good Faith: Showing that any actions taken were in good faith and not intended to obstruct or delay the legal process.Proportionality: Arguing that the proposed sanctions are disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.Supporting Evidence:The memorandum may include supporting evidence such as affidavits, exhibits, and other documents that back up the arguments presented.Legal Standards:It will address the legal standards that the court must apply when deciding on a motion for sanctions, explaining why those standards have not been met in this case.In this episode, we dive back into the Diddy situation and this time we are taking a look at Tyrone Blackburn's memorandum in law in opposition to sanctions.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A memorandum in law in opposition to a motion for sanctions is a legal document filed by a party in a lawsuit to argue against the imposition of sanctions that have been requested by the opposing party. Here are the key components and purposes of this document:Purpose:Counter Argument: The memorandum aims to counter the claims made in the motion for sanctions, presenting reasons why the court should not grant the requested sanctions.Defense: It serves as a defense against allegations of improper conduct or violations of court rules or orders.Content:Introduction: An introduction that outlines the context and purpose of the memorandum.Statement of Facts: A section that provides a factual background, often challenging or clarifying the facts as presented in the motion for sanctions.Legal Arguments: Detailed legal arguments explaining why the motion for sanctions should be denied. This includes citing relevant laws, rules, and case precedents.Justification of Conduct: Explanation and justification of the actions or behavior that led to the motion for sanctions, demonstrating that there was no misconduct or that any alleged misconduct does not warrant sanctions.Conclusion: A conclusion summarizing the main points and reiterating the request for the court to deny the motion for sanctions.Common Arguments:Compliance: Demonstrating that the party has complied with all court orders and procedural rules.Lack of Harm: Arguing that the alleged conduct did not cause any significant harm or prejudice to the opposing party.Good Faith: Showing that any actions taken were in good faith and not intended to obstruct or delay the legal process.Proportionality: Arguing that the proposed sanctions are disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.Supporting Evidence:The memorandum may include supporting evidence such as affidavits, exhibits, and other documents that back up the arguments presented.Legal Standards:It will address the legal standards that the court must apply when deciding on a motion for sanctions, explaining why those standards have not been met in this case.In this episode, we dive back into the Diddy situation and this time we are taking a look at Tyrone Blackburn's memorandum in law in opposition to sanctions.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A memorandum in law in opposition to a motion for sanctions is a legal document filed by a party in a lawsuit to argue against the imposition of sanctions that have been requested by the opposing party. Here are the key components and purposes of this document:Purpose:Counter Argument: The memorandum aims to counter the claims made in the motion for sanctions, presenting reasons why the court should not grant the requested sanctions.Defense: It serves as a defense against allegations of improper conduct or violations of court rules or orders.Content:Introduction: An introduction that outlines the context and purpose of the memorandum.Statement of Facts: A section that provides a factual background, often challenging or clarifying the facts as presented in the motion for sanctions.Legal Arguments: Detailed legal arguments explaining why the motion for sanctions should be denied. This includes citing relevant laws, rules, and case precedents.Justification of Conduct: Explanation and justification of the actions or behavior that led to the motion for sanctions, demonstrating that there was no misconduct or that any alleged misconduct does not warrant sanctions.Conclusion: A conclusion summarizing the main points and reiterating the request for the court to deny the motion for sanctions.Common Arguments:Compliance: Demonstrating that the party has complied with all court orders and procedural rules.Lack of Harm: Arguing that the alleged conduct did not cause any significant harm or prejudice to the opposing party.Good Faith: Showing that any actions taken were in good faith and not intended to obstruct or delay the legal process.Proportionality: Arguing that the proposed sanctions are disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.Supporting Evidence:The memorandum may include supporting evidence such as affidavits, exhibits, and other documents that back up the arguments presented.Legal Standards:It will address the legal standards that the court must apply when deciding on a motion for sanctions, explaining why those standards have not been met in this case.In this episode, we dive back into the Diddy situation and this time we are taking a look at Tyrone Blackburn's memorandum in law in opposition to sanctions.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A memorandum in law in opposition to a motion for sanctions is a legal document filed by a party in a lawsuit to argue against the imposition of sanctions that have been requested by the opposing party. Here are the key components and purposes of this document:Purpose:Counter Argument: The memorandum aims to counter the claims made in the motion for sanctions, presenting reasons why the court should not grant the requested sanctions.Defense: It serves as a defense against allegations of improper conduct or violations of court rules or orders.Content:Introduction: An introduction that outlines the context and purpose of the memorandum.Statement of Facts: A section that provides a factual background, often challenging or clarifying the facts as presented in the motion for sanctions.Legal Arguments: Detailed legal arguments explaining why the motion for sanctions should be denied. This includes citing relevant laws, rules, and case precedents.Justification of Conduct: Explanation and justification of the actions or behavior that led to the motion for sanctions, demonstrating that there was no misconduct or that any alleged misconduct does not warrant sanctions.Conclusion: A conclusion summarizing the main points and reiterating the request for the court to deny the motion for sanctions.Common Arguments:Compliance: Demonstrating that the party has complied with all court orders and procedural rules.Lack of Harm: Arguing that the alleged conduct did not cause any significant harm or prejudice to the opposing party.Good Faith: Showing that any actions taken were in good faith and not intended to obstruct or delay the legal process.Proportionality: Arguing that the proposed sanctions are disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.Supporting Evidence:The memorandum may include supporting evidence such as affidavits, exhibits, and other documents that back up the arguments presented.Legal Standards:It will address the legal standards that the court must apply when deciding on a motion for sanctions, explaining why those standards have not been met in this case.In this episode, we dive back into the Diddy situation and this time we are taking a look at Tyrone Blackburn's memorandum in law in opposition to sanctions.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
A memorandum in law in opposition to a motion for sanctions is a legal document filed by a party in a lawsuit to argue against the imposition of sanctions that have been requested by the opposing party. Here are the key components and purposes of this document:Purpose:Counter Argument: The memorandum aims to counter the claims made in the motion for sanctions, presenting reasons why the court should not grant the requested sanctions.Defense: It serves as a defense against allegations of improper conduct or violations of court rules or orders.Content:Introduction: An introduction that outlines the context and purpose of the memorandum.Statement of Facts: A section that provides a factual background, often challenging or clarifying the facts as presented in the motion for sanctions.Legal Arguments: Detailed legal arguments explaining why the motion for sanctions should be denied. This includes citing relevant laws, rules, and case precedents.Justification of Conduct: Explanation and justification of the actions or behavior that led to the motion for sanctions, demonstrating that there was no misconduct or that any alleged misconduct does not warrant sanctions.Conclusion: A conclusion summarizing the main points and reiterating the request for the court to deny the motion for sanctions.Common Arguments:Compliance: Demonstrating that the party has complied with all court orders and procedural rules.Lack of Harm: Arguing that the alleged conduct did not cause any significant harm or prejudice to the opposing party.Good Faith: Showing that any actions taken were in good faith and not intended to obstruct or delay the legal process.Proportionality: Arguing that the proposed sanctions are disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.Supporting Evidence:The memorandum may include supporting evidence such as affidavits, exhibits, and other documents that back up the arguments presented.Legal Standards:It will address the legal standards that the court must apply when deciding on a motion for sanctions, explaining why those standards have not been met in this case.In this episode, we dive back into the Diddy situation and this time we are taking a look at Tyrone Blackburn's memorandum in law in opposition to sanctions.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.58.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The US and Saudi Arabia say they have signed commercial deals worth $142bn during Donald Trump's ongoing trip in the Middle East. Also on the programme, the head of the UN agency for Palestinians has told the BBC that Israel's blockade of food deliveries to Palestinians inside Gaza constitutes a war crime; and, a self-declared "king" of Germany and three of his senior "subjects" have been arrested and their group banned for attempting to overthrow the state.(Photo: U.S. President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed Bin Salman exchange a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) during a ceremony at the Royal Court in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, May 13, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder)
Tetanus has probably been around for most of human history, or even longer. But it’s preventable today thanks to vaccines. Research: "Emil von Behring." Notable Scientists from 1900 to the Present, edited by Brigham Narins, Gale, 2008. Gale In Context: Science, link.gale.com/apps/doc/K1619001490/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=464250e5. Accessed 17 Apr. 2025. Breasted, J.H., translator. “OIP 3. The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, Volume 1: Hieroglyphic Transliteration, Translation, and Commentary.” Oxford University Press. 1930. Chalian, William. “An Essay on the History of Lockjaw.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, FEBRUARY, 1940, Vol. 8, No. 2. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44446242 Emil von Behring: The founder of serum therapy. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach 2025. Thu. 17 Apr 2025. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1901/behring/article/ Galassi, Francesco Maria et al. “Tetanus: historical and palaeopathological aspects considering its current health impact.” Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene vol. 65,4 E580-E585. 31 Jan. 2025, doi:10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2024.65.4.3376 George, Elizabeth K. “Tetanus (Clostridium tetani Infection).” StatPearls. January 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482484/ Hippocrates. “VI. Diseases, Internal Affections.” Harvard University Press. 1988. Jean-Marc Cavaillon, Historical links between toxinology and immunology, Pathogens and Disease, Volume 76, Issue 3, April 2018, fty019, https://doi.org/10.1093/femspd/fty019 Jones CE, Yusuf N, Ahmed B, Kassogue M, Wasley A, Kanu FA. Progress Toward Achieving and Sustaining Maternal and Neonatal Tetanus Elimination — Worldwide, 2000–2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2024;73:614–621. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7328a1 Kaufmann, Stefan H E. “Remembering Emil von Behring: from Tetanus Treatment to Antibody Cooperation with Phagocytes.” mBio vol. 8,1 e00117-17. 28 Feb. 2017, doi:10.1128/mBio.00117-17 Kreston, Rebecca. “Tetanus, the Grinning Death.” Discover. 9/29/2015. https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/tetanus-the-grinning-death Milto, Lori De, and Leslie Mertz, PhD. "Tetanus." The Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health, edited by Brigham Narins, 2nd ed., vol. 2, Gale, 2020, pp. 1074-1076. Gale In Context: Environmental Studies, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX7947900274/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=a44bc544. Accessed 14 Apr. 2025. Milto, Lori De, and Leslie Mertz, PhD. "Tetanus." The Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health, edited by Brigham Narins, 2nd ed., vol. 2, Gale, 2020, pp. 1074-1076. Gale In Context: Environmental Studies, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX7947900274/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=a44bc544. Accessed 15 Apr. 2025. National Institutes of Health. “Tetanus.” https://history.nih.gov/display/history/Tetanus Ni, Maoshing. “The Yellow Emperor's Classic of Medicine: A New Translation of the Neijing Suwen with Commentary.” Shambhala. 1995. Smithsonian. “The Antibody Initiative: Battling Tetanus.” https://www.si.edu/spotlight/antibody-initiative/battling-tetanus Sundwall, John. “Man and Microbes.” Illustrated lecture given under the auspices of the Kansas Academy of Science, Topeka, January 12, 1917. https://archive.org/details/jstor-3624335/ The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1901. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach 2025. Thu. 17 Apr 2025. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1901/summary/ Tiwari, Tejpratap S.P. et al. “Chapter 21: Tetanus.” CDC Pink Book. https://www.cdc.gov/pinkbook/hcp/table-of-contents/chapter-21-tetanus.html Von Behring, Emil and Kitasato Shibasaburo. “The Mechanism of Immunity in Animals to Diphtheria and Tetanus.” Immunology. 1890. http://raolab.org/upfile/file/20200612164743_201234_56288.pdf War Office Committee for the Study of Tetanus. “Memorandum on Tetanus.” Fourth Edition. 1919. https://archive.org/details/b32171201/ World Health Organization. “Tetanus.” 7/12/2024. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tetanus See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Give to help Chris continue making Truce A small group of men calling themselves The New Right had a major role to play in bonding some evangelicals to the Republican Party. Yet many Christians don't know who these guys were or how they used money and influence to accomplish their goal. Let's meet the fellas. One was named Paul Weyrich. Weyrich's contribution to the movement is that he knew how to organize people, a skill he learned from watching liberal protests. He was a former radio newsman from Wisconsin, member of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church when he thought the Roman Catholic Church became too liberal. He saw how liberals were organizing in the US and decided to do something similar with conservatives. The goal was to bring together politicians, activists, money, and the press to have a unified front. Organizational skills were his secret weapon. Howard Phillips was a follower of RJ Rushdoony's Christian Reconstruction plan. He gutted the Office of Economic Opportunity for Richard Nixon and then founded a think tank called The Conservative Caucus. He said "we organize discontent" meaning that the New Right used emotional issues to rile up their base. Then there was Richard Viguerie. He was the king of bulk mail. The New Right used his services to advocate for their kind of politicians, for Anita Bryant, and to raise money. His company RAVCO was investigated for fraud. These men and more were vital in bringing some evangelicals into the Republican Party. Our guest today is Rick Perlstein, author of amazing history books like Reaganland and The Invisible Bridge. Sources: Reaganland and The Invisible Bridge by Rick Perlstein Mobilizing the Moral Majority: Paul Weyrich and the Creation of a Conservative Coalition, 1968-1988 by Tyler J. Poff pages 22-23 The Evangelicals by Frances Fitzgerald Weyrich, Memorandum, April 16, 1973, Paul M. Weyrich Scrapbooks. But accessed through Mobilizing the Moral Majority: Paul Weyrich and the Creation of a Conservative Coalition, 1968-1988 by Tyler J. Poff page 18 Christian Reconstruction: RJ Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism - by Michael McVicar Memo from Gerald Ford Library The 1974 Campaign Finance Reform Act James Robison at the Religious Roundtable Discussion Questions: What was meant by "we organize discontent"? Is this a statement Jesus would have made? Have you ever heard of the New Right guys before? Google Paul Weyrich and watch videos of him talking. How does he use language to stir fear in others? Are there issues that politicians can use to push your buttons? What are they? Why? Why are some evangelicals driven by these push button issues? How was the New Right able to use issues of sex to steer some evangelicals? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
