Podcasts about Memorandum

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.

On Wednesday's edition of SaskAgToday with Ryan Young: -Ag in Motion is less than a week away and Show Director Rob O'Connor expects really good attendance this year. -A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed between two organizations that would make it easier for Saskatchewan agtech & agri-food startup companies to meet their goals.

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

Alberta & Ontario teaming up, interprovincial trade, measles in Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Ontario Premier Doug Ford sign Memorandum of Understanding's with a focus on trade, energy and interprovincial co-operation. We know our health care system is strained. A couple of medical experts join the show to chat about the doctor crisis, and with a more local focus, the measles situation in our province. We also spend time chatting about the horrible flooding in Texas and a legendary rocker has hung it up for good. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Sharjah offers a trade license in one day for mainland operations through Sharjah Economic Development Department. The commercial license will be issued immediately without the need to attach the Memorandum of Association or a signed lease contract in the first year. We also discuss the expected rush during the summer holiday season. Listen to #Pulse95Radio in the UAE by tuning in on your radio (95.00 FM) or online on our website: www.pulse95radio.com ************************ Follow us on Social. www.facebook.com/pulse95radio www.twitter.com/pulse95radio

Die deutsche Automobilbranche setzt ein Ausrufezeichen in Sachen SDV: Elf OEMs und Zulieferer – darunter Mercedes-Benz, BMW, VW, Bosch und Continental – haben auf dem Automobil-Elektronik Kongress in Ludwigsburg eine Absichtserklärung unterzeichnet, um gemeinsam eine offene Software-Basis für Fahrzeuge zu entwickeln. Ziel ist ein modularer, erweiterbarer Core Stack, der bis 2026 stehen und essenzielle Funktionen aus Middleware und Betriebssystem abdecken soll. Koordiniert vom VDA und umgesetzt in der S-Core-Gruppe der Eclipse Foundation, verspricht die Open-Source-Initiative schnellere Entwicklung, geringere Kosten und bessere Interoperabilität. Doch kommt dieser Schritt nicht zu spät? Und wie groß ist das Risiko der Fragmentierung trotz gemeinsamer Basis? Pascal und Yannick diskutieren technologische Chancen, strategische Hebel und die branchenpolitische Dimension – vor allem mit Blick auf die Konkurrenz aus China und den USA. Die Details zum Memorandum of Understanding des VDA: https://www.automotiveit.eu/strategy/autoindustrie-rueckt-bei-softwareentwicklung-enger-zusammen-483.html Alle wichtigen Diskussionen vom Automobil-Elektronik Kongress 2025: https://www.all-electronics.de/veranstaltungen/automobil-elektronik-kongress/live-ticker-zum-automobil-elektronik-kongress-2025-aek-480.html Was von Apple CarPlay Ultra zu erwarten ist: https://www.automotiveit.eu/technology/wie-bedeutend-wird-apples-car-play-ultra-309426-732.html Mehr zu Pascal und Yannick finden Sie auf LinkedIn: Pascal Nagel: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pascal-nagel/ Yannick Tiedemann: www.linkedin.com/in/yannick-tiedemann Hinweis: Die im Podcast getätigten Aussagen spiegeln die Privatmeinung der Gesprächspartner wider und entsprechen nicht zwingend den Darstellungen des jeweiligen Arbeitgebers

The signing of the first ever Memorandum of Understanding between the world-renowned Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (DIAS) and a Technological University was witnessed by James Lawless, Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. The agreement with the Technological University of the Shannon (TUS) was signed during the celebrations of the Institute's 85th year anniversary, marking its lauded track record since it was set up by Eamon De Valera's Government at the time when its first Director of Theoretical Physics was Nobel-prize winner Erwin Schrödinger. The MOU, signed by Dr Eucharia Meehan, CEO of DIAS, and President of TUS, Professor Vincent Cunnane, will strengthen collaboration in research and innovation between the institutions, with a focus on advancing education and practical knowledge in Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML) and Computer Vision (CV) and their application to Radio Astronomy. Under the terms of the agreement, two TUS PhD research students, funded by the university, will be appointed DIAS scholars, receiving mentorship from DIAS's world-renowned researchers at Dunsink Observatory and participating in cutting edge research, working on the prestigious I-LOFAR at Birr Castle in Offaly. I-LOFAR stands for Irish Low Frequency Array and it is Ireland's largest radio telescope. It is part of a Europe-wide collaborative astronomy project where Irish scientists and students participate in pan-European research in areas such as: Astrophysics, Cosmic magnetism, Space weather, Solar physics and Big Data and AI applications in astronomy. I-LOFAR generates massive volumes of complex data - often terabytes per day - and CV and ML play a crucial role in how that data is processed, analysed, and interpreted. DIAS and TUS will jointly collaborate on applying High Performance Computing including AI, ML and CV to the detection, classification and characterisation of targeted phenomena in the I-LOFAR data. Initially this will focus on Space Weather / Solar Phenomena but will be expanded to include others. The research outputs will be held in a new centralised Astrophysics storage and High Performance Computing facility at TUS which will benefit all researchers nationally. This new facility will train undergraduates in modelling large datasets. Together TUS and DIAS have also committed to regional educational and industrial workshops to create awareness of the expertise available from the collaboration. The first workshops will be held in conjunction with the LEO office in Offaly. Congratulating both Institutions, Minister James Lawless TD, Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation, and Science said: "I warmly congratulate DIAS and TUS on the signing of this important Memorandum of Understanding. Strategic collaboration such as this strengthens our research base and positions Ireland globally at the forefront of technological progress". Dr. Eucharia Meehan, CEO, DIAS said: "We are proud to formalise this collaboration with TUS as we mark 85 years of discovery at DIAS. Since our earliest days, DIAS has been a centre of discovery where students are welcomed and supported in their research endeavours. With this MOU we are further strengthening the research ecosystem to support talent, to foster innovation, and to deliver real impact for our research community and our economy. Building on our track record of developing research infrastructure for the benefit of research in Ireland and further afield, the establishment of a new centralised Astrophysics storage and High Performance Computing facility in partnership with TUS will provide an important resource for current and future generations of researchers." President of TUS, Professor Vincent Cunnane, said: "TUS is proud to embark on this new frontier with DIAS which will enable our students to explore previously undiscovered areas of research in the disciplines of engineering, science and technology. ...

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

Washington Policy Center's Todd Myers says President Trump's memorandum protecting the Snake River dams rolls back costly Biden Administration policies and aligns with science-based recommendations to retain the hydroelectric system. Myers explains why this move benefits Washington's economy, energy future, and salmon recovery efforts. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-president-trump-signs-memorandum-to-protect-the-snake-river-dams/ #SnakeRiverDams #ToddMyers #WashingtonPolicyCenter #Hydropower #ColumbiaRiverBasin #TrumpMemo #BidenAdministration #SalmonRecovery #VancouverWA #ClarkCountyToday

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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​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.

Ireland and Northern Ireland's cybersecurity sectors are set to deepen collaboration and unlock new opportunities as Cyber Ireland and NI Cyber today announced a landmark Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) at their event "All Island Cybersecurity Sector Opportunity" in the City North Hotel, County Meath. The MoU outlines key shared goals to align with both clusters' strategic priorities, including enhancing cross-border connections, supporting industry-academic R&D collaboration, and raising the international profile of the all-island sector. The announcement coincides with the launch of a comprehensive report commissioned by Cyber Ireland and NI Cyber, with support from InterTradeIreland's Synergy Programme. Produced by Perspective Economics, the report provides the first in-depth mapping of the all-island cybersecurity ecosystem. Key findings from the report reveal that the all-island cybersecurity sector is among the largest in Western Europe, comprising 632 firms and employing 10,600 professionals, with the sector generating an estimated €3.2 (£2.9 bn) billion and contributing €1.5 (£1.3 bn) billion in Gross Value Added (GVA) in the most recent financial year. Irish firms alone have seen revenue growth of 13.4% annually over the past two years, signifying steady growth for the cybersecurity sector. The study also highlights that the all-island cybersecurity sector benefits greatly from the presence of multinational companies, as well as indigenous enterprises, with 41% of firms headquartered in Ireland and 7% in Northern Ireland. However, barriers remain for the industry with policy gaps, procurement challenges and security clearance issues hindering cross-border collaboration. Speaking at the event, Eoin Byrne, Cluster Manager at Cyber Ireland, stated: "Cybersecurity is not just a technological issue, it's a strategic economic opportunity. This report demonstrates the strength of the all-island cybersecurity sector and the huge potential to improve our cyber resilience and drive economic growth by working together. The signing of the MoU between Cyber Ireland and NI Cyber is a major step forward in that journey." Joanne English, Cluster Manager at NI Cyber, added: "The cybersecurity threats we face don't stop at borders. Through enhanced collaboration, we can boost innovation and better support our companies and communities. This report and its findings highlight the opportunity for our respective clusters. The MoU paves the way for joint action and shared success. 42 cybersecurity companies already have active offices in both NI and Ireland, which shows a clear appetite for cross-border collaboration, and we must now work to realise the opportunities of a more integrated all-island cybersecurity market." Alison Currie, Director of Innovation & Entrepreneurship at InterTradeIreland, commented: "Cybersecurity is now a critical and vital consideration for all businesses. This report, funded by our Synergy programme, will benefit all businesses across the island of Ireland as they strive to collectively improve their cybersecurity preparedness, support their digitalisation processes and reduce their risk of cyber-attacks. InterTradeIreland is committed to supporting the cybersecurity sector as it continues to collaborate, innovate and overcome obstacles to further accelerate growth potential." To learn more about the partnership and the all-island cybersecurity sector, visit cyberireland.ie or nicyber.tech. More about Irish Tech News Irish Tech News are Ireland's No. 1 Online Tech Publication and often Ireland's No.1 Tech Podcast too. You can find hundreds of fantastic previous episodes and subscribe using whatever platform you like via our Anchor.fm page here: https://anchor.fm/irish-tech-news If you'd like to be featured in an upcoming Podcast email us at Simon@IrishTechNews.ie now to discuss. Irish Tech News have a range of services available to help promote your business. Why not drop us a line at Info@IrishTechNews.ie...

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.

Die Geschichte verzeihe weder Zaudern noch Zögern, hat Ursula von der Leyen gerade bei der Verleihung des Karlspreises gesagt. Host Kai Küstner beleuchtet die Frage, ob die neue Bundesregierung sowohl bei der militärischen Stärkung Europas als auch bei der Unterstützung der Ukraine nun eine Führungsrolle zu übernehmen bereit ist. Der Berlin-Besuch des ukrainischen Präsidenten Selenskyj lieferte erste Hinweise, wie gemeinsame Rüstungsprojekte für weitreichende Waffen aussehen könnten. Stefan Niemann schildert die Lage an der Front, berichtet von einer möglichen russischen Offensive im Raum Sumy und beschreibt, warum ein neuer Drohnentyp mit Glasfaseranbindung für die ukrainische Landesverteidigung besonders bedrohlich ist. Eher gering sind die Erwartungen in Kiew vor den für Montag geplanten erneuten russisch-ukrainischen Gesprächen in Istanbul – zumal Moskau sich weigert, sein Memorandum vorab vorzulegen. Der Militärökonom an der Militärakademie ETH Zürich, Marcus Keupp, nennt die Gespräche "Scheinverhandlungen". Russland werde erst dann mit ernsthaften Absichten an den Verhandlungstisch treten, wenn es vor der Perspektive stehe, den Krieg zu verlieren. Nötig sei militärischer Druck. Das Einzige, was Russland respektiere, seien Mut und Stärke. Wenn Europa dies anerkennen würde, müsste es "politisch völlig anders auftreten". Im Interview mit Anna Engelke erklärt Keupp, wie realistisch es ist, dass Russland in wenigen Jahren einen NATO-Staat angreift, warum man keine Angst vor russischen Atomwaffen haben sollte und wie es um Russlands Wirtschaftskraft steht. Der Militärökonom wirft auch einen Blick auf die Einsatzfähigkeit der Bundeswehr. Lob und Kritik, alles bitte per Mail an streitkraefte@ndr.de Alle Folgen von "Streitkräfte und Strategien" https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/podcast2998.html Das Interview mit Militärökonom Marcus Matthias Keupp https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/audio1883786.html Zum Besuch des ukrainischen Präsidenten bei Merz: https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/selenskyj-merz-berlin-100.html „Spurwechsel - die neue Weltordnung nach Russlands Krieg“ - Marcus Keupp https://bastei-luebbe.de/Buecher/Sachbuecher/Spurwechsel/9783869951539 Podcast-Tipp: Weltspiegel-Podcast "Migration in Dänemark: Härte statt Hygge" https://1.ard.de/weltspiegel_podcast?cp=sus

Il tribunale federale statunitense per il commercio internazionale ha giudicato illegittimi i dazi che l'amministrazione Trump ha imposto ricorrendo all'International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Ne parliamo con Claudio Dordi, professore di Diritto internazionale all'Università Bocconi.Elon Musk ha annunciato ieri con un post su X la fine del suo impegno a guida del dipartimento DOGE. Ne parliamo con Mario Del Pero, Professore a Sciences Po, Parigi.Il Ministro degli esteri russo Sergey Lavrov ha proposto di tenere il secondo round di colloqui diretti tra delegazione russa e quella ucraina a Istanbul il 2 giugno. Con l'occasione, Mosca presenterà il Memorandum di pace che Kiev aveva chiesto di poter visionare in anticipo. Ne parliamo Antonella Scott, giornalista del Sole 24Ore esperta di Russia.

Bei einem geplanten Gespräch in Istanbul will Russland ihr „Memorandum“ für eine Beendigung des Ukraine-Konflikts präsentieren.

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.

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.

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.

memorandum of law in support of a motion for sanctions is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the legal arguments and relevant facts supporting a party's request for the court to impose penalties or corrective measures against an opposing party for misconduct or violation of court rules. Here's a detailed breakdown of what it typically includes:Structure and Content:Title and Caption:The document begins with a title that clearly states it is a "Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Sanctions."The caption includes the name of the court, the parties involved in the case, the case number, and other identifying information.Introduction:A brief overview of the nature of the motion and the sanctions being requested.A summary of the key points that will be elaborated on in the memorandum.Background and Factual Context:A detailed explanation of the facts that led to the motion for sanctions.Specific instances of the opposing party's misconduct or violation of court rules.Any previous warnings or attempts to resolve the issue without court intervention.Legal Standard:An outline of the legal standards and rules governing sanctions (e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Rule 37, or other applicable state or federal rules).Discussion of the authority and discretion of the court to impose sanctions under these rules.Argument:A comprehensive legal argument detailing why sanctions are appropriate in this case.Citation of relevant case law, statutes, and rules that support the request for sanctions.Analysis of how the opposing party's conduct fits within the legal framework warranting sanctions.Discussion of the specific type of sanctions being sought (e.g., monetary penalties, dismissal of claims, striking of pleadings, etc.).Conclusion:A concise statement reiterating the request for sanctions.A summary of the key reasons the court should grant the motion.Certificate of Service:A statement verifying that the memorandum and the motion for sanctions have been properly served on the opposing party.Purpose and Importance:Accountability: It seeks to hold the opposing party accountable for improper conduct, such as frivolous filings, failure to comply with discovery obligations, or other abuses of the judicial process.Deterrence: Imposing sanctions serves to deter similar conduct in the future by the offending party or others.Compensation: Sanctions can compensate the moving party for expenses incurred due to the misconduct, such as attorney fees and costs.Efficiency: It helps maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process by discouraging actions that waste court time and resources.(commercial at 8:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:2024.05.17 MOL ISO Motion for Sanctions(8677390.10) (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

memorandum of law in support of a motion for sanctions is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the legal arguments and relevant facts supporting a party's request for the court to impose penalties or corrective measures against an opposing party for misconduct or violation of court rules. Here's a detailed breakdown of what it typically includes:Structure and Content:Title and Caption:The document begins with a title that clearly states it is a "Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Sanctions."The caption includes the name of the court, the parties involved in the case, the case number, and other identifying information.Introduction:A brief overview of the nature of the motion and the sanctions being requested.A summary of the key points that will be elaborated on in the memorandum.Background and Factual Context:A detailed explanation of the facts that led to the motion for sanctions.Specific instances of the opposing party's misconduct or violation of court rules.Any previous warnings or attempts to resolve the issue without court intervention.Legal Standard:An outline of the legal standards and rules governing sanctions (e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Rule 37, or other applicable state or federal rules).Discussion of the authority and discretion of the court to impose sanctions under these rules.Argument:A comprehensive legal argument detailing why sanctions are appropriate in this case.Citation of relevant case law, statutes, and rules that support the request for sanctions.Analysis of how the opposing party's conduct fits within the legal framework warranting sanctions.Discussion of the specific type of sanctions being sought (e.g., monetary penalties, dismissal of claims, striking of pleadings, etc.).Conclusion:A concise statement reiterating the request for sanctions.A summary of the key reasons the court should grant the motion.Certificate of Service:A statement verifying that the memorandum and the motion for sanctions have been properly served on the opposing party.Purpose and Importance:Accountability: It seeks to hold the opposing party accountable for improper conduct, such as frivolous filings, failure to comply with discovery obligations, or other abuses of the judicial process.Deterrence: Imposing sanctions serves to deter similar conduct in the future by the offending party or others.Compensation: Sanctions can compensate the moving party for expenses incurred due to the misconduct, such as attorney fees and costs.Efficiency: It helps maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process by discouraging actions that waste court time and resources.(commercial at 8:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:2024.05.17 MOL ISO Motion for Sanctions(8677390.10) (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

memorandum of law in support of a motion for sanctions is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the legal arguments and relevant facts supporting a party's request for the court to impose penalties or corrective measures against an opposing party for misconduct or violation of court rules. Here's a detailed breakdown of what it typically includes:Structure and Content:Title and Caption:The document begins with a title that clearly states it is a "Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Sanctions."The caption includes the name of the court, the parties involved in the case, the case number, and other identifying information.Introduction:A brief overview of the nature of the motion and the sanctions being requested.A summary of the key points that will be elaborated on in the memorandum.Background and Factual Context:A detailed explanation of the facts that led to the motion for sanctions.Specific instances of the opposing party's misconduct or violation of court rules.Any previous warnings or attempts to resolve the issue without court intervention.Legal Standard:An outline of the legal standards and rules governing sanctions (e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, Rule 37, or other applicable state or federal rules).Discussion of the authority and discretion of the court to impose sanctions under these rules.Argument:A comprehensive legal argument detailing why sanctions are appropriate in this case.Citation of relevant case law, statutes, and rules that support the request for sanctions.Analysis of how the opposing party's conduct fits within the legal framework warranting sanctions.Discussion of the specific type of sanctions being sought (e.g., monetary penalties, dismissal of claims, striking of pleadings, etc.).Conclusion:A concise statement reiterating the request for sanctions.A summary of the key reasons the court should grant the motion.Certificate of Service:A statement verifying that the memorandum and the motion for sanctions have been properly served on the opposing party.Purpose and Importance:Accountability: It seeks to hold the opposing party accountable for improper conduct, such as frivolous filings, failure to comply with discovery obligations, or other abuses of the judicial process.Deterrence: Imposing sanctions serves to deter similar conduct in the future by the offending party or others.Compensation: Sanctions can compensate the moving party for expenses incurred due to the misconduct, such as attorney fees and costs.Efficiency: It helps maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process by discouraging actions that waste court time and resources.(commercial at 8:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:2024.05.17 MOL ISO Motion for Sanctions(8677390.10) (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