Podcasts about protective order

The wife of the Maryland man who the US government mistakenly deported to El Salvador acknowledged that she had filed a civil protective order against him four years ago, but said it was out of an abundance of caution and that the couple had worked through their issues. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

EXPLORING SECRET SOCIETIES A secret society is an organization that conceals its activities, events, inner workings, or membership, and may or may not attempt to conceal its existence.  Here's a more detailed look at secret societies: General Characteristics: Concealment: The core feature is the deliberate attempt to keep certain aspects of the organization hidden. Varying Degrees of Secrecy: Some societies maintain complete secrecy about their existence, while others may be known but keep their activities or membership lists hidden.  Examples: Secret societies can range from collegiate groups like Skull and Bones at Yale to magical organizations or even groups with political or social agendas.  Collegiate Secret Societies: Some secret societies have kept their membership secret until graduation; others never reveal membership until death.  Membership: On campuses that have both secret societies and traditional fraternities and sororities, one can be a member of both kinds of organizations. That is, membership is not mutually exclusive. Usually, being a member of more than one traditional fraternity or sorority is not considered appropriate because that member would have divided loyalties. However, typically, there is no issue with being a member of a secret society and a fraternity, because they are not considered similar organizations or competing organizations.[1] Many secret societies exist as honoraries on one campus and may have been actual meeting societies at one time, kept alive by one or two dedicated local alumni or an alumni affairs or dean's office person who sees to it that an annual initiation is held every year. Some of these state that they are honoraries; others seek to perpetuate the image of a continuing active society where there is none.   A SHORT LISTING OF AMERICA'S MOST SECRET OF ALL SECRET SOCIETIES A American Mafia - Cosa Nostra AMORC - Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis Ancient Order of Hibernians Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks Five Points Gang Fraternal Order of Eagles Freemasonry in the United States Independent Order of Odd Fellows Knights of Pythias Knights of the Golden Circle Know Nothing Ku Klux Klan  Moose International Ordo Templi Orientis Improved Order of Red Men Tammany Hall  The 21 Society Alpha Gamma American Protective Association American Protestant Association AMORC Ancient and Honorable Order of Turtles Ancient and Illustrious Order Knights Of Malta Ancient Mystic Order of Samaritans Ancient Order of Freesmiths Ancient Order of Hibernians B Book and Snake Brotherhood of American Yeomen Brotherhood of the Union Brothers in Unity C Casque and Gauntlet Church Association for the Advancement of the Interests of Labor Columbian Mutual Life Assurance Society Coming Men of America Committee of Safety (Hawaii) Concatenated Order of Hoo-Hoo Council for National Policy Cowbellion de Rakin Society D Danite Daughters of America E E Clampus Vitus Fraternal Order of Eagles F Fire and Skoal Flat Hat Club Fly Club List of Fly Club members Fraternal Order Orioles G Gridiron (secret society) H Hermetic Brotherhood of Light I Improved Order of Heptasophs Independent Order of Odd Fellows Indiana White Caps Innocents Society Iron Arrow Honor Society Ivy Club K Knights and Ladies of Honor Knights of Honor Knights of Liberty (vigilante group) Knights of Pythias Knights of Pythias of North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia Knights of Reciprocity Knights of the Ancient Order of the Mystic Chain Knights of the Forest Knights of the Globe Knights of the Golden Circle Knights of the Golden Eagle L League of Friendship, Mechanical Order of the Sun List of Atomwaffen Division members in the United States who faced criminal charges Loyal Nine M Mace and Chain The Machine (secret society) Manuscript Society Mattachine Society Medusa Society Military Order of the Carabao Military Order of the Serpent Modern Woodmen of America Mystical Seven (Missouri) Myth and Sword N National Grange The NoZe Brotherhood O O.W.L. Society OBC (secret society) Order of Ammon Order of Angell Order of Chosen Friends Order of Gimghoul Order of Heptasophs Order of Myths Order of Owls Order of the Golden Bear Order of the Occult Hand Order of the Star Spangled Banner Order of United American Mechanics Ordo Templi Orientis Owl Club (Harvard) P P.E.O. Sisterhood Paladin Society Penitentes (New Mexico) Phi Delta Theta Porcellian Club The Pundits Q QEBH Quill and Dagger R Raven Society Red Dragon Society Improved Order of Red Men Royal Arcanum S Sage and Chalice Scroll and Key Secret Society of Happy People Seven Society Seven Society (College of William & Mary) Sigma Sigma Skull and Bones Skull and Dagger (honor society) Societas Domi Pacificae Society for American Civic Renewal Solar Lodge The Sons of Lee Marvin Sons of Liberty Sons of Malta Spade and Grave Sphinx (senior society) Sphinx Head Sphinx Senior Society Stewards Society Striker's Independent Society Suicide Club (secret society) T Tammany Hall Theta Nu Epsilon Timeline of crimes involving the Order of Nine Angles U United Ancient Order of Druids United Order of Tents V Vibora Luviminda W Whitecapping      

Former Gov. Bevin and his adopted son reach a settlement in a protective order case, Gov. Beshear signs bill allowing Kentucky teens to apply for driver permits at 15, Congressman Barr hosts a telephone town hall after declining to attend a town hall in Lexington, Congressman McGarvey says Pres. Trump's tariffs hurt Americans, crews discuss cleanup still underway after deadly flooding in Pike Co.

Lively and Baldoni case updates, a visit from Paul Mcguire Grimes, one star strip clubs, and a spider-y Five Second Rule! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jonah Bevin says he was sent to an abusive facility before Matt Bevin tried to send him back to Ethiopia.

Blake Lively & Ryan Reynolds's legal team battles it out in court against Justin Baldoni & Co. over the Protective Orders they're requesting! Let's discuss. Plus, former employees speak out about Baldoni's work environment, which had too much "toxic positivity."   Eat smart with Factor. Get started at www.factormeals.com/FACTORPODCAST and use code FACTORPODCAST to get 50% off your first box plus free shipping.   Use code TRUELUNCH for 20% off your Panera You Pick Two order on DoorDash. From March 3 through March 12. Terms apply.   Start your hair growth journey with Nutrafol. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping at www.Nutrafol.com and use promo code NOFILTER.    Shop New Merch now: https://merchlabs.com/collections/zack-peter?srsltid=AfmBOoqqnV3kfsOYPubFFxCQdpCuGjVgssGIXZRXHcLPH9t4GjiKoaio   Book a personalized message on Cameo: https://v.cameo.com/e/QxWQhpd1TIb   Listen to The Pop Report: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-pop-report/id1746150111 Watch Disaster Daters: https://open.spotify.com/show/3L4GLnKwz9Uy5dT8Ey1VPi   Join the Zack Pack Community to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs3Zs51YaK-xw2U5ypi5eqg/join   Couldn't get enough? Follow @justplainzack or @nofilterwithzack

In this episode, Sarah J. Hink and Ava K. Jennette from New Direction Family Law discuss the procedural steps involved in obtaining a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) in North Carolina. They offer advice on resources such as local domestic violence resource centers and highlight the essential details needed in the complaint form, including specific allegations and dates. The discussion includes what to expect during the ex parte hearing, service of the abuser, and the return hearing. They also cover the potential consequences of violating a DVPO, the importance of including all relevant incidents in the complaint, and the role of Legal Aid in assisting victims. The episode provides comprehensive guidance for those looking to pursue or defend against a DVPO, emphasizing the importance of legal representation.00:00 Introduction to the Episode00:30 Understanding Domestic Violence Protective Orders01:39 Filing for a Protective Order02:25 Details and Allegations in the Complaint06:30 The Ex Parte Order Process08:47 Preparing for the Return Hearing09:57 Defending Against False Allegations13:17 Consequences of Violating a Protective Order17:56 Renewing a Protective Order19:56 Final Advice and ResourcesLearn more about New Direction Family Law: https://newdirectionfamilylaw.com/contact-us-today/

In Case No. S1 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the court issued an Addendum to the Protective Order to further delineate the handling of sensitive materials during the legal proceedings. This addendum emphasizes that the provisions outlined in the original protective order remain in effect beyond the conclusion of the criminal prosecution, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce compliance. It specifies that while disclosure of protected materials is permissible during hearings or trials within this case, such materials are restricted from use in other civil litigations or alternative dispute resolutions unless explicitly authorized by the court. Additionally, the addendum mandates that defense counsel provide copies of the protective order to prospective witnesses and any individuals retained for the defense who may access the protected materials, ensuring all parties are aware of and adhere to the confidentiality requirements. Upon the case's resolution, defense counsel is obligated to return or securely destroy all disclosed materials within a specified timeframe, maintaining records of any information shared, consistent with the order's stipulations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629911.49.0.pdf

In Case No. S1 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the court issued an Addendum to the Protective Order to further delineate the handling of sensitive materials during the legal proceedings. This addendum emphasizes that the provisions outlined in the original protective order remain in effect beyond the conclusion of the criminal prosecution, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce compliance. It specifies that while disclosure of protected materials is permissible during hearings or trials within this case, such materials are restricted from use in other civil litigations or alternative dispute resolutions unless explicitly authorized by the court. Additionally, the addendum mandates that defense counsel provide copies of the protective order to prospective witnesses and any individuals retained for the defense who may access the protected materials, ensuring all parties are aware of and adhere to the confidentiality requirements. Upon the case's resolution, defense counsel is obligated to return or securely destroy all disclosed materials within a specified timeframe, maintaining records of any information shared, consistent with the order's stipulations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629911.49.0.pdf

In Case No. S1 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the court issued an Addendum to the Protective Order to further delineate the handling of sensitive materials during the legal proceedings. This addendum emphasizes that the provisions outlined in the original protective order remain in effect beyond the conclusion of the criminal prosecution, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce compliance. It specifies that while disclosure of protected materials is permissible during hearings or trials within this case, such materials are restricted from use in other civil litigations or alternative dispute resolutions unless explicitly authorized by the court. Additionally, the addendum mandates that defense counsel provide copies of the protective order to prospective witnesses and any individuals retained for the defense who may access the protected materials, ensuring all parties are aware of and adhere to the confidentiality requirements. Upon the case's resolution, defense counsel is obligated to return or securely destroy all disclosed materials within a specified timeframe, maintaining records of any information shared, consistent with the order's stipulations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629911.49.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The “It Ends With Us” lawsuits have a court date of March 9th, 2026. The attorneys faced off in Court on February 3rd, 2025, arguing who started the smear campaign and the judge promptly told them to knock it off. The Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni Federal lawsuits against each other have been consolidated and many issues were addressed. The Joneswork PR vs Baldoni lawsuit was filed on January 27th, 2025, and is a related lawsuit to the consolidated cases. The NY Times hasn't been served yet and Lively's attorneys argued that the case may need to be unconsolidated after just being recently consolidated due to The NY Times being a defendant. Lively intends to file a Protective Order on Discovery which is normal for high profile cases.Diddy received a Superseding Indictment which added additional victims to the racketeering conspiracy charges.Shortly after Karen Read's Hearing on January 31st, 2025, Judge Cannone made a ruling not to do a Daubert Hearing on the defense digital forensics expert, Mr. Green. She had also narrowed a prior ruling regarding journalist Gretchen Voss' notes allowing most of it to remain private. Sarah Boone wrote a letter to the courts because she said that a Notice to Appeal was not filed on her case. The Court wrote back to her informing who her Appellate Attorney is. According to the Sarah Boone's Online Docket, it says that the Notice of Appeal was filed on December 18th, 2024 but received by the Clerk on January 31st, 2025. It seems like a clerical error and it should not affect the progress of her case.RESOURCESBaldoni Wayfarer Parties Website – https://thelawsuitinfo.comLively Federal Lawsuit Complaint – https://emilydbaker.com/LivelyFederalComplaintThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

The Government has submitted a brief response to the defendant's letter dated January 24, 2025 (Dkt. No. 135), which contains new and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. The defendant's claims are based on declarations filed by the Government and the Bureau of Prisons in response to the Court's January 3, 2025 Order. These declarations, referenced as Dkt. No. 123, Dkt. No. 131-1 (“Pros. Team Decl.”), and Dkt. No. 131-2 (“Investigator-1 Decl.”), were submitted to address specific inquiries from the Court.In its response, the Government maintains that the defendant's allegations lack factual support and do not accurately reflect the content of the submitted declarations. The Government emphasizes that its filings were made in compliance with the Court's directives and that the assertions of misconduct raised by the defense are without merit. The response seeks to clarify the record and ensure that the proceedings remain focused on the legal and evidentiary issues at hand.AlsoThe Government has submitted a response opposing the defendant's motion to modify the terms of the Protective Order, which seeks to require the electronic production of specific videos referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the Indictment (Dkt. 129). The Government argues that the Court should deny this request, as the sensitive nature of these videos justifies their current designation under the Protective Order, which allows only for in-person inspection. The Government asserts that the existing restrictions are necessary to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the evidence.Additionally, the Government highlights the defendant's alleged violation of the Protective Order by improperly disclosing details of the videos in his motion without the required redactions. This breach, according to the Government, further supports the need for strict safeguards regarding the handling of these materials. The response emphasizes that allowing electronic production would increase the risk of unauthorized disclosure, making it essential to uphold the current protective measures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.138.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.136.0.pdf

The Government has submitted a brief response to the defendant's letter dated January 24, 2025 (Dkt. No. 135), which contains new and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. The defendant's claims are based on declarations filed by the Government and the Bureau of Prisons in response to the Court's January 3, 2025 Order. These declarations, referenced as Dkt. No. 123, Dkt. No. 131-1 (“Pros. Team Decl.”), and Dkt. No. 131-2 (“Investigator-1 Decl.”), were submitted to address specific inquiries from the Court.In its response, the Government maintains that the defendant's allegations lack factual support and do not accurately reflect the content of the submitted declarations. The Government emphasizes that its filings were made in compliance with the Court's directives and that the assertions of misconduct raised by the defense are without merit. The response seeks to clarify the record and ensure that the proceedings remain focused on the legal and evidentiary issues at hand.AlsoThe Government has submitted a response opposing the defendant's motion to modify the terms of the Protective Order, which seeks to require the electronic production of specific videos referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the Indictment (Dkt. 129). The Government argues that the Court should deny this request, as the sensitive nature of these videos justifies their current designation under the Protective Order, which allows only for in-person inspection. The Government asserts that the existing restrictions are necessary to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the evidence.Additionally, the Government highlights the defendant's alleged violation of the Protective Order by improperly disclosing details of the videos in his motion without the required redactions. This breach, according to the Government, further supports the need for strict safeguards regarding the handling of these materials. The response emphasizes that allowing electronic production would increase the risk of unauthorized disclosure, making it essential to uphold the current protective measures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.138.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.136.0.pdf

The Government has submitted a brief response to the defendant's letter dated January 24, 2025 (Dkt. No. 135), which contains new and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. The defendant's claims are based on declarations filed by the Government and the Bureau of Prisons in response to the Court's January 3, 2025 Order. These declarations, referenced as Dkt. No. 123, Dkt. No. 131-1 (“Pros. Team Decl.”), and Dkt. No. 131-2 (“Investigator-1 Decl.”), were submitted to address specific inquiries from the Court.In its response, the Government maintains that the defendant's allegations lack factual support and do not accurately reflect the content of the submitted declarations. The Government emphasizes that its filings were made in compliance with the Court's directives and that the assertions of misconduct raised by the defense are without merit. The response seeks to clarify the record and ensure that the proceedings remain focused on the legal and evidentiary issues at hand.AlsoThe Government has submitted a response opposing the defendant's motion to modify the terms of the Protective Order, which seeks to require the electronic production of specific videos referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the Indictment (Dkt. 129). The Government argues that the Court should deny this request, as the sensitive nature of these videos justifies their current designation under the Protective Order, which allows only for in-person inspection. The Government asserts that the existing restrictions are necessary to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the evidence.Additionally, the Government highlights the defendant's alleged violation of the Protective Order by improperly disclosing details of the videos in his motion without the required redactions. This breach, according to the Government, further supports the need for strict safeguards regarding the handling of these materials. The response emphasizes that allowing electronic production would increase the risk of unauthorized disclosure, making it essential to uphold the current protective measures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.138.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.136.0.pdf

The Government has submitted a brief response to the defendant's letter dated January 24, 2025 (Dkt. No. 135), which contains new and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. The defendant's claims are based on declarations filed by the Government and the Bureau of Prisons in response to the Court's January 3, 2025 Order. These declarations, referenced as Dkt. No. 123, Dkt. No. 131-1 (“Pros. Team Decl.”), and Dkt. No. 131-2 (“Investigator-1 Decl.”), were submitted to address specific inquiries from the Court.In its response, the Government maintains that the defendant's allegations lack factual support and do not accurately reflect the content of the submitted declarations. The Government emphasizes that its filings were made in compliance with the Court's directives and that the assertions of misconduct raised by the defense are without merit. The response seeks to clarify the record and ensure that the proceedings remain focused on the legal and evidentiary issues at hand.AlsoThe Government has submitted a response opposing the defendant's motion to modify the terms of the Protective Order, which seeks to require the electronic production of specific videos referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the Indictment (Dkt. 129). The Government argues that the Court should deny this request, as the sensitive nature of these videos justifies their current designation under the Protective Order, which allows only for in-person inspection. The Government asserts that the existing restrictions are necessary to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the evidence.Additionally, the Government highlights the defendant's alleged violation of the Protective Order by improperly disclosing details of the videos in his motion without the required redactions. This breach, according to the Government, further supports the need for strict safeguards regarding the handling of these materials. The response emphasizes that allowing electronic production would increase the risk of unauthorized disclosure, making it essential to uphold the current protective measures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.138.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.136.0.pdf

The Government has submitted a brief response to the defendant's letter dated January 24, 2025 (Dkt. No. 135), which contains new and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. The defendant's claims are based on declarations filed by the Government and the Bureau of Prisons in response to the Court's January 3, 2025 Order. These declarations, referenced as Dkt. No. 123, Dkt. No. 131-1 (“Pros. Team Decl.”), and Dkt. No. 131-2 (“Investigator-1 Decl.”), were submitted to address specific inquiries from the Court.In its response, the Government maintains that the defendant's allegations lack factual support and do not accurately reflect the content of the submitted declarations. The Government emphasizes that its filings were made in compliance with the Court's directives and that the assertions of misconduct raised by the defense are without merit. The response seeks to clarify the record and ensure that the proceedings remain focused on the legal and evidentiary issues at hand.AlsoThe Government has submitted a response opposing the defendant's motion to modify the terms of the Protective Order, which seeks to require the electronic production of specific videos referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the Indictment (Dkt. 129). The Government argues that the Court should deny this request, as the sensitive nature of these videos justifies their current designation under the Protective Order, which allows only for in-person inspection. The Government asserts that the existing restrictions are necessary to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the evidence.Additionally, the Government highlights the defendant's alleged violation of the Protective Order by improperly disclosing details of the videos in his motion without the required redactions. This breach, according to the Government, further supports the need for strict safeguards regarding the handling of these materials. The response emphasizes that allowing electronic production would increase the risk of unauthorized disclosure, making it essential to uphold the current protective measures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.138.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.136.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Government has submitted a brief response to the defendant's letter dated January 24, 2025 (Dkt. No. 135), which contains new and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. The defendant's claims are based on declarations filed by the Government and the Bureau of Prisons in response to the Court's January 3, 2025 Order. These declarations, referenced as Dkt. No. 123, Dkt. No. 131-1 (“Pros. Team Decl.”), and Dkt. No. 131-2 (“Investigator-1 Decl.”), were submitted to address specific inquiries from the Court.In its response, the Government maintains that the defendant's allegations lack factual support and do not accurately reflect the content of the submitted declarations. The Government emphasizes that its filings were made in compliance with the Court's directives and that the assertions of misconduct raised by the defense are without merit. The response seeks to clarify the record and ensure that the proceedings remain focused on the legal and evidentiary issues at hand.AlsoThe Government has submitted a response opposing the defendant's motion to modify the terms of the Protective Order, which seeks to require the electronic production of specific videos referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the Indictment (Dkt. 129). The Government argues that the Court should deny this request, as the sensitive nature of these videos justifies their current designation under the Protective Order, which allows only for in-person inspection. The Government asserts that the existing restrictions are necessary to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the evidence.Additionally, the Government highlights the defendant's alleged violation of the Protective Order by improperly disclosing details of the videos in his motion without the required redactions. This breach, according to the Government, further supports the need for strict safeguards regarding the handling of these materials. The response emphasizes that allowing electronic production would increase the risk of unauthorized disclosure, making it essential to uphold the current protective measures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.138.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.136.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Diddy's lawyers filed a document that was later stricken from the docket and resubmitted in a more redacted version due to it containing information that characterized things watched on videos that are subject to a protective order. The government and the victim were displeased with the original filing. The defense argues that they complied with the court's order by filing a more redacted version but believe it's unfair and will result in an unfairly polluted jury pool. They also argue that their characterization of the evidence was appropriate and should not be sealed.The defense's argument that the protective order is too broad is disagreed with, as the protective order is already in place and they should wait for it to change before filing things not under seal. A hearing will likely be held in February to determine if the protective order will be modified, including whether the defense will have digital and physical access to the videos in question. The trial is still expected to be in May, but dealing with digital experts is not a swift process, so it may be delayed.Watch the full coverage: https://www.youtube.com/live/xOgCXktdUMg?t=1682sRESOURCESPrevious Diddy Live Stream - https://youtube.com/live/RgYrgSJBYEAThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs's legal team has filed a request for a modification to the Protective Order issued by the court. The current order restricts the defense from receiving electronic copies of video evidence referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the indictment, permitting only inspection of the footage. Combs's attorneys argue that this restriction hinders their ability to fully investigate the evidence and demonstrate its exculpatory value. They contend that the videos strongly support Combs's innocence and must be electronically produced for proper evaluation and use in his defense.Citing Rule 16(a)(1)(E), which mandates the government to provide access to relevant evidence, and Rule 16(d)(1), which limits restrictions on such evidence to cases with demonstrated "good cause," the defense asserts that no valid justification exists for withholding electronic copies. They emphasize that the videos are critical to ensuring a fair trial and argue that the government's restrictions undermine the defense's ability to effectively utilize the material alongside other Rule 16 and Brady disclosures. The motion urges the court to modify the Protective Order and allow for standard electronic production of the videos.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the government has requested that the court direct Sean Combs's defense team to remove and refile their January 14, 2025, motion to amend the Protective Order. The government argues that the defense's filing violated the existing Protective Order by failing to appropriately redact sensitive information. The motion in question seeks to modify restrictions on video evidence, which is currently limited to inspection by counsel and the defendant, without allowing for electronic production.The government asserts that the defense's incomplete redactions breach the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. 26), which is designed to safeguard the handling of specific evidence in the case. While acknowledging the defense's request to amend the order regarding the video evidence, the government emphasizes that compliance with the current protective measures is essential. They request the court to ensure the filing is re-submitted with redactions that fully adhere to the established rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.126.0.pdf

In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs's legal team has filed a request for a modification to the Protective Order issued by the court. The current order restricts the defense from receiving electronic copies of video evidence referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the indictment, permitting only inspection of the footage. Combs's attorneys argue that this restriction hinders their ability to fully investigate the evidence and demonstrate its exculpatory value. They contend that the videos strongly support Combs's innocence and must be electronically produced for proper evaluation and use in his defense.Citing Rule 16(a)(1)(E), which mandates the government to provide access to relevant evidence, and Rule 16(d)(1), which limits restrictions on such evidence to cases with demonstrated "good cause," the defense asserts that no valid justification exists for withholding electronic copies. They emphasize that the videos are critical to ensuring a fair trial and argue that the government's restrictions undermine the defense's ability to effectively utilize the material alongside other Rule 16 and Brady disclosures. The motion urges the court to modify the Protective Order and allow for standard electronic production of the videos.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the government has requested that the court direct Sean Combs's defense team to remove and refile their January 14, 2025, motion to amend the Protective Order. The government argues that the defense's filing violated the existing Protective Order by failing to appropriately redact sensitive information. The motion in question seeks to modify restrictions on video evidence, which is currently limited to inspection by counsel and the defendant, without allowing for electronic production.The government asserts that the defense's incomplete redactions breach the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. 26), which is designed to safeguard the handling of specific evidence in the case. While acknowledging the defense's request to amend the order regarding the video evidence, the government emphasizes that compliance with the current protective measures is essential. They request the court to ensure the filing is re-submitted with redactions that fully adhere to the established rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.126.0.pdf

In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs's legal team has filed a request for a modification to the Protective Order issued by the court. The current order restricts the defense from receiving electronic copies of video evidence referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the indictment, permitting only inspection of the footage. Combs's attorneys argue that this restriction hinders their ability to fully investigate the evidence and demonstrate its exculpatory value. They contend that the videos strongly support Combs's innocence and must be electronically produced for proper evaluation and use in his defense.Citing Rule 16(a)(1)(E), which mandates the government to provide access to relevant evidence, and Rule 16(d)(1), which limits restrictions on such evidence to cases with demonstrated "good cause," the defense asserts that no valid justification exists for withholding electronic copies. They emphasize that the videos are critical to ensuring a fair trial and argue that the government's restrictions undermine the defense's ability to effectively utilize the material alongside other Rule 16 and Brady disclosures. The motion urges the court to modify the Protective Order and allow for standard electronic production of the videos.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the government has requested that the court direct Sean Combs's defense team to remove and refile their January 14, 2025, motion to amend the Protective Order. The government argues that the defense's filing violated the existing Protective Order by failing to appropriately redact sensitive information. The motion in question seeks to modify restrictions on video evidence, which is currently limited to inspection by counsel and the defendant, without allowing for electronic production.The government asserts that the defense's incomplete redactions breach the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. 26), which is designed to safeguard the handling of specific evidence in the case. While acknowledging the defense's request to amend the order regarding the video evidence, the government emphasizes that compliance with the current protective measures is essential. They request the court to ensure the filing is re-submitted with redactions that fully adhere to the established rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.126.0.pdf

In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs's legal team has filed a request for a modification to the Protective Order issued by the court. The current order restricts the defense from receiving electronic copies of video evidence referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the indictment, permitting only inspection of the footage. Combs's attorneys argue that this restriction hinders their ability to fully investigate the evidence and demonstrate its exculpatory value. They contend that the videos strongly support Combs's innocence and must be electronically produced for proper evaluation and use in his defense.Citing Rule 16(a)(1)(E), which mandates the government to provide access to relevant evidence, and Rule 16(d)(1), which limits restrictions on such evidence to cases with demonstrated "good cause," the defense asserts that no valid justification exists for withholding electronic copies. They emphasize that the videos are critical to ensuring a fair trial and argue that the government's restrictions undermine the defense's ability to effectively utilize the material alongside other Rule 16 and Brady disclosures. The motion urges the court to modify the Protective Order and allow for standard electronic production of the videos.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the government has requested that the court direct Sean Combs's defense team to remove and refile their January 14, 2025, motion to amend the Protective Order. The government argues that the defense's filing violated the existing Protective Order by failing to appropriately redact sensitive information. The motion in question seeks to modify restrictions on video evidence, which is currently limited to inspection by counsel and the defendant, without allowing for electronic production.The government asserts that the defense's incomplete redactions breach the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. 26), which is designed to safeguard the handling of specific evidence in the case. While acknowledging the defense's request to amend the order regarding the video evidence, the government emphasizes that compliance with the current protective measures is essential. They request the court to ensure the filing is re-submitted with redactions that fully adhere to the established rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.126.0.pdf

In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs's legal team has filed a request for a modification to the Protective Order issued by the court. The current order restricts the defense from receiving electronic copies of video evidence referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the indictment, permitting only inspection of the footage. Combs's attorneys argue that this restriction hinders their ability to fully investigate the evidence and demonstrate its exculpatory value. They contend that the videos strongly support Combs's innocence and must be electronically produced for proper evaluation and use in his defense.Citing Rule 16(a)(1)(E), which mandates the government to provide access to relevant evidence, and Rule 16(d)(1), which limits restrictions on such evidence to cases with demonstrated "good cause," the defense asserts that no valid justification exists for withholding electronic copies. They emphasize that the videos are critical to ensuring a fair trial and argue that the government's restrictions undermine the defense's ability to effectively utilize the material alongside other Rule 16 and Brady disclosures. The motion urges the court to modify the Protective Order and allow for standard electronic production of the videos.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the government has requested that the court direct Sean Combs's defense team to remove and refile their January 14, 2025, motion to amend the Protective Order. The government argues that the defense's filing violated the existing Protective Order by failing to appropriately redact sensitive information. The motion in question seeks to modify restrictions on video evidence, which is currently limited to inspection by counsel and the defendant, without allowing for electronic production.The government asserts that the defense's incomplete redactions breach the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. 26), which is designed to safeguard the handling of specific evidence in the case. While acknowledging the defense's request to amend the order regarding the video evidence, the government emphasizes that compliance with the current protective measures is essential. They request the court to ensure the filing is re-submitted with redactions that fully adhere to the established rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.126.0.pdf

In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs's legal team has filed a request for a modification to the Protective Order issued by the court. The current order restricts the defense from receiving electronic copies of video evidence referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the indictment, permitting only inspection of the footage. Combs's attorneys argue that this restriction hinders their ability to fully investigate the evidence and demonstrate its exculpatory value. They contend that the videos strongly support Combs's innocence and must be electronically produced for proper evaluation and use in his defense.Citing Rule 16(a)(1)(E), which mandates the government to provide access to relevant evidence, and Rule 16(d)(1), which limits restrictions on such evidence to cases with demonstrated "good cause," the defense asserts that no valid justification exists for withholding electronic copies. They emphasize that the videos are critical to ensuring a fair trial and argue that the government's restrictions undermine the defense's ability to effectively utilize the material alongside other Rule 16 and Brady disclosures. The motion urges the court to modify the Protective Order and allow for standard electronic production of the videos.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the government has requested that the court direct Sean Combs's defense team to remove and refile their January 14, 2025, motion to amend the Protective Order. The government argues that the defense's filing violated the existing Protective Order by failing to appropriately redact sensitive information. The motion in question seeks to modify restrictions on video evidence, which is currently limited to inspection by counsel and the defendant, without allowing for electronic production.The government asserts that the defense's incomplete redactions breach the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. 26), which is designed to safeguard the handling of specific evidence in the case. While acknowledging the defense's request to amend the order regarding the video evidence, the government emphasizes that compliance with the current protective measures is essential. They request the court to ensure the filing is re-submitted with redactions that fully adhere to the established rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.126.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs's legal team has filed a request for a modification to the Protective Order issued by the court. The current order restricts the defense from receiving electronic copies of video evidence referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the indictment, permitting only inspection of the footage. Combs's attorneys argue that this restriction hinders their ability to fully investigate the evidence and demonstrate its exculpatory value. They contend that the videos strongly support Combs's innocence and must be electronically produced for proper evaluation and use in his defense.Citing Rule 16(a)(1)(E), which mandates the government to provide access to relevant evidence, and Rule 16(d)(1), which limits restrictions on such evidence to cases with demonstrated "good cause," the defense asserts that no valid justification exists for withholding electronic copies. They emphasize that the videos are critical to ensuring a fair trial and argue that the government's restrictions undermine the defense's ability to effectively utilize the material alongside other Rule 16 and Brady disclosures. The motion urges the court to modify the Protective Order and allow for standard electronic production of the videos.In United States v. Combs, Case No. 24 Cr. 542 (AS), the government has requested that the court direct Sean Combs's defense team to remove and refile their January 14, 2025, motion to amend the Protective Order. The government argues that the defense's filing violated the existing Protective Order by failing to appropriately redact sensitive information. The motion in question seeks to modify restrictions on video evidence, which is currently limited to inspection by counsel and the defendant, without allowing for electronic production.The government asserts that the defense's incomplete redactions breach the terms of the Protective Order (Dkt. 26), which is designed to safeguard the handling of specific evidence in the case. While acknowledging the defense's request to amend the order regarding the video evidence, the government emphasizes that compliance with the current protective measures is essential. They request the court to ensure the filing is re-submitted with redactions that fully adhere to the established rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.126.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The dive into the court documents continues in this episode as we take a look at several more court filings that have hit the docket recently.(commercial at 8:21)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest

This week Allison Wiseman joined Robert to talk to Tyler Chapman, the Democratic candidate in District 27. He spoke about running in his hometown and running while looking forward instead of backwards. Before speaking with him, Allison and Robert talked about the protective order issued against Brenda Monarrez, and the Park Ranger program in Louisville.

October 21st, 2024

A protective order was issued in Sean "Diddy" Combs' case to prevent both the prosecution and defense from sharing case materials or information with the media or public. This order aims to ensure a fair trial by limiting pre-trial publicity. Combs' legal team also requested a gag order, accusing prosecutors of leaking damaging information, including video evidence, to tarnish his reputation and influence potential jurors. The trial, which includes serious charges like sex trafficking and coercion, is set to begin on May 5, 2025.In this episode, we get a look at that order.(commercial at 7:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.26.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

A protective order was issued in Sean "Diddy" Combs' case to prevent both the prosecution and defense from sharing case materials or information with the media or public. This order aims to ensure a fair trial by limiting pre-trial publicity. Combs' legal team also requested a gag order, accusing prosecutors of leaking damaging information, including video evidence, to tarnish his reputation and influence potential jurors. The trial, which includes serious charges like sex trafficking and coercion, is set to begin on May 5, 2025.In this episode, we get a look at that order.(commercial at 7:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.26.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

A protective order was issued in Sean "Diddy" Combs' case to prevent both the prosecution and defense from sharing case materials or information with the media or public. This order aims to ensure a fair trial by limiting pre-trial publicity. Combs' legal team also requested a gag order, accusing prosecutors of leaking damaging information, including video evidence, to tarnish his reputation and influence potential jurors. The trial, which includes serious charges like sex trafficking and coercion, is set to begin on May 5, 2025.In this episode, we get a look at that order.(commercial at 7:45)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.26.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

INTRO (00:00): Kathleen opens the show drinking a Frisch's Strawberry Pie Ale from Taft's Brewing Company in Cincinnati. She reviews her weekend of sold-out shows in Ohio, talking about the Hallmark-like vibe in Marietta and eating Skyline Chili and Cincy. She visits the Moose Lodge in Marietta and explains the difference between the Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks (BPOE) and the Loyal Order of Moose. COURT NEWS (20:10): Kathleen shares the news that Jelly Roll performed at WWE's SummerSlam, Taylor Swift wrapped the Warsaw dates of her ERAS tour, Snoop Dogg is ruling the Paris Olympics NBC broadcast team, and honorary “Queen-For-A-Week” 85-year-old smoker JoAnne “Big Mama” Carner just missed the cut at the 2024 US Golf Senior Women's Open. TASTING MENU (2:45): Kathleen samples Grippo's Cincinnati Bearcats BBQ Chips and Mister Bee Biscuits & Gravy Potato chips. UPDATES (28:30): Kathleen shares updates on Baby Reindeer's Richard Gadd's position on the affiliated Netflix lawsuit, a Wisconsin man is charged with fleeing to Ireland to avoid prison for his role in the Capitol riot, and El Chapo's son denies making a deal with the US gov't to turn over El Mayo.“HOLY SHIT THEY FOUND IT” (43:55): Kathleen is amazed to read about the discovery on the Jersey Shore of the oldest message in a bottle ever found. FRONT PAGE PUB NEWS ( ): Kathleen shares articles on Aerosmith cancelling their world tour, Venice's tourist tax didn't deter enough travelers, Carrie Underwood returns to American Idol, why you should run when you see purple paint on a tree, it's been the worst season ever on Greece's “Instagram Island,” Spirit Airlines revamps its fare options, the best breakfast sandwich in the US is crowned in North Carolina, and Prince Harry continues to live in never-ending victimhood. WHAT WE'RE WATCHING: Kathleen recommends watching “Dirty Pop: The Boy Band Scam” on Netflix.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Outrage and calls for accountability have surged following the tragic murder of 61-year-old Audrey Peterson by her ex-boyfriend, 71-year-old Francis Scoza, on February 9. The incident, which resulted in Peterson's untimely death, has ignited a heated debate surrounding the actions of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Doneene Loar. Peterson's fatal encounter came merely two days after she sought legal protection against Scoza, filing a domestic injunction citing his alarming behavior, including stalking. Despite Peterson's pleas for safety, Judge Loar denied her petition for temporary protection, a decision that critics argue contributed to Peterson's murder. According to court records, Peterson's petition detailed a series of distressing incidents involving Scoza, including unsettling text messages, verbal abuse, and menacing behavior. Peterson's case highlighted her legitimate fear for her safety, prompting her to change her routine and maintain constant communication with law enforcement officials. In a heart-wrenching statement, Peterson's daughter lamented the failure of law enforcement to safeguard her mother, expressing profound disappointment in their inability to intervene effectively. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) joined the chorus of voices condemning Judge Loar's decision, asserting that the denial of Peterson's protective order directly contributed to her tragic demise. Luna, herself a victim of the judge's rulings in a previous stalking case, emphasized the urgent need for accountability and reform within the judicial system. Reflecting on Peterson's life and contributions to the community, her former supervisor, Laura Highman, described her as "legitimately scared" of Scoza and recounted Peterson's proactive efforts to ensure her safety. As the community mourns the loss of Audrey Peterson, questions linger over the efficacy of legal mechanisms designed to protect victims of domestic violence. The case has reignited conversations about the responsibilities of judicial officials in prioritizing the safety and well-being of vulnerable individuals, prompting calls for swift action and systemic change. In response to mounting pressure, Judge Loar's office has yet to issue a formal statement regarding the calls for resignation, leaving the community grappling with profound grief and a pressing demand for justice. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

Outrage and calls for accountability have surged following the tragic murder of 61-year-old Audrey Peterson by her ex-boyfriend, 71-year-old Francis Scoza, on February 9. The incident, which resulted in Peterson's untimely death, has ignited a heated debate surrounding the actions of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Doneene Loar. Peterson's fatal encounter came merely two days after she sought legal protection against Scoza, filing a domestic injunction citing his alarming behavior, including stalking. Despite Peterson's pleas for safety, Judge Loar denied her petition for temporary protection, a decision that critics argue contributed to Peterson's murder. According to court records, Peterson's petition detailed a series of distressing incidents involving Scoza, including unsettling text messages, verbal abuse, and menacing behavior. Peterson's case highlighted her legitimate fear for her safety, prompting her to change her routine and maintain constant communication with law enforcement officials. In a heart-wrenching statement, Peterson's daughter lamented the failure of law enforcement to safeguard her mother, expressing profound disappointment in their inability to intervene effectively. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) joined the chorus of voices condemning Judge Loar's decision, asserting that the denial of Peterson's protective order directly contributed to her tragic demise. Luna, herself a victim of the judge's rulings in a previous stalking case, emphasized the urgent need for accountability and reform within the judicial system. Reflecting on Peterson's life and contributions to the community, her former supervisor, Laura Highman, described her as "legitimately scared" of Scoza and recounted Peterson's proactive efforts to ensure her safety. As the community mourns the loss of Audrey Peterson, questions linger over the efficacy of legal mechanisms designed to protect victims of domestic violence. The case has reignited conversations about the responsibilities of judicial officials in prioritizing the safety and well-being of vulnerable individuals, prompting calls for swift action and systemic change. In response to mounting pressure, Judge Loar's office has yet to issue a formal statement regarding the calls for resignation, leaving the community grappling with profound grief and a pressing demand for justice. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

 Outrage and calls for accountability have surged following the tragic murder of 61-year-old Audrey Peterson by her ex-boyfriend, 71-year-old Francis Scoza, on February 9. The incident, which resulted in Peterson's untimely death, has ignited a heated debate surrounding the actions of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Doneene Loar. Peterson's fatal encounter came merely two days after she sought legal protection against Scoza, filing a domestic injunction citing his alarming behavior, including stalking. Despite Peterson's pleas for safety, Judge Loar denied her petition for temporary protection, a decision that critics argue contributed to Peterson's murder. According to court records, Peterson's petition detailed a series of distressing incidents involving Scoza, including unsettling text messages, verbal abuse, and menacing behavior. Peterson's case highlighted her legitimate fear for her safety, prompting her to change her routine and maintain constant communication with law enforcement officials. In a heart-wrenching statement, Peterson's daughter lamented the failure of law enforcement to safeguard her mother, expressing profound disappointment in their inability to intervene effectively. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) joined the chorus of voices condemning Judge Loar's decision, asserting that the denial of Peterson's protective order directly contributed to her tragic demise. Luna, herself a victim of the judge's rulings in a previous stalking case, emphasized the urgent need for accountability and reform within the judicial system. Reflecting on Peterson's life and contributions to the community, her former supervisor, Laura Highman, described her as "legitimately scared" of Scoza and recounted Peterson's proactive efforts to ensure her safety. As the community mourns the loss of Audrey Peterson, questions linger over the efficacy of legal mechanisms designed to protect victims of domestic violence. The case has reignited conversations about the responsibilities of judicial officials in prioritizing the safety and well-being of vulnerable individuals, prompting calls for swift action and systemic change. In response to mounting pressure, Judge Loar's office has yet to issue a formal statement regarding the calls for resignation, leaving the community grappling with profound grief and a pressing demand for justice. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

A protective order in the context of a court case is a legal order issued by a judge to protect a person, group, or entity from harm, harassment, or intimidation. Here are the key points about protective orders and their uses:Definition:Protective Order: A legal directive issued by a court to safeguard an individual or entity from certain actions, often related to harassment, threats, abuse, or the disclosure of sensitive information.Types and Purposes:Personal Safety:Domestic Violence: Protects individuals from abuse or threats by a family member or intimate partner.Stalking/Harassment: Shields individuals from someone who is harassing or stalking them.Workplace: Protects employees from threats or violence in the workplace.Information Protection:Discovery Process: In civil and criminal cases, protective orders can limit the sharing of sensitive or confidential information obtained during the discovery process.Trade Secrets: Prevents disclosure of trade secrets or proprietary business information.Usage and Benefits:Prevent Harm: Protects individuals from physical, emotional, or psychological harm.Privacy: Ensures privacy and confidentiality of sensitive information.Safety: Provides a legal framework for law enforcement to intervene if the order is violated.Legal Boundaries: Establishes clear boundaries and consequences for violating the order.Enforcement:Court Issuance: Issued by a judge based on evidence presented by the person seeking protection.Violation: Violation of a protective order can result in legal consequences, including fines, arrest, or additional charges.(commercial at 8:19)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

A protective order in the context of a court case is a legal order issued by a judge to protect a person, group, or entity from harm, harassment, or intimidation. Here are the key points about protective orders and their uses:Definition:Protective Order: A legal directive issued by a court to safeguard an individual or entity from certain actions, often related to harassment, threats, abuse, or the disclosure of sensitive information.Types and Purposes:Personal Safety:Domestic Violence: Protects individuals from abuse or threats by a family member or intimate partner.Stalking/Harassment: Shields individuals from someone who is harassing or stalking them.Workplace: Protects employees from threats or violence in the workplace.Information Protection:Discovery Process: In civil and criminal cases, protective orders can limit the sharing of sensitive or confidential information obtained during the discovery process.Trade Secrets: Prevents disclosure of trade secrets or proprietary business information.Usage and Benefits:Prevent Harm: Protects individuals from physical, emotional, or psychological harm.Privacy: Ensures privacy and confidentiality of sensitive information.Safety: Provides a legal framework for law enforcement to intervene if the order is violated.Legal Boundaries: Establishes clear boundaries and consequences for violating the order.Enforcement:Court Issuance: Issued by a judge based on evidence presented by the person seeking protection.Violation: Violation of a protective order can result in legal consequences, including fines, arrest, or additional charges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

A protective order in the context of a court case is a legal order issued by a judge to protect a person, group, or entity from harm, harassment, or intimidation. Here are the key points about protective orders and their uses:Definition:Protective Order: A legal directive issued by a court to safeguard an individual or entity from certain actions, often related to harassment, threats, abuse, or the disclosure of sensitive information.Types and Purposes:Personal Safety:Domestic Violence: Protects individuals from abuse or threats by a family member or intimate partner.Stalking/Harassment: Shields individuals from someone who is harassing or stalking them.Workplace: Protects employees from threats or violence in the workplace.Information Protection:Discovery Process: In civil and criminal cases, protective orders can limit the sharing of sensitive or confidential information obtained during the discovery process.Trade Secrets: Prevents disclosure of trade secrets or proprietary business information.Usage and Benefits:Prevent Harm: Protects individuals from physical, emotional, or psychological harm.Privacy: Ensures privacy and confidentiality of sensitive information.Safety: Provides a legal framework for law enforcement to intervene if the order is violated.Legal Boundaries: Establishes clear boundaries and consequences for violating the order.Enforcement:Court Issuance: Issued by a judge based on evidence presented by the person seeking protection.Violation: Violation of a protective order can result in legal consequences, including fines, arrest, or additional charges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

We sit down with Pacific Cascade Legal's Partner, Will Jones, to discuss what grounds you need to get a sexual abuse protective order in Oregon, and what you can expect from the legal process.If you would like to speak with one of our attorneys, please call our office at (503) 227-0200, or visit our website at https://www.pacificcascadelegal.com.Disclaimer: Nothing in this communication is intended to provide legal advice nor does it constitute a client-attorney relationship, therefore you should not interpret the contents as such.

Join us for our live stream event as we sit down with Pacific Cascade Legal's Partner, Will Jones, to discuss what grounds you need to get an elderly abuse protective order in Oregon, and what you can expect from the legal process.If you would like to speak with one of our attorneys, please call our office at (503) 227-0200, or visit our website at https://www.pacificcascadelegal.com.Disclaimer: Nothing in this communication is intended to provide legal advice nor does it constitute a client-attorney relationship, therefore you should not interpret the contents as such.

This week in Florida: Judge Cannon rules in favor of DoJ's motion to keep witness names under seal even while saying that DoJ has the law wrong; several rulings on CIPA Section 4 motions including Nauta and De Oliveira's bid to get access to classified discovery.In the DC case, Kenneth Chesebro had a secret Twitter account that he kept from investigators.Plus, another thought-provoking listener question, and more.Brian Greerhttps://twitter.com/secretsandlaws Brian Greer's Quick Guide to CIPAhttps://www.justsecurity.org/87134/the-quick-guide-to-cipa-classified-information-procedures-act/ AMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfGood to know:Rule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady MaterialBrady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJenksJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Gigliohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/g/giglio-information/Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C. § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Outrage and calls for accountability have surged following the tragic murder of 61-year-old Audrey Peterson by her ex-boyfriend, 71-year-old Francis Scoza, on February 9. The incident, which resulted in Peterson's untimely death, has ignited a heated debate surrounding the actions of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Doneene Loar. Peterson's fatal encounter came merely two days after she sought legal protection against Scoza, filing a domestic injunction citing his alarming behavior, including stalking. Despite Peterson's pleas for safety, Judge Loar denied her petition for temporary protection, a decision that critics argue contributed to Peterson's murder. According to court records, Peterson's petition detailed a series of distressing incidents involving Scoza, including unsettling text messages, verbal abuse, and menacing behavior. Peterson's case highlighted her legitimate fear for her safety, prompting her to change her routine and maintain constant communication with law enforcement officials. In a heart-wrenching statement, Peterson's daughter lamented the failure of law enforcement to safeguard her mother, expressing profound disappointment in their inability to intervene effectively. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) joined the chorus of voices condemning Judge Loar's decision, asserting that the denial of Peterson's protective order directly contributed to her tragic demise. Luna, herself a victim of the judge's rulings in a previous stalking case, emphasized the urgent need for accountability and reform within the judicial system. Reflecting on Peterson's life and contributions to the community, her former supervisor, Laura Highman, described her as "legitimately scared" of Scoza and recounted Peterson's proactive efforts to ensure her safety. As the community mourns the loss of Audrey Peterson, questions linger over the efficacy of legal mechanisms designed to protect victims of domestic violence. The case has reignited conversations about the responsibilities of judicial officials in prioritizing the safety and well-being of vulnerable individuals, prompting calls for swift action and systemic change. In response to mounting pressure, Judge Loar's office has yet to issue a formal statement regarding the calls for resignation, leaving the community grappling with profound grief and a pressing demand for justice. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

1-25-24 Morning Rush - Bachelor's Susie & Justin HARD LAUNCH! & Nick Viall Shades Gerry (again) & Shawn Booth Rails Against Broken Maternity System & Taylor Swift Stalker Violates Protective Order! www.patreon.com/daveneal for bonus content and membership only livestreams! Merchandise available at https://daveneal.myspreadshop.com/ Join me on instagram and tiktok @dnealz www.linktree.com/daveneal for discord and sign up for newsletter!

MSNBC's Ari Melber hosts "The Beat" on Thursday, November 16, and reports on Donald Trump's RICO case, Rep. George Santos and the Starbucks strike. Plus, Bay Area Icon E-40 joins for the latest "Fallback" installment. Kristy Greenberg and Tim O'Brien also join.

Fulton County DA Fani Willis filed an emergency protective order in her state's election interference case against Trump. Then, veterans who fought for America often face an even greater battle when they return home – PTSD. New research suggests that the psychedelic drug MDMA, could be a solution to help veterans suffering from this psychological challenge. Petty fights in Congress disgrace Capitol Hill. These embarrassing antics from our nation's leaders and the dangerous precedent they set. Katie Benner, Benjy Sarlin, Harry Litman, Jonathan Greenblatt, Jason Johnson, Reed Galen, and Harry Smith join.  

In DC, we have updates on the limited gag order Judge Chutkan issued; and Trump's moves to stay the entire proceedings while awaiting a ruling on his motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity.In Florida, DoJ filed a notice to the court regarding Trump's attempts to delay other trials by playing one venue off the other. Brian Greer is here to go over CIPA filings and rulings in DC and Florida.A document comes up in the NYAG civil fraud trial that might be of interest to Jack Smith's team.John Eastman says that disbarment proceedings in California are strengthening his belief in the big lie.Plus, listener questions.Brian Greerhttps://twitter.com/secretsandlawsOn CIPAThe Quick Guide to CIPA (Classified Information Procedures Act)https://www.justsecurity.org/87134/the-quick-guide-to-cipa-classified-information-procedures-act/Motion from DoJ asking the court to require Trump to give notice of an advice-of-counsel defense:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.98.0_1.pdfA couple of terms to remember:Brady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C.  § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod -Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG:Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

Donald Trump raising some eyebrows after claiming Sidney Powell was never his attorney. MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord dig into what that could mean for his defense. Plus, Trump's fraud trial resumes in NY this week after the judge threatened to throw him in jail the next time he violates a partial gag order.

...Plus, The Trump fraud case you forgot about: Scammy scheme lawsuit unnoticed among big cases

Donald Trump's attorneys have until Monday evening to respond to a request for a protective order against him. Niger's coup leaders close the country's airspace. Ukraine calls Jeddah talks productive.Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today's episode of Up First was edited by Dana Farrington, Ally Schweitzer, Michael Sullivan, and Alice Woelfle. It was produced by Mansee Khurana, Kaity Kline, Claire Murashima, and Lilly Quiroz. Our technical director is Stacey Abbott, with engineering support from Caleigh Strange.