POPULARITY
53 episodes with Rod Jones
54 episodes with Rod Jones
51 episodes with Rod Jones
4 episodes with Rod Jones
2 episodes with Rod Jones
2 episodes with Rod Jones
2 episodes with Rod Jones
3 episodes with Rod Jones
2 episodes with Rod Jones
In this 125th episode of the Good Morning BSS World podcast, I welcome back Rod Jones -renowned CX strategist and advisor to the African BPO & GBS Federation - for our sixth engaging conversation. This month's talk spans the continent, from Egypt to Ghana, and introduces new countries like Benin into the outsourcing dialogue. Rod shares valuable updates, including:Egypt's presence at GITEX Africa and Berlin's GIZ roadshowNigeria's government-backed “Outsource to Nigeria” initiativeAI's evolving impact on African BPO/GBS - balancing automation with employmentThe Federation's new handbook to guide emerging BPO associationsBenin's rise as a new player on the outsourcing mapInsights into the upcoming Elevate Africa conference in EthiopiaPlus, we discuss how Africa is positioning itself globally, with support from global players like Teleperformance and Concentrix, and future plans for a structured federation advisory board. If you're in the outsourcing industry, this episode is a must-listen for insights into Africa's rapidly evolving BPO/GBS scene! Key points of the podcast:The African BPO and GBS landscape is expanding with new members like Ghana, Benin, and Morocco joining the federation.The federation's new association handbook aims to guide countries in establishing and formalizing their own BPO and GBS associations.AI's impact on the BPO and GBS industry is a hot topic, with discussions focused on balancing technological advancement with job creation. Links:Rod Jones - https://www.linkedin.com/in/rodjonessouthafrica/Africa Federation of GBS Associations - https://africagbsfederation.org/Africa Federation of GBS Associations on Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/company/africa-gbs-federation/posts/?feedView=allTalk to AI about this episode - https://gmbw.onpodcastai.com/episodes/ET9JzjsuvRm/chatElevate Africa - https://www.weelevateafrica.org/ **************************** My name is Wiktor Doktór and on daily basis I run Pro Progressio Club https://klub.proprogressio.pl - it's a community of many private companies and public sector organizations that care about the development of business relations in the B2B model. In the Good Morning BSS World podcast, apart from solo episodes, I share interviews with experts and specialists from global BPO/GBS industry.If you want to learn more about me, please visit my social media channels:YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/wiktordoktorHere is also link to the English podcasts Playlist - https://bit.ly/GoodMorningBSSWorldPodcastYTLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/wiktordoktorYou can also write to me. My email address is - kontakt(@) wiktordoktor.pl **************************** This Podcast is supported by Patrons:Marzena Sawicka https://www.linkedin.com/in/marzena-sawicka-a9644a23/Przemysław Sławiński https://www.linkedin.com/in/przemys%C5%82aw-s%C5%82awi%C5%84ski-155a4426/Damian Ruciński https://www.linkedin.com/in/damian-ruci%C5%84ski/Szymon Kryczka https://www.linkedin.com/in/szymonkryczka/Grzegorz Ludwin https://www.linkedin.com/in/gludwin/Adam Furmańczuk https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-agilino/Anna Czyż - https://www.linkedin.com/in/anna-czyz-%F0%9F%94%B5%F0%9F%94%B4%F0%9F%9F%A2-68597813/Igor Tkach - https://www.linkedin.com/in/igortkach/ If you like my podcasts give a like, subscribe and join Patrons of Good Morning BSS World as well. Here are two links to do so:Patronite - https://patronite.pl/wiktordoktor Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/wiktordoktor Or if you liked this episode and would like to buy me virtual coffee, you can use this link https://www.buymeacoffee.com/wiktordoktor - by doing so you support the growth and distribution of this podcast.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/good-morning-bss-world--4131868/support.
The telephone conference in the case of 24 Civ. 1475 (JPO) took place between attorneys Zakarin and Blackburn, with Judge J. Paul Oetken presiding. The discussion primarily centered on procedural issues, including the timeline for motions and discovery. Zakarin argued for an expedited schedule to address key evidentiary matters critical to his client's position, citing potential prejudice if delays continued. Blackburn countered by emphasizing the need for thorough discovery to ensure all relevant materials were accounted for, arguing against rushing the process. Both sides agreed on the importance of resolving these disputes efficiently but differed significantly on the approach.Judge Oetken stressed the need for cooperation between the parties and highlighted his preference for minimizing unnecessary motions. He set preliminary deadlines for document production and urged counsel to work collaboratively on narrowing disputes before formal filings. The judge indicated a tentative schedule for a future hearing, contingent on the progress of discovery, while cautioning both parties against dilatory tactics. The call concluded with the judge emphasizing the importance of clear communication between counsel to avoid escalating procedural disagreements.(commercial at 8:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:o49rJONc
The telephone conference in the case of 24 Civ. 1475 (JPO) took place between attorneys Zakarin and Blackburn, with Judge J. Paul Oetken presiding. The discussion primarily centered on procedural issues, including the timeline for motions and discovery. Zakarin argued for an expedited schedule to address key evidentiary matters critical to his client's position, citing potential prejudice if delays continued. Blackburn countered by emphasizing the need for thorough discovery to ensure all relevant materials were accounted for, arguing against rushing the process. Both sides agreed on the importance of resolving these disputes efficiently but differed significantly on the approach.Judge Oetken stressed the need for cooperation between the parties and highlighted his preference for minimizing unnecessary motions. He set preliminary deadlines for document production and urged counsel to work collaboratively on narrowing disputes before formal filings. The judge indicated a tentative schedule for a future hearing, contingent on the progress of discovery, while cautioning both parties against dilatory tactics. The call concluded with the judge emphasizing the importance of clear communication between counsel to avoid escalating procedural disagreements.(commercial at 8:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:o49rJONc
A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones. (commercial at 7:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones. (commercial at 7:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones. (commercial at 7:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones. (commercial at 7:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones. (commercial at 7:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones. (commercial at 7:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In this memorandum, the plaintiff in the federal case against Sean Combs and others seeks court approval to serve defendants Cuba Gooding Jr. and Justin Dior Combs via publication. The plaintiff argues that despite extensive efforts—including personal service attempts at multiple verified addresses, formal and informal waiver requests, professional skip-trace investigations, physical surveillance, and over $1,000 in service-related expenses—both defendants have deliberately evaded service. The plaintiff contends that traditional methods have been exhausted and that service by publication in widely circulated newspapers like the New York Times and Los Angeles Times is now necessary to proceed with the case.The motion emphasizes that both defendants are aware of the lawsuit: Mr. Gooding has discussed it publicly, and Mr. Combs' father, Sean Combs, has been served and is actively litigating. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants' avoidance tactics are intentional strategies to frustrate the judicial process and avoid accountability in a serious federal lawsuit alleging sexual abuse, trafficking, and related claims. Citing precedents where courts have allowed alternate service methods for high-profile individuals residing in gated communities, the plaintiff urges the court to authorize service by publication to ensure the case can move forward without further delay.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.91.2.pdf
In his amended federal lawsuit, music producer Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones alleges that Sean “Diddy” Combs and his son Justin were involved in a 2022 shooting at Chalice Recording Studio in Los Angeles. Jones claims that during a writers' camp, an argument between Diddy, Justin, and a man identified as “G” escalated in a bathroom, resulting in G being shot in the abdomen and leg. Jones states he found G bleeding on the floor and assisted him until an ambulance arrived. He further alleges that Diddy instructed him to tell police the shooting occurred outside the studio during a drive-by, and that G has since disappeared.These allegations contradict the Los Angeles Police Department's account, which determined the shooting took place outside the studio. Diddy's attorney, Shawn Holley, stated that neither Diddy nor Justin were present during the incident and were unaware of it until afterward. Additionally, an Instagram message from the studio suggested the shooting occurred "half a block away" from Chalice. As of now, no official reports, body camera footage, or 911 call recordings have been released, and G's whereabouts remain unknown.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsoure:Lawsuit says Sean ‘Diddy' Combs tied to 2022 shooting, LAPD says no
In this memorandum, the plaintiff in the federal case against Sean Combs and others seeks court approval to serve defendants Cuba Gooding Jr. and Justin Dior Combs via publication. The plaintiff argues that despite extensive efforts—including personal service attempts at multiple verified addresses, formal and informal waiver requests, professional skip-trace investigations, physical surveillance, and over $1,000 in service-related expenses—both defendants have deliberately evaded service. The plaintiff contends that traditional methods have been exhausted and that service by publication in widely circulated newspapers like the New York Times and Los Angeles Times is now necessary to proceed with the case.The motion emphasizes that both defendants are aware of the lawsuit: Mr. Gooding has discussed it publicly, and Mr. Combs' father, Sean Combs, has been served and is actively litigating. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants' avoidance tactics are intentional strategies to frustrate the judicial process and avoid accountability in a serious federal lawsuit alleging sexual abuse, trafficking, and related claims. Citing precedents where courts have allowed alternate service methods for high-profile individuals residing in gated communities, the plaintiff urges the court to authorize service by publication to ensure the case can move forward without further delay.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.91.2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In his amended federal lawsuit, music producer Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones alleges that Sean “Diddy” Combs and his son Justin were involved in a 2022 shooting at Chalice Recording Studio in Los Angeles. Jones claims that during a writers' camp, an argument between Diddy, Justin, and a man identified as “G” escalated in a bathroom, resulting in G being shot in the abdomen and leg. Jones states he found G bleeding on the floor and assisted him until an ambulance arrived. He further alleges that Diddy instructed him to tell police the shooting occurred outside the studio during a drive-by, and that G has since disappeared.These allegations contradict the Los Angeles Police Department's account, which determined the shooting took place outside the studio. Diddy's attorney, Shawn Holley, stated that neither Diddy nor Justin were present during the incident and were unaware of it until afterward. Additionally, an Instagram message from the studio suggested the shooting occurred "half a block away" from Chalice. As of now, no official reports, body camera footage, or 911 call recordings have been released, and G's whereabouts remain unknown.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsoure:Lawsuit says Sean ‘Diddy' Combs tied to 2022 shooting, LAPD says noBecome 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.
The case of Jones v. Combs (1:24-cv-01457) involves a complex series of allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs and multiple associated parties, including Universal Music Group and Love Records. The opposition to Combs' motion to dismiss centers on serious allegations of misconduct, with the plaintiff, Rodney Jones, asserting claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The request for judicial notice of Combs' federal indictment ties into broader accusations, including sex trafficking and racketeering, which have gained significant attention in a separate federal case.This particular filing challenges Combs' legal team's attempt to dismiss the case by bringing forward evidence that links the civil case to Combs' criminal indictment, arguing that the indictment supports the plaintiff's claims of exploitation and manipulation over a prolonged period. The opposition excludes Justin Dior Combs but includes other significant figures and corporations, with the plaintiff seeking to ensure the court acknowledges the federal charges in the ongoing civil proceedings.The case has seen numerous legal maneuvers, including motions for sanctions and attempts to amend complaints, reflecting the high-stakes nature of the litigation and the complexity of the issues at hand.(commercial at 7:02)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.78.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Welcome to the 123rd episode of "Good Morning BSS World" podcast! Today we're heading straight to the heart of Africa's rapidly evolving BPO and GBS landscape. My special guest is Rod Jones, Owner of Rod Jones Contact Centre Consulting and a leading voice in Africa's outsourcing sector. Connecting with us from Johannesburg, Rod brings exclusive updates from the Africa Federation of GBS Associations and shares firsthand insights following his recent participation at the CxOutsourcers event in Munich.In this episode, Rod provides a comprehensive regional update on Africa's BPO and ITO sectors. We discuss the Federation's impressive growth-now boasting nine full member countries and seven candidates, with a vision to reach 20 members by the end of 2025. Rod highlights the collaborative spirit and knowledge sharing that are driving professionalization and best practices across the continent.We delve into the latest developments in Southern Africa, including South Africa's refreshed value proposition and ongoing government incentives, as well as emerging associations in Namibia and Zimbabwe. Rod also shares news from East Africa, where Kenya and Ethiopia are launching new initiatives and associations, and Central Africa, with Rwanda and Uganda making significant policy strides. West Africa's dynamic progress in Nigeria and North Africa's exciting developments in Morocco, Tunisia, and Egypt round out a truly pan-African perspective.A major theme is the rise of ethical impact sourcing, empowering underprivileged communities and women, with strong support from the CxOutsourcers community. Rod also touches on the critical need for digital skills development to keep Africa competitive in the global outsourcing arena.Tune in for a unique, in-depth look at Africa's BPO future-its challenges, achievements, and the collaborative energy shaping the next chapter of global business services! Key points of the podcast:Africa's BPO sector is rapidly expanding, with significant growth in digital skills development and international investment across various regions.The Africa Federation now includes nine full member countries and seven candidate countries, aiming to have 20 member countries by the end of 2025.Ethical impact sourcing is becoming a fundamental pillar in the BPO industry, focusing on integrating underprivileged communities, women, and refugees into the workforce. Links:Rod Jones - https://www.linkedin.com/in/rodjonessouthafrica/Africa Federation of GBS Associations - https://africagbsfederation.org/Africa Federation of GBS Associations on Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/company/africa-gbs-federation/posts/?feedView=allTalk to AI about this episode - https://gmbw.onpodcastai.com/episodes/Dq05MYOX3bM/chatWebinar (May 29th, 2025): https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_hedlE0itSsq-j9gOetomTQ#/registration **************************** My name is Wiktor Doktór and on daily basis I run Pro Progressio Club https://klub.proprogressio.pl - it's a community of many private companies and public sector organizations that care about the development of business relations in the B2B model. In the Good Morning BSS World podcast, apart from solo episodes, I share interviews with experts and specialists from global BPO/GBS industry.If you want to learn more about me, please visit my social media channels:YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/wiktordoktorHere is also link to the English podcasts Playlist - https://bit.ly/GoodMorningBSSWorldPodcastYTLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/wiktordoktorYou can also write to me. My email address is - kontakt(@) wiktordoktor.pl **************************** This Podcast is supported byPatrons: Marzena Sawicka https://www.linkedin.com/in/marzena-sawicka-a9644a23/Przemysław Sławiński https://www.linkedin.com/in/przemys%C5%82aw-s%C5%82awi%C5%84ski-155a4426/Damian Ruciński https://www.linkedin.com/in/damian-ruci%C5%84ski/Szymon Kryczka https://www.linkedin.com/in/szymonkryczka/Grzegorz Ludwin https://www.linkedin.com/in/gludwin/Adam Furmańczuk https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-agilino/ If you like my podcasts you can join Patrons of Good Morning BSS World as well. Here are two links to do so:Patronite - https://patronite.pl/wiktordoktor Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/wiktordoktor Or if you liked this episode and would like to buy me virtual coffee, you can use this link https://www.buymeacoffee.com/wiktordoktor - by doing so you support the growth and distribution of this podcast.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/good-morning-bss-world--4131868/support.
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The case of Jones v. Combs (1:24-cv-01457) involves a complex series of allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs and multiple associated parties, including Universal Music Group and Love Records. The opposition to Combs' motion to dismiss centers on serious allegations of misconduct, with the plaintiff, Rodney Jones, asserting claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The request for judicial notice of Combs' federal indictment ties into broader accusations, including sex trafficking and racketeering, which have gained significant attention in a separate federal case.This particular filing challenges Combs' legal team's attempt to dismiss the case by bringing forward evidence that links the civil case to Combs' criminal indictment, arguing that the indictment supports the plaintiff's claims of exploitation and manipulation over a prolonged period. The opposition excludes Justin Dior Combs but includes other significant figures and corporations, with the plaintiff seeking to ensure the court acknowledges the federal charges in the ongoing civil proceedings.The case has seen numerous legal maneuvers, including motions for sanctions and attempts to amend complaints, reflecting the high-stakes nature of the litigation and the complexity of the issues at hand.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.78.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him. In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past. Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones. In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
Rod Jones is a project manager for Holder Construction in Ashburn, Virginia. But even as he is progressing in his own career – ENR named him a Top 20 Under 40 in 2024 – he's acutely aware of attracting more people to the profession and helping others follow his path. He's an adjunct professor at his alma mater, Morgan State University, and his online “Rod the Builder” lifestyle brand – through YouTube and social media – inspires young professionals and students to find their passion in the STEM fields too. In episode 178 of ASCE Plot Points, Jones talks about how he found his way into construction management and why it's so important to him to share that story with others.
In his amended federal lawsuit, music producer Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones alleges that Sean “Diddy” Combs and his son Justin were involved in a 2022 shooting at Chalice Recording Studio in Los Angeles. Jones claims that during a writers' camp, an argument between Diddy, Justin, and a man identified as “G” escalated in a bathroom, resulting in G being shot in the abdomen and leg. Jones states he found G bleeding on the floor and assisted him until an ambulance arrived. He further alleges that Diddy instructed him to tell police the shooting occurred outside the studio during a drive-by, and that G has since disappeared.These allegations contradict the Los Angeles Police Department's account, which determined the shooting took place outside the studio. Diddy's attorney, Shawn Holley, stated that neither Diddy nor Justin were present during the incident and were unaware of it until afterward. Additionally, an Instagram message from the studio suggested the shooting occurred "half a block away" from Chalice. As of now, no official reports, body camera footage, or 911 call recordings have been released, and G's whereabouts remain unknown.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsoure:Lawsuit says Sean ‘Diddy' Combs tied to 2022 shooting, LAPD says no
In his amended federal lawsuit, music producer Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones alleges that Sean “Diddy” Combs and his son Justin were involved in a 2022 shooting at Chalice Recording Studio in Los Angeles. Jones claims that during a writers' camp, an argument between Diddy, Justin, and a man identified as “G” escalated in a bathroom, resulting in G being shot in the abdomen and leg. Jones states he found G bleeding on the floor and assisted him until an ambulance arrived. He further alleges that Diddy instructed him to tell police the shooting occurred outside the studio during a drive-by, and that G has since disappeared.These allegations contradict the Los Angeles Police Department's account, which determined the shooting took place outside the studio. Diddy's attorney, Shawn Holley, stated that neither Diddy nor Justin were present during the incident and were unaware of it until afterward. Additionally, an Instagram message from the studio suggested the shooting occurred "half a block away" from Chalice. As of now, no official reports, body camera footage, or 911 call recordings have been released, and G's whereabouts remain unknown.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsoure:Lawsuit says Sean ‘Diddy' Combs tied to 2022 shooting, LAPD says noBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In his amended federal lawsuit, music producer Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones alleges that Sean “Diddy” Combs and his son Justin were involved in a 2022 shooting at Chalice Recording Studio in Los Angeles. Jones claims that during a writers' camp, an argument between Diddy, Justin, and a man identified as “G” escalated in a bathroom, resulting in G being shot in the abdomen and leg. Jones states he found G bleeding on the floor and assisted him until an ambulance arrived. He further alleges that Diddy instructed him to tell police the shooting occurred outside the studio during a drive-by, and that G has since disappeared.These allegations contradict the Los Angeles Police Department's account, which determined the shooting took place outside the studio. Diddy's attorney, Shawn Holley, stated that neither Diddy nor Justin were present during the incident and were unaware of it until afterward. Additionally, an Instagram message from the studio suggested the shooting occurred "half a block away" from Chalice. As of now, no official reports, body camera footage, or 911 call recordings have been released, and G's whereabouts remain unknown.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsoure:Lawsuit says Sean ‘Diddy' Combs tied to 2022 shooting, LAPD says noBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In this memorandum, the plaintiff in the federal case against Sean Combs and others seeks court approval to serve defendants Cuba Gooding Jr. and Justin Dior Combs via publication. The plaintiff argues that despite extensive efforts—including personal service attempts at multiple verified addresses, formal and informal waiver requests, professional skip-trace investigations, physical surveillance, and over $1,000 in service-related expenses—both defendants have deliberately evaded service. The plaintiff contends that traditional methods have been exhausted and that service by publication in widely circulated newspapers like the New York Times and Los Angeles Times is now necessary to proceed with the case.The motion emphasizes that both defendants are aware of the lawsuit: Mr. Gooding has discussed it publicly, and Mr. Combs' father, Sean Combs, has been served and is actively litigating. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants' avoidance tactics are intentional strategies to frustrate the judicial process and avoid accountability in a serious federal lawsuit alleging sexual abuse, trafficking, and related claims. Citing precedents where courts have allowed alternate service methods for high-profile individuals residing in gated communities, the plaintiff urges the court to authorize service by publication to ensure the case can move forward without further delay.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.91.2.pdf
In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdf
In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdf
In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdf
In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdf
In the March 2025 Opinion and Order for case Rodney Jones v. Sean Combs et al. (24-CV-1457), Judge J. Paul Oetken ruled on motions to dismiss brought by Sean Combs and several co-defendants. While five of Jones's seventeen claims were dismissed—including claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Combs Global and Love Records—multiple key allegations were allowed to proceed. These surviving claims include sexual assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and premises liability against Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram, Justin Combs, Cuba Gooding Jr., and Jane Doe 1 (allegedly “Yung Miami's cousin”). The court found that many of Jones's accusations, including being drugged, sexually assaulted, and trafficked across state and international lines, were sufficiently detailed to survive the defendants' efforts to have the case dismissed entirely.The ruling outlines severe and graphic allegations, including incidents where Jones claims he was sexually assaulted, manipulated, and trafficked while working closely with Sean Combs between 2022 and 2023. Jones alleges Combs used power and influence in the music industry to coerce him into unwanted sexual activity, promising professional success in return. The complaint details incidents in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, the US Virgin Islands, and Saint-Barthélemy, including claims of being drugged, groped, and assaulted by Combs and others in his circle. The court emphasized that while some claims lacked sufficient legal basis or specificity, the core allegations—particularly those describing direct physical and psychological abuse—were compelling enough to proceed to discovery and potentially trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:24cv1457 Jones v Combs MTD Opn.pdf
A New York judge has dismissed five out of nine claims in producer Rodney "Lil Rod" Jones' $30 million sexual assault and harassment lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs. Jones had alleged that Combs, along with his team, sexually harassed, drugged, and assaulted him during his work on Combs' "Love" album from September 2022 to November 2023. While Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed several claims, including under the RICO and TVPA acts against Combs Global, he allowed some specific allegations of sexual assault and premises liability to move forward. The judge found Jones' allegations of being drugged and sexually assaulted plausible but dismissed the emotional distress and breach of contract claims due to lack of adequate pleading and non-written agreement. Jones' lawyer Tyrone Blackburn deemed the partial ruling a victory and looks forward to further proceedings. Combs is simultaneously detained on unrelated prostitution and trafficking charges, with a trial scheduled for May 5.The judge criticized Jones' attempt to frame the allegations as a racketeering case, writing that he had failed to properly argue the point and noting, “Jones fails to address any of these arguments in his opposition brief, and while the Court prefers to decide issues on the merits, it should not be necessary to root around a 402-paragraph complaint to contrive novel arguments on Jones's behalf.” The court also took the unusual step of calling out Blackburn by name in a section titled “Warning to Counsel.” Judge Oetken slammed the attorney's filings as “replete with inaccurate statements of law, conclusory accusations, and inappropriate ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel,” and called one legal claim “not just disturbing, but shocking.”to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Majority of Producer Rodney Jones' Claims Against Sean 'Diddy' Combs in Sexual Assault Lawsuit Dismissed
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
