Podcasts about Sanction

A More Civilized Age will not be covering Andor Season 2 as planned, due the the ongoing boycott of Disney Plus by the BDS Movement. This is a surprise to us, as it is likely to you and some explanation is required. Last year, the BDS movement targeted Disney Plus for boycott on the grounds that it has cast Israeli actors in its films who have been cultural ambassadors for Israel and do not support the Palestinian cause for liberation or justice. Additionally, Marvel films have made use of characters who have a history in the comics of being connected to positive depictions of Israel and its intelligence service, the Mossad. We were not aware of this boycott when it was declared, and we were not aware of it when we covered Skeleton Crew earlier this year. We are aware of it now, however, and in becoming aware of it, we had to make an affirmative choice that our ignorance had permitted us to avoid. We were not agreed as to what that choice should be. However, what was clear was that if we went ahead with covering Andor Season 2 while this boycott was in place, we would be arriving at an unacceptable outcome. It was either demand members be willing to compromise their own values and do work they did not feel they could perform in good conscience, or it was to go ahead with a partial panel until we were again able to cover something that was not covered by a BDS boycott. This has been a challenging moment for us. We are all firmly committed to the cause of Palestinian liberation and the end of the ongoing genocide perpetrated by Israel under the pretext of waging a war in response to the October 7, 2023 attacks. However, we have differences of opinion and standards of personal and professional obligations when it comes to how we respond to the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement and all its calls for action. Those differences were intensified by the compressed time-frame in which we had to have this discussion. We include these details because it is important to acknowledge that on this point there is real disagreement among us which prevents us from making a more straightforward statement. Similar disagreements will certainly arise in the future, and our views will also continue to evolve and change. However, it's also important to note that we can disagree pretty strongly and continue to work together to make AMCA as good as it can be, a show that every member can participate and take pride in. But we do have news on what we'll be covering next. Beginning in May, we'll be kicking off our coverage of Knights of the Old Republic II. We'll have more info on how we'll be covering that game, what mods (if any) we end up using, and more soon. We thank you so much for your patience. This has been as much of a surprise for us as it is for you, but we're going to focus on making the best possible show we can as we continue to move through the Star Wars catalog. Support the show by going to Patreon.com/civilized! Show Notes Guide To BDS Boycott & Pressure Corporate Priority Targeting Decolonize Palestine, a collection of resources for organizers and anyone who wants to learn more about Palestine Hosted by Rob Zacny (@RobZacny) Featuring Alicia Acampora (@ali_west), Austin Walker (@austin_walker), and Natalie Watson (@nataliewatson) Produced by Austin Walker Music by Jack de Quidt (@notquitereal) Cover art by Xeecee (@xeeceevevo)

La députée socialiste de Paris Céline Hervieux apporte un éclairage sans concession sur les défis qui secouent le système carcéral français. Confrontée à la surpopulation des prisons et aux attaques récentes contre les surveillants, elle dénonce avec fermeté les conditions de détention déplorables et plaide pour une approche plus nuancée de la justice pénale, axée sur la réinsertion plutôt que la répression aveugle.Notre équipe a utilisé un outil d'Intelligence artificielle via les technologies d'Audiomeans© pour accompagner la création de ce contenu écrit.Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

La nouvelle séquence des Grandes Gueules du Sport ! Mises dans les cordes pendant toute l'émission, les GG prennent la main : ce sont eux qui choisissent leur débat !

Maurice Berger, pédopsychiatre et auteur de "Mineurs violents, État inconsistant. Pour une révolution pénale" aux éditions L'artilleur, répond aux questions de Dimitri Pavlenko. Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Fresh on the heels of last week's novel review, we're proud to present our conversation about Clint Eastwood's film adaptation of Trevanian's "The Eiger Sanction" from 1975. Recorded a few years back with our good buddy Jeff Chapman from Bond By Numbers, no Eiger stone was left unturned in this deep-dive investigation, re-polished for your listening pleasure.

A bill to sanction senior South African government and ANC officials who support what they call their "adversaries" was introduced in the US Congress THIS WEEK. The US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 mandates a comprehensive review to identify South African government officials and leaders of the ANC who may be subject to sanctions for their alleged support of American adversaries such as China, Russia and Iran. Introducing the bill Congressman Ronny Jackson accused South Africa of abandoning its relationship with the United States to align with Beijing, Moscow and Tehran.Following hot on the heels of this bill was the unveiling by Republican Texas Congressman Troy Nehls of the Asylum for Farmers and Refugees in Crisis and Necessary Emigration Resettlement Act, dubbed the "Afrikaner Act" meant to legislatively support President Trump's Executive Order granting Afrikaners refugee status in the USA. The act says it will 'target residents of South Africa who are members of the Afrikaner ethnic minority that have suffered persecution or have fear of persecution on account of their race, ethnicity or ancestry". President Cyril Ramaphosa has vehemently denied the accusations and says he remains confident the relationship with the US can still be salvaged, and insists engagements with the Trump administration will continue. To discuss this I'm now joined on the line by Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu, Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University ...

"What they're saying is we're going to set your house on fire and we're also going to close all the doors because you cannot leave this hell that we're going to create for you." The US' perverse Venezuela policy is attempting to destroy the country's economy while also denying any opportunity for Venezuelan migrants to escape the very conditions sanctions have created. In this latest episode writer Andreína Chávez joins host Jose Luis Granados Ceja to discuss the Trump administration's brutal crack down on migrants and how it intersects with US regime change efforts.

The National Security Hour with LTC Sargis Sangari USA (Ret.) – The Justice Department announced the leadership team and members of Joint Task Force October 7, an initiative aimed at seeking justice for the victims of the October 7, terrorist attack in Israel and addressing the ongoing threat posed by Hamas and its affiliates. This initiative came almost one month after the establishment of the...

The National Security Hour with LTC Sargis Sangari USA (Ret.) – The Justice Department announced the leadership team and members of Joint Task Force October 7, an initiative aimed at seeking justice for the victims of the October 7, terrorist attack in Israel and addressing the ongoing threat posed by Hamas and its affiliates. This initiative came almost one month after the establishment of the...

Get Your Magic Mind Offer

Tous les vendredis, samedis et dimanches soirs, Stéphanie de Muru reçoit deux invités pour des débats d'actualité. Avis tranchés et arguments incisifs sont au programme.Distribué par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

South Africa's ambassador to the U.S. is back home after being kicked out of the United States by the Trump administration.

Today, on the Hudson Mohawk Magazine, We start off with a report from the Renewable Heat Now lobby day at the State Capitol. Then, we hear about a forum in Hudson this Saturday on Boycott, Divestment and Sanction. Later on, Armao on the Brink examines the impact of Trump's efforts to defund USAID After that, we have a live interview with James Rath of Capital Street about Troy's efforts to redesign the Congress and Ferry Streets. We finish with a report from Monday's Town Hall meeting in Schenectady with Congress member Paul Tonko. Co-hosts: Benno Greene & Mark Dunlea Engineer: Jalaya Reid

Share your thoughts and comments by sending me a text messageS.11 E.20 Securing America's borders and enforcing our nation's immigration laws would require ongoing efforts and lots of resources. In this episode, I discuss some international and local aspects, pertaining to immigration enforcement and mass deportation.ABOUT: Tawsif Anam is a nationally published writer, award-winning public policy professional, and speaker. He has experience serving in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors in United States and overseas. Anam earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and a Master of Public Affairs degree from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. Tawsif Anam's opinions have been published by national, state, and local publications in the United States, such as USA Today, Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Western Journal, The Boston Globe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin State Journal, The Capital Times, and The Dodgeville Chronicle. His writings have also appeared in major publications in Bangladesh including, but not limited to, The Daily Star and The Financial Express. Visit my website www.tawsifanam.net Visit my blog: https://tawsifanam.net/blog/ Read my published opinions: https://tawsifanam.net/published-articles/ Check out my books: https://tawsifanam.net/books/

A leading opinion former in Washington, the 64-year-old Hudson Institute, is calling for personal sanctions. One of the US's leading Think Tanks, it argues that decades long attacks by the ANC justifies the Global Magnitsky Act to be used against the party's current and former leaders, including those exposed by the Zondo Commission. Hudson senior fellow Josh Meservey, who regularly hosts SA delegations in Washington, explains how far such sanctions would reach, how they would be implemented and their impact. He spoke to BizNews editor Alec Hogg.

Aujourd'hui, Antoine Diers, Éléonore Lemaire et Zohra Bitan débattent de l'actualité autour d'Alain Marschall et Olivier Truchot.

#borderwars #thaboxingvoice #tbvpodcast ☎️Border Wars 16: Sanction & Date Submitted, Fight Card Biggest Ever❗️

Au programme du FC Stream Team ce vendredi, Maxime Dupuis et Maxime Dupuis se concentrent sur le Paris Saint-Germain et Liverpool avant le huitième de finale retour de Ligue des champions. Le club de la capitale peut-il renverser le club de la Mersey ? « J'y crois presque plus qu'après le match aller », avance Martin Mosnier. Direction Lyon ensuite pour évoquer le cas de Paulo Fonseca. La sanction de l'entraîneur lyonnais est-elle juste ? Nos journalistes en débattent. Enfin, nos journalistes reviennent sur les annonces de la FIFA qui pourrait élargir le nombre d'équipes participant à la Coupe du monde à 64. Est-ce une bonne idée ? Ils en discutent. Bonne écoute et n'oubliez pas de profiter du quiz en fin d'émission. Présentation : Maxime Dupuis et Martin MosnierGraphisme et animation du quiz : Quentin Guichard (extraits en vidéo)Réalisation : Hadrien Hiault Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Les footballeurs parlent aux footballeurs ! « Rothen s'enflamme », le rendez-vous des passionnés du ballon rond revient pour une deuxième saison !

Should Canada sanction Trump's inner circle? Guest: Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood, Senior Researcher at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Le sujet fort de l'actualité foot du jour vu par Jérôme Rothen et la Dream Team.

Aujourd'hui, Éléonore Lemaire, Jean-Loup Bonnamy et Zohra Bitan débattent de l'actualité autour d'Alain Marschall et Olivier Truchot.

This week on Taking Stock Emmet Oliver talks to Gearóid O'Sullivan, Chartered Accountants Ireland tax lead, and asks him is there really a best time to get paid—weekly or monthly?Newstalk's own John Fardy tells us who is winning the 'streaming war' and we hear about Netflix's 'Great correction'.Plus, Ed Conway of Sky News looks at what impact sanctions have actually had on Russia.

“Good and bad, which are part of the illusion created by Hari, cannot be removed without worshiping Hari. Keeping this in mind, worship Rama and renounce all desires.” (Dohavali, 127)

Le sujet fort de l'actualité foot du jour vu par Jérôme Rothen et la Dream Team.

During the Assad regimes, Western nations placed crippling economic sanctions on the country. Some have been lifted, but most are still in place, so how does a country shattered by civil war rebuild? And we follow the return to Damascus of one US Syrian Jewish leader, after decades in exile.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

#EU: SANCTION DEEPEN. MICHAEL BERNSTAM, HOOVER 1941 ROSTOV

The International Criminal Court sparked an angry response from Israel in when it issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip. US President Donald Trump called the warrants “baseless” as he authorized sanctions on ICC officials who investigate the US and its allies. But are there more to these sanctions? Join this channel for exclusive access and bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g/join Five Minute News with Anthony Davis is an Evergreen Podcast, covering politics, inequality, health and climate - delivering independent, unbiased and essential news for the US and across the world. Visit us online at http://www.fiveminute.news Follow us on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/fiveminutenews.bsky.social Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/fiveminnews Support us on Patreon http://www.patreon.com/fiveminutenews You can subscribe to Five Minute News with your preferred podcast app, ask your smart speaker, or enable Five Minute News as your Amazon Alexa Flash Briefing skill. Please subscribe HERE https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g?sub_confirmation=1 CONTENT DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed on this channel are those of the guests and authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Anthony Davis or Five Minute News LLC. Any content provided by our guests or authors are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Case No. 2:24-cv-12647 before Hon. Judith Levy, the defendant, Sean Combs, has filed a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff, alleging misconduct in the litigation process. The motion argues that the plaintiff has engaged in actions that are frivolous, abusive, or otherwise in bad faith, including making baseless allegations and improperly using the legal system to damage the defendant's reputation. Combs' legal team asserts that such behavior has caused significant harm, including unnecessary legal expenses and damage to his professional and personal standing.The motion requests that the court impose appropriate sanctions to deter further misuse of the judicial process. Potential remedies sought include the dismissal of certain claims, reimbursement of legal fees incurred by the defendant, and other punitive measures deemed fit by the court. Combs' legal team emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal system and argues that allowing such alleged misconduct to continue unaddressed would set a dangerous precedent for future cases.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.mied.380235.70.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Case No. 2:24-cv-12647 before Hon. Judith Levy, the defendant, Sean Combs, has filed a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff, alleging misconduct in the litigation process. The motion argues that the plaintiff has engaged in actions that are frivolous, abusive, or otherwise in bad faith, including making baseless allegations and improperly using the legal system to damage the defendant's reputation. Combs' legal team asserts that such behavior has caused significant harm, including unnecessary legal expenses and damage to his professional and personal standing.The motion requests that the court impose appropriate sanctions to deter further misuse of the judicial process. Potential remedies sought include the dismissal of certain claims, reimbursement of legal fees incurred by the defendant, and other punitive measures deemed fit by the court. Combs' legal team emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal system and argues that allowing such alleged misconduct to continue unaddressed would set a dangerous precedent for future cases.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.mied.380235.70.0.pdf

Join us in the Room of Role-Playing Rambling with Paul Baldowski talking about Dangerous Journeys RPG, Play by Mail and Sanction. The post Sanction RPG (with Paul Baldowski) Ep 78 first appeared on The GROGNARD Files.

C dans l'air du 4 février 2025 - Le coup de force de Trump, la riposte chinoise La Chine contre-attaque. Sans attendre la discussion prévue avec l'administration américaine, Pékin a décidé de répliquer, à l'entrée en vigueur des droits de douane supplémentaires de 10 % décrétés par le président américain sur les produits chinois. La Chine a ainsi annoncé ce mardi l'application de droits de douane de 15 % sur les importations de charbon et de gaz naturel liquéfié (GNL) américains, et de 10 % sur le pétrole brut, les machines agricoles et certains véhicules de grosse cylindrée, à partir du 10 février prochain. Pékin a aussi déposé plainte auprès de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce et ouvert une enquête contre le géant technologique américain Google, qu'elle dit soupçonner d'avoir enfreint sa réglementation anti-monopole.Le signal envoyé est clair : la Chine réagit lorsqu'elle est attaquée. Une façon de se placer en position de force avant des négociations sino-américaines annoncée par Donald Trump dans les prochaines 24 heures. Un président américain qui vient de suspendre pour un mois les droits de douane qui devaient être mis en œuvre ce mardi contre le Mexique et le Canada, après avoir obtenu des deux pays qu'ils surveillent davantage leurs frontières.Art du deal ou reculade ? Depuis son retour à la Maison-Blanche, la politique menée par le président américain interroge ainsi que les premières décisions d'Elon Musk au sein du "Département de l'efficacité gouvernementale". Chargé par le président américain de faire le ménage au sein du gouvernement fédéral, l'homme le plus riche du monde a déclaré, ce lundi 3 février, que l'Agence américaine pour le développement international (Usaid), qui gère des dizaines de milliards de dollars d'aide humanitaire et d'aide au développement à travers le monde, allait "fermer". Dotée d'un budget d'environ 40 milliards de dollars par an – moins de 1 % du budget fédéral –, l'organisation supervise aujourd'hui des programmes humanitaires, de développement et de sécurité dans plus d'une centaine de pays. Dès sa première semaine de retour au pouvoir, Donald Trump avait ordonné le gel de l'aide internationale américaine le temps d'un "réexamen complet" de quatre-vingt-dix jours, mettant fin à des programmes essentiels et entraînant de nombreux licenciements dans les ONG qui dépendent des financements américains.Parallèlement, le président américain qui menace d'augmenter "très bientôt" les droits de douane sur les produits européens, a conditionné lundi son soutien à l'Ukraine en contrepartie d'un accord sur l'exploitation future de ses sols, notamment de ses terres rares, c'est-à-dire des matériaux très utilisés dans l'électronique.De son côté, la Chine regarde également vers l'Europe. Face à la menace des droits de douane et au durcissement de la réglementation européenne, les industriels chinois se préparent à produire davantage de technologies vertes dans l'Union européenne. Ainsi l'entreprise chinoise DAS Solar (14 usines et 9.000 salariés en Chine) a signé un accord avec la métropole de Montbéliard pour l'ouverture en juin 2025 d'une gigantesque usine de fabrication de panneaux solaires, à Mandeure. Ce sera la première usine du groupe en Europe.Les experts :- ANTHONY BELLANGER - Éditorialiste - France Info TV, spécialiste des questions internationales- PIERRE HASKI - Chroniqueur international - France Inter et Le Nouvel Obs - STEPHANIE VILLERS - Économiste, conseillère économique de PwC France- ANNE TOULOUSE - Journaliste franco-américaine, auteure de L'art de trumper PRÉSENTATION : Caroline Roux - Axel de Tarlé - REDIFFUSION : du lundi au vendredi vers 23h40PRODUCTION DES PODCASTS: Jean-Christophe ThiéfineRÉALISATION : Nicolas Ferraro, Bruno Piney, Franck Broqua, Alexandre Langeard, Corentin Son, Benoît LemoinePRODUCTION : France Télévisions / Maximal ProductionsRetrouvez C DANS L'AIR sur internet & les réseaux :INTERNET : francetv.frFACEBOOK : https://www.facebook.com/Cdanslairf5TWITTER : https://twitter.com/cdanslairINSTAGRAM : https://www.instagram.com/cdanslair/

Nema Milaninia, a former prosecutor at the International Criminal Court and International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and a current partner at the law firm King & Spalding, joins Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien to discuss legislation in the U.S. Congress and recent executive actions taken by the Trump administration to, once again, sanction the International Criminal Court. Milaninia discusses what is motivating the most recent sanctions campaign, broke down the many criticisms—some legitimate, some less so—against the Court, and explained why sanctions, which are typically reserved for criminal organizations, would benefit no one. He also speaks about how, despite the ICC's best efforts to insulate itself, sanctions pose an existential threat to the institution.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Jim Garrity talks about a tactic of some examining lawyers that should, but often doesn't, draw objections that their questions are “argumentative.” So, what is an improper, argumentative question or examination? Here, we're not talking about the questioner's tone or demeanor, i.e., arguing in the classic sense of yelling and bickering with the deponent. We're talking about questions where lawyers aren't really asking a question designed to elicit facts but are instead injecting their own commentary or viewpoint, or injecting insults, taunts, wisecracks, or similar language. "Argumentative" objections are objections to the form, and must be timely made or are waived.SHOW NOTESPeople v. Pawar, No. G037097, 2007 WL 477949, at *2 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2007) (“[W]ere they lying” queries are improper if they are merely argumentative. (Chatman, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 381, 384.) In Chatman, the prosecutor asked the defendant how the safe at a store was opened. (Id. at p. 379.) The defendant replied “he could not say; he never touched the safe,” eliciting the prosecutor's query, “ ‘Well, is the safe lying about you?' “ (Ibid.) The Supreme Court held the question of whether an inanimate object was “lying” was argumentative , defining argumentative inquiry as “speech to the jury masquerading as a question” which “does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.” (Id. at p. 384.))Faile v. Zarich, No. HHDX04CV5015994S, 2008 WL 2967045, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 10, 2008) (Webster's. . . in the closest relevant definition, defines “argumentative” as “consisting of or characterized by argument: containing a process of reasoning: controversial”)Pardee v. State, No. 06-11-00226-CR, 2012 WL 3516485, at *6 (Tex. App. Aug. 16, 2012) (Steven Goode, et al., Texas Practice Series: Courtroom Handbook on Texas Evidence § 611 cmt. 12 (2012); see United States v. Yakobowicz, 427 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir.N.Y.2005) (defining argumentative as “summation-like remarks by counsel during the presentation of evidence”); accord Eddlemon v. State, 591 S.W.2d 847, 851 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (trial court did not abuse discretion in finding the question, “You don't believe your own offense report?” argumentative). In other words, an argumentative objection concerns whether counsel is attempting to “argue” the case, not whether the counsel is “arguing” with the witness”)United States v. Yakobowicz, 427 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2005) (“During the presentation of evidence one of the most commonly sustained objections is that a particular question is argumentative, Fed.R.Evid. 611(a) advisory committee's note to Subdivision (a) to 1972 Proposed Rules, and any summation-like remarks by counsel during the presentation of evidence are improper and subject as a routine matter to being stricken, Mauet & Wolfson, supra, at 30”)Pardee v. State, No. 06-11-00226-CR, 2012 WL 3516485, at *6 (Tex. App. Aug. 16, 2012) ("Many common law objections—including the objection of “argumentative”—are incorporated in the Texas Rules of Evidence. The common law argumentative objection is now governed by Tex.R. Evid. 611 which concerns the mode of interrogation and presentation. The argumentative objection is an objection commonly used, but not commonly understood. Pardee argues the objection should have been sustained because the State was “arguing” with the defendant. Argumentative, though, does not concern counsel's demeanor or tone. Professors Wellborn, Goode, and Sharlot explain the argumentative objection as follows: Counsel may not, in the guise of asking a question, make a jury argument or attempt to summarize, draw inferences from, or comment on the evidence. In addition, questions that ask a witness to testify as to his own credibility are improper.")People v. Chatman, 38 Cal. 4th 344, 384, 133 P.3d 534, 563 (2006) The prosecutor's question about whether the safe was “lying” requires a different analysis. The question was argumentative. An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even expect an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable. The prosecutor's question whether “the safe [was] lying” is an example. An inanimate object cannot “lie.” Professor Wigmore has called cross-examination the “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” (5 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourne rev. ed.1974) § 1367, p. 32.) The engine should be allowed to run, but it cannot be allowed to run amok. An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all. Defendant had already explained he had no explanation for the safe being open. Asking whether the safe was “lying” could add nothing to this testimony”)People v. Imbach, No. E040190, 2008 WL 510482, at *7–8 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2008) ("The prosecutor asked, “You found that to be inappropriate but not your other son's addiction to child pornography?” When defendant objected that the question was argumentative, the trial court overruled that objection. Defendant asserted the second “argumentative” objection when defendant's mother said she did not know how to answer that question and the prosecutor asked, “Is that because you didn't want to know?” The trial court sustained the defendant's objection to this second question. Both questions are argumentative, because they both are speeches by the prosecutor masquerading as questions. (Chatman, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 384.) The trial court should have sustained both objections. However, we cannot say that by asking those two questions the prosecutor engaged in misconduct.")People v. Peoples, 62 Cal. 4th 718, 793–94, 365 P.3d 230, 288 (2016) (“Defendant observes that the prosecutor asked numerous argumentative questions when cross-examining defense witnesses. To list a few examples, the prosecutor asked defense expert Dr. Lisak, “how many hours are you into them for?” He said to defense expert Dr. Buchsbaum, “Let's quit guessing for awhile and look at the facts.” He said to defense expert Dr. Wu, “It's a pain in the butt to get these test scores.” And he asked prosecution expert Dr. Mayberg, “Did you have a heart attack last night when you looked at the raw data?”)People v. Burns, No. D081051, 2024 WL 2144151, at *15–17 (Cal. Ct. App. May 14, 2024), review denied (July 17, 2024) (excessive repetition of a question simply to make a point can cross line into improper argument”; “Burns makes a strong argument that the prosecutor's repetitive questioning regarding the drunk tank incident became argumentative. “An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even expect an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable.” (People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 384.) “An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.” (Ibid.) Instead, it may be aimed at agitating or belittling the witness (People v. Lund (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1148), or designed to engage the witness in an argument (People v. Johnson (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1236)”)People v. Mazen, No. B300193, 2021 WL 164356, at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2021) The court overruled defendant's argumentative objection to the following question: “Would [accidentally placing the car in neutral] been important information to tell [Morales]?” The court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled the objection. The question sought to elicit relevant testimony regarding defendant's theory that Mario was hit by accident (CALCRIM No. 510). (See People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 384 [“[a]n argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question” and does not seek to elicit relevant testimony].)”People v. Singh, No. H042511, 2018 WL 1046260, at *28 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2018) (“Each question anticipated an answer and was answerable; none was “a speech to the jury masquerading as a question”)People v. Basler, No. D068047, 2015 WL 9437926, at *23 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2015) ("Fung appears to identify three categories of objectionable questioning during his cross-examination by the prosecutor. The first category involves apparent sarcasm by the prosecutor. For example, after Fung provided additional details about his fight with another inmate while incarcerated, the prosecutor said, “Okay. You left that part out a couple of minutes ago; right?” Referencing the same fight, the prosecutor made light of Fung's claim of self-defense: “Did you have to defend yourself against him, too?” As another example, when Fung was discussing the extent of his injuries following the fight, the prosecutor said, “So, that's about how badly you were hurt? It looked like something you get by falling off a skateboard?” The court sustained objections to each of these questions, and a number of others, as argumentative." Also from Basler: "As we have noted, Fung contends the first two categories of questions were impermissibly argumentative. “An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even want an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable.... An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.” (People v. Chatman (2006)”)People v. Nanez, No. F064574, 2014 WL 1928307, at *14–15 (Cal. Ct. App. May 15, 2014) (citing examples of argumentative examination by prosecutor including (a) the prosecutor's remark “Convenient” when a witness said they did not remember a particular fact, and (b) when prosecutor commented on witnesses testimony by saying “So that's the lie you're going with?”, and (c) when prosecutor asked witness “You wouldn't tell us if you're lying, of course, right?” and when witness said he would, prosecutor replied “There's another lie,” causing court to strike prosecutor's comment from the record)People v. Strebe, No. D057947, 2011 WL 2555653, at *7 (Cal. Ct. App. June 28, 2011) (trial courses sustained objection to question as argumentative where prosecutor asked witness “Do you remember anything about that evening that might be detrimental to your case?” In essence arguing to jury that witness was lying and only selectively remembered favorable facts)People v. Higgins, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856, 873–74 (Ct. App. 2011), as modified (Jan. 21, 2011), as modified on denial of reh'g (Feb. 4, 2011) (guilty verdict reversed in part due to argumentative questions; among other jabs; in case where defendant explained his conduct as motived by depression due to death of his daughter's friend, prosecutor asked, “You'd agree with me that it's pretty pathetic if you're using the memory of a dead 17–year–old kid as an excuse in this trial, wouldn't you? Would you agree with me? Is that the legacy that you want [the dead teen] to have?”; other examples of prosecutor's argumentative questions included “Oh, the door was unlocked,” and “Isn't that convenient that all of a sudden, right after you've committed the crimes, that that's when you come to?”; further held, “The rule is well established that the prosecuting attorney may not interrogate witnesses solely ‘for the purpose of getting before the jury the facts inferred therein, together with the insinuations and suggestions they inevitably contained, rather than for the answers”)People v. Dixon, No. D047342, 2007 WL 2745207, at *10 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2007)  Dixon asked Hernandez who had taken the photographs near the time of the injury. Hernandez testified that the audio-visual person at his school had taken photographs of his injury. Dixon then asked, “Is it computer enhancement? Those could be computer enhanced-.” The prosecutor interrupted, “That's argumentative.” The court sustained the prosecutor's objection")United States v. Browne, No. SACR 16-00139-CJC, 2017 WL 1496912, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2017) (For each witness, the Court did not end Defense counsel's cross-examination until it became excessively cumulative and argumentative, at which time the Court was well within its authority to restrain the questioning pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a).”)Beving v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 3:18-CV-00040, 2020 WL 6051598, at *12 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 8, 2020) (Defendant may object to prejudicial or argumentative references to counsel at trial as permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Fed. Rs. Evid. 403, 611(a)(3).)FRE 403: Argumentative questions may be viewed as unfairly prejudicial, misleading, or wasting time.FRE 611(a)(3), Witnesses and Presenting Evidence ((a) Control by the Court; Purposes. The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth; (2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.FRCP 30, Depositions, (d) Duration; Sanction; Motion to Terminate or Limit. (3) Motion to Terminate or Limit, (A) Grounds. At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party. 

Defendant Shawn Carter, known as Jay-Z, has filed a motion for sanctions and dismissal of the complaint against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, arguing that the plaintiff's claims lack legal merit and are unsupported by factual evidence. Carter asserts that the lawsuit is frivolous and intended to harass or burden him, violating Rule 11's requirement that legal filings be grounded in a factual and legal basis. The memorandum outlines how the plaintiff's complaint contains baseless allegations, lacks sufficient evidence, and misuses the judicial process. Carter's legal team seeks not only dismissal of the case but also sanctions against the plaintiff and their counsel for filing the allegedly improper lawsuit.The memorandum further emphasizes that Rule 11 exists to prevent abuse of the court system and to deter frivolous litigation. Carter's attorneys argue that the plaintiff's actions have wasted judicial resources and caused unnecessary legal expenses. They call for appropriate penalties, including financial sanctions, to discourage similar conduct in the future. Carter maintains that the court should swiftly dismiss the complaint to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and ensure accountability for those who misuse it.(commercial at 9:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions - FINAL(15510670.10).docx

Defendant Shawn Carter, known as Jay-Z, has filed a motion for sanctions and dismissal of the complaint against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, arguing that the plaintiff's claims lack legal merit and are unsupported by factual evidence. Carter asserts that the lawsuit is frivolous and intended to harass or burden him, violating Rule 11's requirement that legal filings be grounded in a factual and legal basis. The memorandum outlines how the plaintiff's complaint contains baseless allegations, lacks sufficient evidence, and misuses the judicial process. Carter's legal team seeks not only dismissal of the case but also sanctions against the plaintiff and their counsel for filing the allegedly improper lawsuit.The memorandum further emphasizes that Rule 11 exists to prevent abuse of the court system and to deter frivolous litigation. Carter's attorneys argue that the plaintiff's actions have wasted judicial resources and caused unnecessary legal expenses. They call for appropriate penalties, including financial sanctions, to discourage similar conduct in the future. Carter maintains that the court should swiftly dismiss the complaint to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and ensure accountability for those who misuse it.(commercial at 9:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions - FINAL(15510670.10).docx

In Case No. 2:24-cv-12647 before Hon. Judith Levy, the defendant, Sean Combs, has filed a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff, alleging misconduct in the litigation process. The motion argues that the plaintiff has engaged in actions that are frivolous, abusive, or otherwise in bad faith, including making baseless allegations and improperly using the legal system to damage the defendant's reputation. Combs' legal team asserts that such behavior has caused significant harm, including unnecessary legal expenses and damage to his professional and personal standing.The motion requests that the court impose appropriate sanctions to deter further misuse of the judicial process. Potential remedies sought include the dismissal of certain claims, reimbursement of legal fees incurred by the defendant, and other punitive measures deemed fit by the court. Combs' legal team emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal system and argues that allowing such alleged misconduct to continue unaddressed would set a dangerous precedent for future cases.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.mied.380235.70.0.pdf

In Case No. 2:24-cv-12647 before Hon. Judith Levy, the defendant, Sean Combs, has filed a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff, alleging misconduct in the litigation process. The motion argues that the plaintiff has engaged in actions that are frivolous, abusive, or otherwise in bad faith, including making baseless allegations and improperly using the legal system to damage the defendant's reputation. Combs' legal team asserts that such behavior has caused significant harm, including unnecessary legal expenses and damage to his professional and personal standing.The motion requests that the court impose appropriate sanctions to deter further misuse of the judicial process. Potential remedies sought include the dismissal of certain claims, reimbursement of legal fees incurred by the defendant, and other punitive measures deemed fit by the court. Combs' legal team emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal system and argues that allowing such alleged misconduct to continue unaddressed would set a dangerous precedent for future cases.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.mied.380235.70.0.pdf

In Case No. 2:24-cv-12647 before Hon. Judith Levy, the defendant, Sean Combs, has filed a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff, alleging misconduct in the litigation process. The motion argues that the plaintiff has engaged in actions that are frivolous, abusive, or otherwise in bad faith, including making baseless allegations and improperly using the legal system to damage the defendant's reputation. Combs' legal team asserts that such behavior has caused significant harm, including unnecessary legal expenses and damage to his professional and personal standing.The motion requests that the court impose appropriate sanctions to deter further misuse of the judicial process. Potential remedies sought include the dismissal of certain claims, reimbursement of legal fees incurred by the defendant, and other punitive measures deemed fit by the court. Combs' legal team emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal system and argues that allowing such alleged misconduct to continue unaddressed would set a dangerous precedent for future cases.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.mied.380235.70.0.pdf