Podcasts about second circuit

In this case, plaintiff John Doe alleged that Sean Combs sexually assaulted him in 1998 at the age of sixteen and sought to proceed anonymously due to the sensitive nature of his allegations. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon evaluated Doe's request to use a pseudonym according to the balancing factors outlined by the Second Circuit in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. After careful consideration, the court acknowledged the sensitivity of the allegations but found that Doe had not sufficiently demonstrated a substantial risk of harm or retaliation that would justify withholding his identity.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629911.64.0.pdf

In a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, the Government opposed Sean "Diddy" Combs's request to bar witnesses from speaking with their attorneys during breaks in cross-examination. Prosecutors argued that the defense provided no legal precedent supporting such a prohibition, especially regarding third-party witnesses with independent counsel. The Government noted that the defense's reliance on Perry v. Leeke was misplaced, as that Supreme Court decision focused specifically on a testifying defendant's communication with their attorney during a brief recess—not third-party witnesses.The letter emphasized that the Supreme Court, in Perry, actually underscored the constitutional limits of such communication bans, particularly that overnight restrictions would violate the Sixth Amendment. The Government also cited United States v. Triumph Capital Group, a Second Circuit case, to highlight that brief, mid-day limitations on defendant-attorney discussions may be permissible, but broader restrictions—especially those impacting non-party witnesses—pose serious constitutional concerns. Ultimately, the Government asked the court to reject the defense's request and preserve witnesses' rights to consult with counsel during trial breaks.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.333.0.pdf

Civil Procedure: Do applicants to Columbia have standing to sue because Columbia allegedly misrepresented data to the US News rankings? - Argued: Tue, 06 May 2025 12:51:0 EDT

Immigration: May a non-citizen challenge their removal from the place of their arrest for the purposes of immigration detention? - Argued: Tue, 06 May 2025 12:46:19 EDT

Immigration: May non-citizens challenge their detention on First Amendment grounds? - Argued: Tue, 06 May 2025 12:41:48 EDT

Election Law: May a State prohibit independent political candidates from having the label "independence" on their ballot? - Argued: Thu, 29 May 2025 14:33:10 EDT

Ralph welcomes back Erica Payne, founder of Patriotic Millionaires, to update us on that group's latest efforts to save American democracy by lobbying to raise wages for workers and tax the rich. Plus, according to our resident constitutional expert, Bruce Fein, the count of Trump's impeachable offenses is now up to twenty-two and rising faster than a Space X rocket.Erica Payne is the founder and president of Patriotic Millionaires, an organization of high-net-worth individuals that aims to restructure America's political economy to suit the needs of all Americans. Their work includes advocating for a highly progressive tax system, a livable minimum wage, and equal political representation for all citizens. She is the co-author, with Morris Pearl, of Tax the Rich: How Lies, Loopholes and Lobbyists Make the Rich Even Richer.What we saw on January 20th, I believe, was the result of a global oligarchical coup who just took the Queen on the chessboard. When you've got three people whose combined worth is around a trillion dollars standing behind who is an unethical at least, criminal at worst billionaire president, Houston, we have a problem here. And the problem is not actually Donald Trump. The problem is the preconditions that led to the rise of a vulnerability to an authoritarian leader and an oligarchy. And that vulnerability was brought about by the actions of both parties over decades.Erica PayneIf you ran a business, Ralph, would you ever fire your accounts receivable department? No. It would be the last department you would cut. So then it says he's either stupid because that's what he's cutting, which I think is probably inaccurate. So if he's not stupid, then why is he doing it? And he's doing it for the same reason that lawmakers have hacked at the IRS budget forever—they don't want their donors to get taxed. They don't want their donors to be audited. And so they cut the cops. So all these folks who are griping about black Americans calling to defund the police are actually defunding the police that is keeping them in line and keeping them honest.Erica PayneAt a divided moment in America, I think we can agree that the federal government shouldn't tax people into poverty, and (to the extent necessary) rich people should pick up the difference.Erica PayneBruce Fein is a Constitutional scholar and an expert on international law. Mr. Fein was Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and he is the author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, and American Empire: Before the Fall.I start out with the fundamental idea of due process—you simply cannot deprive someone of liberty without giving them an opportunity to explain or to refute what allegations the government has made. And the reason why I start out with that, Ralph, is we've had an experiment in World War II with what happens when you have no due process. We did that with 120,000 Japanese Americans. No, we just said that they're all likely to commit espionage or sabotage, got to put them in concentration camps. We made 120,000 errors (and later apologized for it in 1988). So there's a reason due process is not simply an academic concept. It's essential to preventing these kinds of egregious instances of injustice from happening.Bruce FeinThe Democrats and a lot of liberal economists are not keeping up with the horror show that's going on. They don't use words like cruel and vicious. They don't turn Trump's words like deranged, crazed, corrupt on him. They're still using words like authoritarian practices, or problematic, or distressing, or disconcerting, or concerning. They're not catching up with the horror show here. That's why Trump continues to have a soliloquy. The Democratic Party is now having gatherings to see how are they going to collectively deal with Trump? How does a bank deal with a bank robber? They let the bank robber rob the bank and flee with the gold while they deliberate how they're going to deal with a bank robber they see coming into the bank?Ralph NaderNews 5/2/251. At the eleventh hour, Representative Jim Jordan – Chair of the House Judiciary Committee – pulled his measure to strip the Federal Trade Commission of its antitrust enforcement powers and consolidate those within the Justice Department, Reuters reports. “The House panel…had included the proposal in its budget package on Monday. During a hearing on the package…the committee passed an amendment that would remove the measure.” Trump's FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson opposed Jordan's move and intervened with the White House. As Reuters notes, “The proposal mirrored the One Agency Act, a Republican bill that has gotten support from Elon Musk…[which] would effectively repeal the FTC's...authority to sue companies over unfair methods of competition, which the agency is using in cases against pharmacy benefit managers, Amazon…and John Deere.” In short, the FTC's antitrust powers survive today, but there is no guarantee about tomorrow.2. Yet, while avoiding the worst possible outcome on the corporate crime front, the Trump administration is still hard at work going soft on corporate crooks. Public Citizen's Rick Claypool reports “Two Wells Fargo execs had their fines reduced by 90% (related to the bank's accounting scandal) by Trump's [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency].” Claypool links to a piece in Radical Compliance, which explains that “David Julian, former chief auditor at Wells Fargo, saw his fines cut from $7 million to $100,000 [and] Paul McLinko, executive audit director, had his fines cut from $1.5 million to $50,000.” Both Julian and McLinko were part of the senior leadership team at Wells Fargo in the 2010s, when regulators “charged the bank with turning a blind eye to employees opening bank accounts without customer consent to hit sales quotas. That misconduct eventually led to a $3 billion settlement with Wells Fargo in 2020.”3. Lest you think the Democrats are in danger of seriously opposing Trump's policies, the Bulwark reports that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is putting the kibosh on the recent spate of Democrats' trips to El Salvador exposing the reality of the CECOT deportation scheme. This report alleges that “Cory Booker and the Hispanic Caucus were planning on going [to El Salvador],” but are no longer. Perhaps worse, Jeffries is not giving clear marching orders to the party rank and file. One Democrat is quoted saying “As a member of a party you need to be disciplined…They say, ‘Get on a plane,' ‘Don't get on a plane'—that's what you do. Nine out ten times you do what they ask. But you can't take that approach if you're not having regular communications… You have to be clear in messaging what the plan is and you have to do that regularly if you want to keep people in line.” This is just another example of Jeffries' weak and indecisive leadership of the caucus.4. Advocates are having more luck resisting the administration's overreach in court. On Wednesday, Mohsen Mahdawi – the Columbia student faced with deportation after being lured into an ICE trap with the false promise of a citizenship test – was freed by a federal judge, POLITICO reports. After the judge ordered his release, Mahdawi told the press “I am saying it clear and loud…To President Trump and his Cabinet: I am not afraid of you.” Mahdawi's ordeal is not over, but he will remain free while his case winds its way through the courts and a previous order blocked the administration from changing venues, meaning the case will proceed in the relatively liberal Second Circuit.5. Mahmoud Khalil also scored a major legal victory this week. The Huffington Post reports that the ICE agents sent to arrest Khalil did not, contrary to their false claims in court, have an arrest warrant. Amy Greer, a lawyer for Khalil, is quoted saying “Today, we now know why [the government] never showed Mahmoud [a] warrant — they didn't have one. This is clearly yet another desperate attempt by the Trump administration to justify its unlawful arrest and detention of human rights defender Mahmoud Khalil, who is now, by the government's own tacit admission, a political prisoner of the United States.” The ACLU, also defending Khalil, has now moved for this case to be dismissed.6. Despite these victories though, the repression of anything pro-Palestine continues. At Yale, Prem Thakker reports hundreds of students protested in advance of a speech by Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel's radical National Security Minister who has previously been arrested many times for inciting racism and supporting pro-Jewish terrorism in Israel itself. Yet the university responded by “stripp[ing] the school's Students for Justice in Palestine Chapter…of its status as an official student group.” If students cannot even protest Ben-Gvir, what will the colleges regard as legitimate protest of Israel?7. In Yemen, Ryan Grim reports on CounterPoints that the Trump administration has been targeting strikes against the Houthis using data gleaned from amateur Open-Source Intelligence or OSINT accounts on X, formerly Twitter. Unsurprisingly, these are completely inaccurate and have led to disastrous strikes on civilians' homes, incorrectly identifying them as “Houthi bases.” One of these accounts is based in Houston, Texas, and another as far away as the Netherlands.8. According to a new World Bank report, Mexico reduced poverty more than any other Latin American country between 2018 and 2023. Not coincidentally, this lines up almost perfectly with the AMLO years in Mexico, which saw a massive increase in the Mexican minimum wage along with other social rights and protections. These policies are now being taken forward by AMLO's successor Claudia Sheinbaum, whose popularity has now surpassed even that of her predecessor, per Bloomberg.9. In Australia, Virginia Giuffre – the most outspoken accuser of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislane Maxwell – has passed away at the age of 41, the BBC reports. Police concluded that Ms. Giuffre died by suicide and her family released a statement indicating that the “toll of abuse... became unbearable.” Yet, her death was preceded by a bizarre chain of events. On March 31st, the BBC reported that Ms. Giuffre's car collided with a school bus, sending her into renal failure with her doctors saying she had “four days to live.” The Miami Herald also reported “At the time of her death, Giuffre had been in a contentious divorce and child custody battle with her husband, Robert.” The family's statement continued “The death is being investigated by Major Crime detectives; [but] early indication is the death is not suspicious.” One can only hope more details come to light.10. Finally, in a different kind of bizarre story, embattled incumbent New York City Mayor Eric Adams – who has already given up on the Democratic primary and was running for reelection as an independent – will now appear on two new ballot lines “EndAntiSemitism” and “Safe&Affordable,” POLITICO reports. Adams has gone to great lengths to cultivate and maintain his support in the Orthodox Jewish community in New York and is seeking to highlight his strengths and undercut former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Apparently, Adams only needs to secure 3,750 signatures from voters by May 27 for each of these ballot lines, a shockingly low threshold for the largest city in America. These ballot lines will appear without spaces, coming in just under the wire for the city's 15-character limit on ballot lines.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Civil Procedure: Are minute orders entered on the docket appealable orders for the purpose of filing a notice of appeal? - Argued: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 9:3:30 EDT

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!The battlefield of workplace accommodations and family caregiving responsibilities takes center stage in our detailed examination of Kemp v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. This landmark case illuminates the critical distinction between denying leave and subtly discouraging employees from exercising their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act.We trace the journey of Denise Kemp, a decade-long employee with a history of promotions and positive performance, whose relationship with her employer deteriorated after seeking flexibility to care for her disabled daughter. The tension between remote work policies and leave rights creates a fascinating legal puzzle that ultimately hinged on technicalities rather than merits.The Second Circuit's ruling provides crucial clarity on what constitutes FMLA interference, establishing that employers can violate the law without ever formally denying leave requests. Yet despite this employee-friendly interpretation, procedural rules—particularly the unforgiving statute of limitations—proved decisive. We explore how timing can make or break employment claims regardless of their underlying validity.Beyond the technical legal analysis, we extract practical lessons for both sides of the employment relationship. For workers, understanding deadlines and documenting problematic interactions becomes paramount. For companies, the case serves as a warning that compliance means more than simply processing paperwork—it requires creating an environment where employees feel genuinely free to exercise their rights without subtle punishment.Have you encountered challenges balancing family care responsibilities with workplace expectations? The evolving legal landscape around remote work accommodations continues to shape both employee rights and employer obligations. Share your experiences or questions about navigating these complex waters. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Ghislaine Maxwell has filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking to overturn her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy involving the grooming and abuse of underage girls alongside Jeffrey Epstein. In her petition for a writ of certiorari, Maxwell's legal team argues that her trial was marred by significant constitutional violations, including improper jury selection procedures, the denial of a venue change despite intense pretrial publicity, and flawed evidentiary rulings. Her attorneys assert that these alleged errors compromised her right to a fair trial, and they emphasize that the lower courts failed to correct these issues on appeal. One key argument raised is the court's refusal to grant relief after it was discovered that a juror failed to disclose his own history of sexual abuse, which Maxwell's team claims tainted the integrity of the verdict.Maxwell's legal team also argues that the Second Circuit's interpretation of federal sex trafficking laws was overly broad and threatens to criminalize conduct beyond the intended scope of the statute. The petition stresses that the Supreme Court should take up the case not only to address the errors specific to Maxwell's trial, but to clarify important legal questions that could impact future defendants nationwide. Her lawyers frame the petition as a critical moment for the high court to ensure fairness in high-profile criminal proceedings and to prevent the miscarriage of justice in cases driven by public outrage and media spectacle. The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will agree to hear the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jailed child sex abuse offender Ghislaine Maxwell asks US Supreme Court to hear appeal against her conviction | Daily Mail Online

Ghislaine Maxwell has filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking to overturn her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy involving the grooming and abuse of underage girls alongside Jeffrey Epstein. In her petition for a writ of certiorari, Maxwell's legal team argues that her trial was marred by significant constitutional violations, including improper jury selection procedures, the denial of a venue change despite intense pretrial publicity, and flawed evidentiary rulings. Her attorneys assert that these alleged errors compromised her right to a fair trial, and they emphasize that the lower courts failed to correct these issues on appeal. One key argument raised is the court's refusal to grant relief after it was discovered that a juror failed to disclose his own history of sexual abuse, which Maxwell's team claims tainted the integrity of the verdict.Maxwell's legal team also argues that the Second Circuit's interpretation of federal sex trafficking laws was overly broad and threatens to criminalize conduct beyond the intended scope of the statute. The petition stresses that the Supreme Court should take up the case not only to address the errors specific to Maxwell's trial, but to clarify important legal questions that could impact future defendants nationwide. Her lawyers frame the petition as a critical moment for the high court to ensure fairness in high-profile criminal proceedings and to prevent the miscarriage of justice in cases driven by public outrage and media spectacle. The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will agree to hear the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jailed child sex abuse offender Ghislaine Maxwell asks US Supreme Court to hear appeal against her conviction | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell has filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court seeking to overturn her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy involving the grooming and abuse of underage girls alongside Jeffrey Epstein. In her petition for a writ of certiorari, Maxwell's legal team argues that her trial was marred by significant constitutional violations, including improper jury selection procedures, the denial of a venue change despite intense pretrial publicity, and flawed evidentiary rulings. Her attorneys assert that these alleged errors compromised her right to a fair trial, and they emphasize that the lower courts failed to correct these issues on appeal. One key argument raised is the court's refusal to grant relief after it was discovered that a juror failed to disclose his own history of sexual abuse, which Maxwell's team claims tainted the integrity of the verdict.Maxwell's legal team also argues that the Second Circuit's interpretation of federal sex trafficking laws was overly broad and threatens to criminalize conduct beyond the intended scope of the statute. The petition stresses that the Supreme Court should take up the case not only to address the errors specific to Maxwell's trial, but to clarify important legal questions that could impact future defendants nationwide. Her lawyers frame the petition as a critical moment for the high court to ensure fairness in high-profile criminal proceedings and to prevent the miscarriage of justice in cases driven by public outrage and media spectacle. The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will agree to hear the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jailed child sex abuse offender Ghislaine Maxwell asks US Supreme Court to hear appeal against her conviction | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to overturn her sex trafficking conviction on September 17, 2024. The court upheld the 20-year sentence and dismissed Maxwell's main argument that she should have been protected by a 2008 non-prosecution agreement made between Jeffrey Epstein and Florida prosecutors. The court made it clear that this agreement didn't apply to her case in New York.Maxwell also challenged the trial's fairness, claiming a juror's failure to disclose his own history of sexual abuse biased the outcome. The court didn't buy that either, stating that the omission wasn't deliberate and had no bearing on the trial's integrity.Ultimately, the court concluded that Maxwell played a pivotal role in facilitating Epstein's predatory behavior, and the sentence reflects the gravity of her crimes.(commercial at 10:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein deal didn't save Ghislaine Maxwell: Court (lawandcrime.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to overturn her sex trafficking conviction on September 17, 2024. The court upheld the 20-year sentence and dismissed Maxwell's main argument that she should have been protected by a 2008 non-prosecution agreement made between Jeffrey Epstein and Florida prosecutors. The court made it clear that this agreement didn't apply to her case in New York.Maxwell also challenged the trial's fairness, claiming a juror's failure to disclose his own history of sexual abuse biased the outcome. The court didn't buy that either, stating that the omission wasn't deliberate and had no bearing on the trial's integrity.Ultimately, the court concluded that Maxwell played a pivotal role in facilitating Epstein's predatory behavior, and the sentence reflects the gravity of her crimes.(commercial at 10:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein deal didn't save Ghislaine Maxwell: Court (lawandcrime.com)

In this case, plaintiff John Doe alleged that Sean Combs sexually assaulted him in 1998 at the age of sixteen and sought to proceed anonymously due to the sensitive nature of his allegations. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon evaluated Doe's request to use a pseudonym according to the balancing factors outlined by the Second Circuit in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. After careful consideration, the court acknowledged the sensitivity of the allegations but found that Doe had not sufficiently demonstrated a substantial risk of harm or retaliation that would justify withholding his identity.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629911.64.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this case, plaintiff John Doe alleged that Sean Combs sexually assaulted him in 1998 at the age of sixteen and sought to proceed anonymously due to the sensitive nature of his allegations. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon evaluated Doe's request to use a pseudonym according to the balancing factors outlined by the Second Circuit in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. After careful consideration, the court acknowledged the sensitivity of the allegations but found that Doe had not sufficiently demonstrated a substantial risk of harm or retaliation that would justify withholding his identity.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629911.64.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Are economic harms resulting from personal injuries properly considered injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant's acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act?The case was decided on April 2, 2025.The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, upheld the Second Circuit's ruling that Horn's loss of employment and associated economic damages qualified as injuries to "business or property" under RICO. The majority concluded that the statute permits recovery for economic harms directly resulting from racketeering activities, even if those harms stem from personal injuries. Justice Barrett emphasized that "injured" in the context of RICO simply means "harmed," and thus, economic losses like lost wages are recoverable. citeturn0news12Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred, highlighting that RICO should be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes. In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, expressed concern that this interpretation could broaden RICO's scope to include traditional personal injury claims, potentially federalizing state tort law. Justice Clarence Thomas also dissented separately, suggesting the case should have been dismissed as improvidently granted. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Delligatti v. United States concerned whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.Known by some as the "non-violent murder case" Delligatti ties into a larger conversation on the way "violent"/"use-of-force" crimes are defined categorically rather than on a solely case-by-case basis.Oral argument was heard by the Supreme Court in early November 2024, and on March 21, 2025, a 7-2 Court affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit below against Delligatti.Join us for a discussion of this decision and its possible ramifications.Featuring:Matthew P. Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion, Emory University School of Law

Judge Rosemary Pooler was passionate about helping people, especially those we call the underdogs. Initially, she planned to make this happen through elected office. But then a friend suggested she consider running for judge because her name was now well known to many since she had run for other types of elected office. From there, her judicial career started, and she was appointed and elected to different positions in the state and federal judicial systems. Listen to her story and her role as a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In this case, plaintiff John Doe alleged that Sean Combs sexually assaulted him in 1998 at the age of sixteen and sought to proceed anonymously due to the sensitive nature of his allegations. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon evaluated Doe's request to use a pseudonym according to the balancing factors outlined by the Second Circuit in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. After careful consideration, the court acknowledged the sensitivity of the allegations but found that Doe had not sufficiently demonstrated a substantial risk of harm or retaliation that would justify withholding his identity.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629911.64.0.pdf

In this case, plaintiff John Doe alleged that Sean Combs sexually assaulted him in 1998 at the age of sixteen and sought to proceed anonymously due to the sensitive nature of his allegations. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon evaluated Doe's request to use a pseudonym according to the balancing factors outlined by the Second Circuit in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. After careful consideration, the court acknowledged the sensitivity of the allegations but found that Doe had not sufficiently demonstrated a substantial risk of harm or retaliation that would justify withholding his identity.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629911.64.0.pdf

In this case, plaintiff John Doe alleged that Sean Combs sexually assaulted him in 1998 at the age of sixteen and sought to proceed anonymously due to the sensitive nature of his allegations. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon evaluated Doe's request to use a pseudonym according to the balancing factors outlined by the Second Circuit in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. After careful consideration, the court acknowledged the sensitivity of the allegations but found that Doe had not sufficiently demonstrated a substantial risk of harm or retaliation that would justify withholding his identity.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629911.64.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this case, plaintiff John Doe alleged that Sean Combs sexually assaulted him in 1998 at the age of sixteen and sought to proceed anonymously due to the sensitive nature of his allegations. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon evaluated Doe's request to use a pseudonym according to the balancing factors outlined by the Second Circuit in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant. After careful consideration, the court acknowledged the sensitivity of the allegations but found that Doe had not sufficiently demonstrated a substantial risk of harm or retaliation that would justify withholding his identity.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629911.64.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!A landmark legal decision has just reshaped our understanding of workplace disability accommodations. On March 25, 2025, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District fundamentally changes how we interpret the Americans with Disabilities Act, establishing that employees may qualify for reasonable accommodations even when they can technically perform their job without them.We break down Angel Tudor's journey—a teacher whose request to leave campus during prep periods to manage her PTSD symptoms was denied, despite having previously received this accommodation. The conflict emerged when a new administration implemented a blanket policy against leaving school grounds, prioritizing standardized operations over individual needs. While Tudor could technically teach without these breaks, she maintained they were crucial for managing her disability and maintaining her wellbeing.The fascinating legal battle hinges on interpretation of the ADA's specific language. The initial district court ruled that since Tudor could perform her essential job functions, she wasn't entitled to accommodation. But the Second Circuit emphatically disagreed, focusing on the critical phrase "with or without reasonable accommodation" in the law. Their interpretation opens new possibilities for workplace equity, recognizing that accommodations may address pain and other disability effects even when basic job performance is possible.This case exposes the tension between employers' desire for standardized policies and their obligation to accommodate individual employees with disabilities. It raises profound questions about moving beyond minimal compliance toward creating genuinely inclusive environments where everyone can contribute their best work. Whether you're an employer, employee, or simply interested in workplace rights, this ruling provides a powerful framework for understanding what true accessibility looks like in practice. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

In this episode of Litigation Nation, co-hosts Danessa Watkins and Jack Sanker dive into a significant ruling from the U.S. Second Circuit that could drastically impact how local libraries lend electronic books. The discussion centers around a lawsuit involving the Internet Archive and major publishers like Hatchett, HarperCollins, and Penguin Random House, which has raised critical questions about copyright infringement and the future of digital lending in libraries.We explore the traditional model of library lending, where physical books can be borrowed freely, compared to the restrictive and costly nature of digital lending. Libraries often face high fees for e-books, which are time-limited and loan-limited, making it increasingly difficult to provide access to digital materials. The Internet Archive's approach of controlled digital lending—where a physical book is scanned and lent out digitally while the physical copy is sequestered—was challenged in court, leading to a permanent injunction against this practice.The hosts discuss the implications of the court's ruling, which rejected the Internet Archive's argument for fair use, stating that digitizing books did not transform them in a way that would qualify for this legal exemption. This decision could lead to increased costs for libraries, forcing them to repeatedly purchase e-books rather than lending them freely, ultimately affecting their ability to serve the community.Throughout the episode, we highlight the broader issues facing libraries today, including funding shortfalls and the rising costs of digital materials, which could diminish their role in providing accessible knowledge. We encourage listeners to support their local libraries and reflect on the importance of these institutions in our communities.Join us as we unpack this complex legal landscape and its potential consequences for libraries and their patrons.

In June 2021, the Superior Court of Connecticut approved amendments to Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, which defines professional misconduct. The amendments expanded the definition of misconduct in subsection (7) to include engaging in "conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination...in conduct related to the practice of law" based on a long list of protected characteristics including "race, color, ancestry, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, status as a veteran, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or marital status".In November 2021, Mario Cerame and Timothy C. Moynahan, two Connecticut lawyers who regularly presented on issues potentially implicated by the new rule, brought suit, alleging the rule as amended violated their First and Fourteenth Amendments. They argued the rule was impermissibly overbroad and chilled lawful speech in so far as it was unclear what speech may be interpreted to be violative of the rule. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Cerame and Moynahan appealed to the Second Circuit, which, in December 2024 vacated the district court's decision, ruling they did have standing and remanding for further proceedings.Join us for a litigation update for this interesting case implicating professional responsibility, ABA model rules, and free speech with Margaret Little of NCLA, which represents Cerame and Moynahan.Featuring:Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

Today, I'm joined by Dr. Justin Collings to discuss his new book, Divine Law, just out from the Maxwell Institute as part of its Themes in the Doctrine and Covenants series. This volume is one of seven and will be featuring interviews with each of the authors over the next few months. Justin Collings is the academic vice president of Brigham Young University and a distinguished scholar in his own right. He graduated from BYU and earned a law degree and a PhD in history from Yale, and clerked on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In addition to his administrative duties, he remains a professor of law at BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School, where he authored two books on constitutional law and history from Oxford University Press. Justin and his wife Lia live in Orem, Utah. And as you'll hear in our conversation, are the proud parents of eight children. As Justin admits, the topic of divine law may not strike you as immediately compelling. It might even spark some deep-seated fear or dread. But I think you'll find that he brings this book to life with careful thinking, real life examples, and most of all, a bedrock conviction grounded in the revelations that God is loving, merciful, and full of grace. Divine law and divine love in this way of looking at things are one and the same. Justin was a good sport to field some tough questions about punishment versus consequences and a threat versus a warning. But if you're expecting dry legalese, you'll be glad to find that Justin is a lively and lyrical writer and his book is studded with poetry. In fact, our discussion of poetry's relationship to scripture and its role in a spiritual life is one of my favorite parts of the interview. I think you'll enjoy it too. Purchase at the links below.https://a.co/d/fQPtRdBhttps://www.deseretbook.com/product/P6075136.html

From the Olympics to San Jose State, each month we hear of new controversies where biological men are competing in women’s sports. Most of those situations relate to college, international, or public school competitions. But how do policies that permit transgender athlete participation impact private religious schools, both now and in the future? How do such schools’ sincerely-held religious beliefs about these issues change what state actors can and can’t do? In Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders, the Vermont Principals Association (VPA), a state-sponsored sports league, removed Mid Vermont from its athletic association because the school forfeited a girls’ playoff basketball game against another team with a male athlete who identified as female. The Christian school declined to play the game because of its religious beliefs about sex, yet the VPA imposed this punishment while still allowing forfeits for secular reasons. Although the VPA has historically prohibited boys from playing on girls’ sports teams “to protect opportunities for girl athletes,” it recently adopted policies that allow males who identify as female to participate in girls’ sports and demanded Mid Vermont’s girls’ teams play against teams with male athletes or not play at all. Mid Vermont and some of its families sued in response. In June 2024, a federal district court applied rational-basis review and denied Mid Vermont’s motion for preliminary injunction. The case is currently pending at the Second Circuit, where the court will resolve whether, while the case proceeds below, Mid Vermont will be allowed to rejoin the state athletic association it competed in for close to 30 years. Join us for a discussion of this case, the religious liberty issues implicated, and the larger consequences state nondiscrimination laws may have on religious schools going forward.Featuring:David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Eric W. Treene, Senior Counsel, Storzer and Associates; Adjunct Professor at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law

On this week's episode, HortySpringer attorneys Henry Casale and Hala Mouzaffar dive into a case of alleged bribery to induce providers to prescribe a specific pharmaceutical drug that resulted in a new test for Anti-Kickback claims in the Second Circuit.Listen now to this episode of the “Kickback Chronicles” to see what you can learn from the misfortune of others.

Criminal Procedure: Do the federal bribery laws reach the bribery of FIFA officials by television executives bidding for media rights? - Argued: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 15:52:10 EDT

In October 2024, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team filed a motion requesting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hold his bail appeal in abeyance. This request aimed to pause the appellate proceedings to allow the district court to consider a renewed bail application based on new information.Prosecutors opposed this motion, arguing that it was a tactic to delay the appellate process and potentially "forum shop" due to the assignment of a new district judge. They contended that the appeal should proceed without delay.In this episode, we take a look at the back and forth.   (commercial at 8:04)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.32.0.pdfgov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.30.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Supreme Court is unlikely to bail out Trump and save him from E Jean Carroll's two judgments totaling almost $100 million dollars for sex assault, defamation and punitive damages, as they have sat on the sidelines and not taken up his appeal of the Second Circuit's immunity decision last December. Michael Popok explains how the Second Circuit's decision this week to uphold E Jean's first $5 million dollar jury verdict against Trump most certainly means that Trump will be forced to pay the remaining $90 million dollars to her also, with no Supreme Court bailout in sight. Let Rocket Money reach your financial goals faster by going to https://rocketmoney.com/legalaf Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Support the MeidasTouch Network: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Add the MeidasTouch Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-meidastouch-podcast/id1510240831 Buy MeidasTouch Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com Follow MeidasTouch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Facebook: https://facebook.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on Instagram: https://instagram.com/meidastouch Follow MeidasTouch on TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@meidastouch Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Josh Hammer analyzes the Second Circuit's unfortunate ruling yesterday, in which the court upheld a $5 million jury verdict against Donald Trump for allegedly sexually assaulting left-wing columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Also, why is everyone—even on the Right—suddenly acting like Jimmy Carter was a great president? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Federalism: Does the dormant commerce clause prevent states from prioritizing local businesses for the sale of marijuana? - Argued: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:54:5 EDT

As Elon Musk continues to plot, with Trumpian glee, against the American Federal government, it is important to remind ourselves of the essential value of this state bureaucracy. As the founding president and CEO of the Washington DC based Partnership for Public Service, Max Stier has spent the last quarter century focused on making American government more efficient and accountable. And Stier's warning about the incoming administration is critically important. Yes, he acknowledges, some of Musk's misgivings about the inefficiencies of the Federal bureaucracy are fair, but that isn't an excuse for a descent into what Stier describes as the patrimonial politics of MAGA in which the interests of Trump and of the American state are treated identically. The American Republic was founded against the 18th century absolutist conceit that L'État, c'est moi. So all Max Stier is doing, at the Partnership for Public Service, is defending the values of the Founders who, wanted to protect the Republic from a patrimonial state.Max Stier is the founding president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Under his leadership, the Partnership has been widely praised as a first-class nonprofit organization and thought leader on federal government management issues. Max has worked previously in all three branches of the federal government. In 1982, he served on the personal staff of Congressman Jim Leach. Max clerked for Chief Judge James Oakes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1992 and clerked for Justice David Souter of the United States Supreme Court in 1994. Between these two positions, Max served as Special Litigation Counsel to Assistant Attorney General Anne Bingaman at the Department of Justice. In 1995, Max joined the law firm of Williams & Connolly where he practiced primarily in the area of white collar defense. Max comes most recently from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, having served as the Deputy General Counsel for Litigation. A graduate of Yale University and Stanford Law School, Max is a member of the Inaugural Advisory Council of the National Institute of Social Sciences, the National Academy of Public Administration, the Administrative Conference of the United States and the National Advisory Board for Public Service at Harvard College.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to overturn her sex trafficking conviction on September 17, 2024. The court upheld the 20-year sentence and dismissed Maxwell's main argument that she should have been protected by a 2008 non-prosecution agreement made between Jeffrey Epstein and Florida prosecutors. The court made it clear that this agreement didn't apply to her case in New York.Maxwell also challenged the trial's fairness, claiming a juror's failure to disclose his own history of sexual abuse biased the outcome. The court didn't buy that either, stating that the omission wasn't deliberate and had no bearing on the trial's integrity.Ultimately, the court concluded that Maxwell played a pivotal role in facilitating Epstein's predatory behavior, and the sentence reflects the gravity of her crimes.(commercial at 10:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein deal didn't save Ghislaine Maxwell: Court (lawandcrime.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

John is joined by Dennis Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office and Head of the firm's Sovereign Litigation Practice; Alex Loomis, senior associate in Quinn Emanuel's Boston office; and John Bash, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Austin office and Co-Chair of the firm's National Appellate Practice. They discuss sovereign debt litigation, particularly the challenges of enforcing judgments against sovereign entities, and the team's recent success executing on over $310 million in assets to enforce in judgments against Argentina.  Dennis describes his decades-long history of enforcing judgments against Argentina, starting with a case for Elliott Management in 2002, where strategies like freezing Argentina out of capital markets and exposing corruption were key to recovery.  The team's recent case focused on the collateral for Argentina's “Brady” bonds, instruments from the 1990s designed to make sovereign debt more tradable.  The enforcement litigation was not over the collateral itself, but on Argentina's "reversionary interest" in the collateral.  Alex explains how the team discovered and leveraged admissions from Argentina's SEC filings to identify attachable assets, including Argentina's reversionary interest in zero-coupon bonds held in New York and Germany.  The legal arguments involved nuanced interpretations of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, including whether the reversionary interest qualified as commercial property subject to attachment and whether its situs (location) was in New York or Germany.  John Bash describes the appellate process, in which the Second Circuit upheld the attachment, agreeing that Argentina's reversionary interest was a commercial asset located in New York.  The discussion highlights the intellectual rigor required in such cases, involving intricate property law and sovereign immunity issues. The podcast concludes with reflections on Argentina's expected attempt to obtain review by the U.S. Supreme Court and the professional satisfaction the team derived from winning such a unique and challenging case.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Sean "Diddy" Combs is making a third attempt to secure his release on bail after being denied twice by the court. Currently detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn on charges including racketeering, sex trafficking, and obstruction of justice, Diddy's legal team filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.In this latest bid, Diddy has offered a $50 million bail package, which includes significant restrictions to address concerns about witness tampering and flight risk. The conditions proposed include home detention, GPS monitoring, 24/7 supervision, barring female visitors, and selling his private jet. Diddy also agreed to weekly drug tests and to avoid contact with grand jury witnesses. Despite these assurances, federal prosecutors remain concerned that his wealth and resources could allow him to flee or intimidate witnesses if released.The court has not yet ruled on this latest appeal, but the stakes are high as Diddy continues to fight the serious charges against him while being held without bail​.(commercial at 16:40)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean Combs Says Feds "Concealed" Evidence That Refutes Some Allegations (deadline.com)In a letter to the court, prosecutors strongly opposed Sean "Diddy" Combs' bail appeal, emphasizing his long history of witness intimidation and violent behavior. They argued that no conditions of bail, including his proposed house arrest in his luxurious Miami home, would prevent him from tampering with witnesses. Prosecutors cited multiple instances of abuse and threats to victims, including testimony from more than 50 witnesses and evidence from raids on Combs' properties. They highlighted the severity of the charges, which could lead to life imprisonment if convicted​to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Featuring:Ms. Rebecca Dormon, Labor Consultant, People ResultsMr. Pepper Crutcher, Partner, Balch & Bingham LLPMr. Bradford J. Kelley, Shareholder, LittlerModerator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Most would agree that all of these [tribalism, polarization, racism, religious enmity, and antisemitism] are bad for society. They are perhaps a particular threat in a democracy like ours, which is predicated on the idea that people of very different backgrounds and ideas can coexist peacefully. Following decades of improvement in all these areas, they seem to be resurgent in the United States. What role have the law, the courts, and the culture played in contributing to this state of affairs? How can law best be deployed to combat it and what is the role of civil society vs. law?Featuring:Mr. Jay Edelson, Founder & CEO, Edelson PCProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolProf. David M. Schizer, Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics and Dean Emeritus, Columbia Law SchoolMr. Matt Stoller, Director of Research, American Economic LibertieModerator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Featuring a conversation addressing regulation of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, tech platform regulation, privacy, spectrum policy, broadband funding and other government spending, and consumer protection issues.Featuring:Ms. Robin Colwell, Principal, BGR Government Affairs, LLCMr. Scott Blake Harris, Co-Founder and Managing Partner, Crest Hill AdvisorsMr. Umair Javed, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, CTIAProf. Mario Loyola, Research Assistant Professor, Florida International University; Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage FoundationModerator: Hon. Michael H. Park, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

We discuss YouTube's failing as an app, a couple seemingly-contradictory court rulings, and Matt brings a fun I'm So Old.The Second Circuit decision: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.60988/gov.uscourts.ca2.60988.306.1.pdfThe Southern District of NY decision: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.616533/gov.uscourts.nysd.616533.117.0.pdfThe WannaPractice app: www.wannapractice.com Use the code “WP50POFF” at registration for 50% off the regular price.The WannaBeA training material: wannabeacissp.comMany thanks to co-host Matt Snoddy! Go buy consulting services from him: http://www.networktherapists.com/You can now sponsor The Sensuous Sounds Of INFOSEC! Buy us a gallon of gas here: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/securityzedVisit our friend and co-host Raphty here: safing.io

The Mega condenses  the lawsuits against Sean "Diddy" Combs into one powerful, comprehensive episode. From allegations of misconduct to claims of power abuse, this episode brings together the transcripts from Diddy's third bail attempt in a single, unfiltered narrative. Sean "Diddy" Combs is making a third attempt to secure his release on bail after being denied twice by the court. Currently detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn on charges including racketeering, sex trafficking, and obstruction of justice, Diddy's legal team filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.In this latest bid, Diddy has offered a $50 million bail package, which includes significant restrictions to address concerns about witness tampering and flight risk. The conditions proposed include home detention, GPS monitoring, 24/7 supervision, barring female visitors, and selling his private jet. Diddy also agreed to weekly drug tests and to avoid contact with grand jury witnesses. Despite these assurances, federal prosecutors remain concerned that his wealth and resources could allow him to flee or intimidate witnesses if released.The court has not yet ruled on this latest appeal, but the stakes are high as Diddy continues to fight the serious charges against him while being held without bail​.In this episode, we get a look at that attempt in full.(commercial at 28:23)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:sean-combs-bail-appeal-1.pdf (deadline.com)

The Mega condenses  the lawsuits against Sean "Diddy" Combs into one powerful, comprehensive episode. From allegations of misconduct to claims of power abuse, this episode brings together the transcripts from Diddy's third bail attempt in a single, unfiltered narrative. Sean "Diddy" Combs is making a third attempt to secure his release on bail after being denied twice by the court. Currently detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn on charges including racketeering, sex trafficking, and obstruction of justice, Diddy's legal team filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.In this latest bid, Diddy has offered a $50 million bail package, which includes significant restrictions to address concerns about witness tampering and flight risk. The conditions proposed include home detention, GPS monitoring, 24/7 supervision, barring female visitors, and selling his private jet. Diddy also agreed to weekly drug tests and to avoid contact with grand jury witnesses. Despite these assurances, federal prosecutors remain concerned that his wealth and resources could allow him to flee or intimidate witnesses if released.The court has not yet ruled on this latest appeal, but the stakes are high as Diddy continues to fight the serious charges against him while being held without bail​.In this episode, we get a look at that attempt in full.(commercial at 12:43)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:sean-combs-bail-appeal-1.pdf (deadline.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In October 2024, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team filed a motion requesting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hold his bail appeal in abeyance. This request aimed to pause the appellate proceedings to allow the district court to consider a renewed bail application based on new information.Prosecutors opposed this motion, arguing that it was a tactic to delay the appellate process and potentially "forum shop" due to the assignment of a new district judge. They contended that the appeal should proceed without delay.In this episode, we take a look at the back and forth.   (commercial at 7:37)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.32.0.pdfgov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.30.0.pdf

Administrative Law: Does the Appointments Clause require Administrative Law Judges to be removable at will? - Argued: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 12:41:31 EDT

In October 2024, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team filed a motion requesting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hold his bail appeal in abeyance. This request aimed to pause the appellate proceedings to allow the district court to consider a renewed bail application based on new information.Prosecutors opposed this motion, arguing that it was a tactic to delay the appellate process and potentially "forum shop" due to the assignment of a new district judge. They contended that the appeal should proceed without delay.In this episode, we take a look at the back and forth.   (commercial at 8:04)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.32.0.pdfgov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.30.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.If you ever get prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, I wish you luck—because you'll need it. “The Office” has a very high conviction rate—and, like most U.S. Attorney's Offices, the vast majority of its convictions get affirmed on appeal.If you want to maximize your chances of either prevailing at trial or on appeal against the S.D.N.Y., then you should call Alexandra Shapiro (if you can afford her). She's the rare lawyer who can go up against The Office and win—whether at trial, in the Second Circuit, or before the U.S. Supreme Court.An alum of the S.D.N.Y. herself, as well as a former law clerk to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Alexandra is the co-founder (with Cynthia Arato) of a thriving boutique, Shapiro Arato Bach. Having her own firm allows Alexandra to take on cases and clients that she might not have been able to handle back when she was a partner at Latham & Watkins—whether because of client conflicts, the desire of large firms to steer clear of controversy, or Biglaw billing rates (because even if she's expensive, she's not Latham expensive, plus she enjoys more rate flexibility than a large firm).Speaking of controversy, Alexandra currently represents two high-profile defendants going up against The Office: FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, appealing his fraud convictions to the Second Circuit, and Sean “Diddy” Combs, scheduled to go to trial in May 2025 on sex-trafficking and racketeering charges. She discusses these cases (to the extent that she can)—as well as her own interesting and impressive career, her approach to crafting appellate briefs, and her legal thriller, Presumed Guilty (2022)—in the latest episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast. (Programming note: as some of you might have noticed, this episode is a week early, based on my usual every-other-week schedule. But between now and the end of the year, the schedule might get a little funky because of the demanding schedules of my next few guests, plus the holidays. I will try to stick to Wednesday as the drop date, but I can't guarantee much beyond that.)Show Notes:* Alexandra A.E. Shapiro bio, Shapiro Arato Bach LLP* Shapiro Arato Bach's Dynamite Trio: A Head-Turning Alternative to Big Law, by Emily Jackoway for Lawdragon* Presumed Guilty, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

A man was sentenced to prison for 7 months for saying what a funny TV comedian by the name of Jimmy Kimmel just said. Of course, he's not going to prison. And on CNN, they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kamala Harris does not exist. Plus, this is what a dead squirrel proves about the deep state.Episode Links:Jimmy Kimmel: "If you want to vote for Trump, vote late. Vote very late. Do your voting on Thursday or maybe Friday."Kimmel uses federal airwaves to spread election ‘misinformation'—same thing Doug Mackey was convicted for…‘On trial for memes': Man asks Second Circuit to overturn conviction over Election Day shenanigansWow. CNN uncovered that Kamala is running very different ads on her stance on the war in Gaza depending on the market.PEANUT THE SQUIRREL DEAD AFTER NY DEC SEIZURE. Mark Longo revealed that the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) euthanized his pet squirrel, PeanutHere's the commissioner of the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, @SeanMaharIC, who has locked down his account. He makes $220,000 a year to murder pet squirrelsAlan's Soaps https://www.alansartisansoaps.comUse coupon code ‘TODD' to save an additional 10% off the bundle price.Bioptimizers https://bioptimizers.com/toddUse code TODD to unlock up to $100 in free gifts and save an additional 10% off the special 3-product bundle for a 25% savings.Bonefrog https://bonefrogcoffee.com/toddMake Bonefrog Cold Brew at home!  Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions.Bulwark Capital Bulwark Capital Management (bulwarkcapitalmgmt.com)Don't miss the next live Webinar November 21st 3:30pm pacific.  Sign up today by calling 866-779-RISK or go to KnowYourRiskRadio.com.Renue Healthcare https://renue.healthcare/toddYour journey to a better life starts at Renue Healthcare. Visit renue.healthcare/Todd

September 1, 2020Joe Biden and Kamala Harris SHATTER the record for the most money raised in a month, we hear arguments in the Manhattan DA's subpoena of Mazars in the Second Circuit, Trump compares the attempted murder of Jacob Blake to missing a putt, the Department of Health and Human Services bids $250M for a communications contract to spin the messaging on covid, Barr removes a 20 year career national security official and the replacement raises questions, Barr orders more changes in FBI surveillance under FISA, and Elliott Broidy is about to be indicted, and some good news with Dana Goldberg.Follow our guest on twitter:Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill https://muellershewrote.substack.comhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts