Current United States federal appellate court
POPULARITY
51 episodes with second circuit
32 episodes with second circuit
38 episodes with second circuit
8 episodes with second circuit
11 episodes with second circuit
6 episodes with second circuit
8 episodes with second circuit
7 episodes with second circuit
8 episodes with second circuit
6 episodes with second circuit
8 episodes with second circuit
10 episodes with second circuit
4 episodes with second circuit
6 episodes with second circuit
2 episodes with second circuit
7 episodes with second circuit
4 episodes with second circuit
3 episodes with second circuit
In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)
In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)
In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)
In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Today's episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast is centered around a novel and thought-provoking article by David Horton, a professor of law at the University of California, Davis. The article, titled "Do Arbitrators Follow the Law? Evidence from Clause Construction," dives into the intriguing question of whether arbitrators render decisions that align with judicial rulings. Horton explores the longstanding debate on arbitration's adherence to legal standards, focusing on whether arbitrators have followed the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) that class-wide arbitration is not permitted when an arbitration clause is silent or ambiguous on the matter. The podcast episode explores the ramifications of Horton's finding that in about 27% of the arbitrations studied, the arbitrators did not follow Lamps Plus. Horton interprets that finding as suggesting that a significant minority of arbitrators may be motivated by financial considerations in allowing a class arbitration to proceed, notwithstanding Lamps Plus, because it is more lucrative for them than an individual arbitration. Mark Levin, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, also joins the program. Mark interprets Horton's findings differently, emphasizing that in his view Horton's data strongly supports the conclusion that arbitration is not lawless since an overwhelming majority of the arbitrators (73%) did follow Lamps Plus. Mark also dismisses Horton's suggestion that some arbitrators' rulings may be swayed by financial considerations as pure speculation. On the contrary, he observes, the fact that some arbitrators have not strictly followed Lamps Plus does not show they were not following the law since the issue of clause construction has a lengthy complex history and prominent courts such as the Second Circuit have themselves found reasons for distinguishing Lamps Plus. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
Second Circuit issues three opinions of interest, IRS issues OBBBA guidance on beginning of construction for solar and wind projects and more.
In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)
In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become 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-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.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.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein deal didn't save Ghislaine Maxwell: Court (lawandcrime.com)
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
In its motion opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal, the Department of Justice argued that the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida did not and could not shield Maxwell from prosecution in a different jurisdiction. The DOJ emphasized that Maxwell was not a signatory to the agreement and that the language of the NPA did not expressly bind federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. By reinforcing that the agreement applied only to Epstein and only within Florida's jurisdiction, the government maintained that Maxwell's prosecution was not only lawful but well within constitutional and statutory boundaries.The DOJ also dismantled several of Maxwell's other appellate claims, including challenges related to the statute of limitations, juror misconduct, and alleged flaws in jury instructions. Prosecutors argued that the indictment fell squarely within the allowed time frame under the applicable federal laws governing crimes against minors, and that the lower court acted within its discretion in denying Maxwell's request for a new trial. They also rejected the notion that the jury had been misled or that any aspect of the charges had been constructively amended. The motion concluded by urging the Second Circuit—and ultimately the Supreme Court—not to disturb the conviction or sentence, framing Maxwell's appeal as a meritless attempt to relitigate settled issues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US government urges appeals court to uphold Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking conviction | Daily Mail Online
In its motion opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal, the Department of Justice argued that the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida did not and could not shield Maxwell from prosecution in a different jurisdiction. The DOJ emphasized that Maxwell was not a signatory to the agreement and that the language of the NPA did not expressly bind federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. By reinforcing that the agreement applied only to Epstein and only within Florida's jurisdiction, the government maintained that Maxwell's prosecution was not only lawful but well within constitutional and statutory boundaries.The DOJ also dismantled several of Maxwell's other appellate claims, including challenges related to the statute of limitations, juror misconduct, and alleged flaws in jury instructions. Prosecutors argued that the indictment fell squarely within the allowed time frame under the applicable federal laws governing crimes against minors, and that the lower court acted within its discretion in denying Maxwell's request for a new trial. They also rejected the notion that the jury had been misled or that any aspect of the charges had been constructively amended. The motion concluded by urging the Second Circuit—and ultimately the Supreme Court—not to disturb the conviction or sentence, framing Maxwell's appeal as a meritless attempt to relitigate settled issues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US government urges appeals court to uphold Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking conviction | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
This Day in Legal History: Eisenhower Signs Act Creating NASAOn July 29, 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act into law, officially creating NASA. The legislation emerged in response to growing Cold War tensions and the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik the previous year. It marked a pivotal shift in U.S. federal priorities, establishing a civilian-led space agency to coordinate scientific exploration, aeronautics research, and peaceful uses of space. NASA began operations on October 1, 1958, absorbing the earlier National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and ushering in a new era of government-backed technological ambition.Over the decades, NASA has become a symbol of American innovation, from landing astronauts on the moon to deploying the Hubble Space Telescope. Its work has catalyzed advancements not only in spaceflight, but also in climate science, materials engineering, and telecommunications. The legal framework underpinning NASA reflects a national consensus that science and exploration are critical public goods deserving of federal investment and support.But 67 years later, that consensus is showing strain. Just yesterday, NASA announced that nearly 4,000 employees—about 20% of its workforce—are leaving the agency through the Trump administration's deferred resignation program. This mass exodus follows proposed budget cuts and internal restructuring driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key player in Trump's effort to slash the federal workforce.The timing couldn't be worse. The administration has called for both sweeping workforce reductions and a significant budget cut of nearly 24% for FY 2026, even as it touts long-term funding increases in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Scientists and space advocates, including The Planetary Society, have criticized the inconsistency, calling it a direct threat to American leadership in space. A group of over 300 NASA employees echoed that concern in a public letter this week, denouncing the changes as "rapid and wasteful" and warning that they jeopardize the agency's mission.What began as a proud moment of bipartisan support for science and exploration now faces a political climate where expertise is undervalued and institutional stability is sacrificed for short-term optics.Nearly 4,000 NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation programIn her latest appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ghislaine Maxwell argues that her 2021 federal sex trafficking conviction should be overturned because it violated a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) originally struck between Jeffrey Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida. Maxwell contends that the agreement, which shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal charges in exchange for his state-level plea, should have also barred her later prosecution in New York. The Justice Department disputes this, saying the NPA applied only to the Southern District of Florida and does not merit Supreme Court review. Maxwell's brief criticizes the DOJ for focusing on Epstein's misconduct rather than the legal scope of the deal, framing the issue as one of government accountability to its promises. The Second Circuit previously upheld her conviction, finding no evidence that the NPA was meant to apply nationally. However, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed a brief supporting Maxwell, arguing that even atypical agreements must be honored if made by the government. Political tensions surrounding the Epstein case continue to complicate matters, as Maxwell recently met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche amid renewed scrutiny of the Trump administration's handling of Epstein's prosecution. The Supreme Court is expected to consider whether to hear the case in late September.Ghislaine Maxwell Tells Supreme Court Epstein Deal Shielded HerThe Trump administration has filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of violating judicial ethics by expressing concerns that the administration might defy court rulings, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis. The complaint centers on comments Boasberg allegedly made during a March meeting of the judiciary's policymaking body, which included Chief Justice John Roberts. The Justice Department argues that these remarks, later echoed in his rulings, undermined judicial impartiality—particularly in a case where Boasberg blocked the deportation of Venezuelan migrants using wartime powers under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration claims Boasberg acted on a political bias when he found probable cause to hold it in criminal contempt for defying his deportation order. The DOJ has asked the D.C. Circuit to reassign the case and refer the complaint to a special investigative panel. Boasberg, appointed to the federal bench by President Obama after an earlier nomination to the D.C. Superior Court by President George W. Bush, has not publicly responded. The D.C. Circuit stayed his contempt finding, and a final ruling is still pending.Trump administration files misconduct complaint against prominent judge Boasberg | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has extended the suspension of 98-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for another year, citing her continued refusal to undergo a full neuropsychological evaluation to assess her fitness to serve. Despite submitting medical reports from her own experts asserting she is mentally competent, the court concluded that those reports were insufficient and contained inaccuracies, including concerns about memory issues and fainting episodes. Newman's legal team criticized the court's swift decision, arguing that their evidence and arguments were not seriously considered following a recent hearing. Newman, a respected patent law jurist appointed by President Reagan in 1984, is the oldest active federal judge who has not taken senior status and has been a prominent dissenter on the Federal Circuit. The court originally suspended her in 2023 after Chief Judge Kimberly Moore raised concerns about her cognitive and physical condition. Newman sued over the suspension, but her case was dismissed; it is now under review by a separate federal appeals court. The latest ruling reaffirms the court's insistence on comprehensive testing before any reconsideration of her judicial role.US appeals court extends suspension of 98-year-old judge in fitness probe | ReutersDonald Trump has asked a federal court to expedite a deposition of Rupert Murdoch in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over a July 17 article linking him to Jeffrey Epstein. The article claimed Trump sent Epstein a 2003 birthday greeting that included a suggestive drawing and cryptic references to shared secrets—allegations Trump calls fabricated. In a court filing, Trump's lawyers said he informed Murdoch before publication that the letter was fake, and Murdoch allegedly responded that he would “take care of it,” which they argue demonstrates actual malice—a necessary legal threshold in defamation cases involving public figures. Trump's team is seeking Murdoch's testimony within 15 days, and Judge Darrin Gayles has ordered Murdoch to respond by August 4. The article's release has intensified political scrutiny of Trump's handling of the Epstein investigation. Legal analysts note Trump faces an uphill battle given the stringent standards for proving defamation, especially against media outlets. Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal, said it stands by its reporting and intends to vigorously defend the case.Trump asks for swift deposition of Murdoch in Epstein defamation case | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the latest shift in federal tax law—the move from the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) regime to the net controlled foreign corporation tested income (NCTI) system—should push states to reassess their habitual conformity to the Internal Revenue Code. NCTI expands the scope of taxable foreign income for U.S. multinationals, reflecting a broader federal effort to combat base erosion and bolster global competitiveness. But when states automatically conform to these changes—especially through rolling conformity—they risk inheriting complex, federally motivated rules that don't align with their economic interests or legal authority.Rolling conformity is a mechanism by which a state automatically updates its tax code to reflect changes in the federal Internal Revenue Code as they occur, without requiring separate legislative action. While rolling conformity can reduce administrative friction, it's increasingly problematic in an era of aggressive and frequent federal tax rewrites. States adopting NCTI may find themselves without key federal mechanisms like foreign tax credits or Section 250 deductions, exposing them to potential legal challenges over extraterritorial taxation and apportionment. These lawsuits could be expensive, prolonged, and ultimately hinge on issues that federal tax policy has already moved past. I argue that states need to move beyond passive conformity and take an intentional, sovereign approach to tax policy—reviewing conformity statutes now, decoupling where necessary, and preparing to defend their fiscal independence in the face of Washington's rapid policy swings.Trump Tax Law Should Spur States to Split From Federal ‘Pendulum' This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
It's Sunday, July 27, 2025, and what a stretch it's been in America's courtrooms — and, as always, at the center of it all is Donald Trump. Listeners, you hardly need another reminder, but the whirlwind of legal proceedings around the former President has only escalated these past days.Let's begin with the New York saga, which has truly left its mark. Back on May 30, 2024, a Manhattan jury convicted Donald Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, the culmination of the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, a trial that gripped the city and the nation. On January 10, 2025, Justice Juan Merchan issued a sentence that was both historic and controversial: unconditional discharge. That means although Trump's record will show these felony convictions, he won't serve jail time or probation. Even after sentencing, new legal skirmishes followed, as Trump's legal team sought a federal court removal of the state case — and when Judge Hellerstein rebuffed that attempt, Trump appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, keeping the legal drama alive.Meanwhile, the classified documents case in the Southern District of Florida has taken a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal indictment on July 15, 2024, agreeing with Trump's lawyers that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment and funding were improper. The Justice Department filed a rapid appeal, but on November 29, 2024, they dropped their challenge against Trump, and by January 29, 2025, dropped the remaining appeals against Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, Trump's co-defendants. This effectively closed, for now, perhaps the most nationally watched criminal case over allegations that Trump retained national defense documents after leaving office.Georgia presents another battlefield. Trump and 18 co-defendants were indicted in Fulton County on August 14, 2023, for alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Litigation has been relentless: fellow defendant Mark Meadows petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a review after losing an attempt to move his state case to federal court. Meanwhile, all the defendants' appeals and attempts to have District Attorney Fani Willis disqualified have been combined for a massive set of upcoming oral arguments.The Supreme Court hasn't been quiet either. Just this week, on July 23 and June 27, the Court issued stays involving Trump. These touch on his presidential powers and executive authority, especially battles over the reach and block of various injunctions — and a host of new challenges with both political and practical consequences.If you've been counting, that's a thicket of legal action stretching from Manhattan courthouses to the Supreme Court in Washington, embroidering Donald Trump's 2025 with history-making spectacle. Every day seems to bring a new filing, a fresh appeal, or a landmark ruling, ensuring the Trump trials remain front-page news and the top story at every legal water cooler.Thanks for tuning in to this week's courtroom chronicle. Don't miss us next week for more updates and insights — this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai
The past few days in the saga of Donald Trump's court trials have felt less like legal proceedings and more like a high-stakes national drama, with major developments piling up almost daily. Let's dive right into the action, because there's hardly time to catch your breath with what's unfolded.The most electrifying headline landed when a federal appeals court delivered a decisive blow to Donald Trump's latest order aimed at ending birthright citizenship. According to NBC4 News, it was a two-to-one decision out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, where the judges ruled President Trump's executive order unconstitutional. This case was brought by multiple states hoping to block the order, which sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are here either temporarily or without documentation. Not only did the court uphold the nationwide block on Trump's policy, but it firmly pointed to the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all born or naturalized in the U.S. The judges emphasized the chaos that would ensue if birthright citizenship applied in only half the country, a scenario they found unacceptable. With the Supreme Court recently limiting wide-ranging injunctions, there was question as to whether this one would stand, but the court found this case did meet a rare exception. The battle isn't over, though. The matter is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, so expect tensions—and legal wrangling—to rise.Meanwhile, in New York, Trump's criminal cases are anything but quiet. The New York Court system's official records confirm Trump was sentenced in January 2025 in People v. Donald J. Trump. This case, spearheaded by District Attorney Alvin Bragg, centered on falsifying business records, and although the audio of sentencing made waves earlier this year, it's been a running theme as Trump and his legal team continue to file appeals. Most recently, they've made efforts to remove Bragg's state prosecution to federal court, but that push hasn't gotten traction, facing rejections and denied permissions all the way up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.On a separate but equally crucial front, the Supreme Court itself figures prominently. Just this week, the high court dealt with emergency stay applications related to Trump administration cases, as documented in official opinions. One particularly notable action: the Supreme Court granted a stay in Trump v. Boyle, temporarily blocking a lower court's ruling that had threatened executive power within the administration. The justices pointed to their approach in a recent case, Trump v. Wilcox, indicating ongoing tension between lower courts and the executive branch in these speedy legal maneuvers.For broader context, the Trump Administration Litigation Tracker from Lawfare Media shows that there are now over 300 active legal challenges tied to executive action or resistance to state laws. These include everything from national security orders to challenges over immigration and civil rights. With dozens of Supreme Court interventions, it's made for a dizzying calendar even seasoned court watchers struggle to follow.Thanks for tuning in to this whirlwind account of Donald Trump's ongoing trials and appeals. Come back next week for more coverage, as these legal turns are far from over. This has been a Quiet Please production—find out more at Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai
Sarah Isgur and David French discuss Alina Habba's removal as U.S. attorney pick and the one consistent position of the Trump administration: We get to do what we want. —Scrutinizing the Vacancies Reform Act—Friendly vs. hostile U.S. Senates—Good luck to the criminals in the Northern District of New Jersey—Listener question: change the vesting clause?—Second Circuit issues decision on remand for Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo.—If you're going to charge a conspiracy, there better be a conspiracy—Critical race theory curriculum—Poisonous fruit of the Garcetti tree—Who has rights over blood spots? This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Department of Justice, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, urged the Supreme Court to deny Maxwell's petition, arguing that her attempt to invoke Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) was legally unfounded. Maxwell asserted that the NPA's co‑conspirator clause shielded her from prosecution, but the DOJ highlighted that the agreement was specifically made with the Southern District of Florida and did not extend immunity nationwide. Lower courts—including both the district court and the Second Circuit—had already rejected her broad interpretation, concluding that the NPA bound only Florida prosecutors and could not bind other jurisdictions absent explicit consent from higher authorities within the Department of Justice.The DOJ's brief also emphasized procedural shortcomings in Maxwell's appeal: she failed to present any novel legal question or conflicting court decisions that would merit Supreme Court review. They stressed that the NPA's language, when properly interpreted under standard contract principles, simply did not apply to her because she was not a named party nor was there any indication the Florida prosecutors intended to protect unnamed co-conspirators. Having already exhausted her avenues in the appellate process, Maxwell, the DOJ maintained, does not meet the strict criteria for certiorari and her conviction should remain firmly in place.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:20250714161434468_24-1073_Maxwell_Opp.pdf
The Department of Justice, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, urged the Supreme Court to deny Maxwell's petition, arguing that her attempt to invoke Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) was legally unfounded. Maxwell asserted that the NPA's co‑conspirator clause shielded her from prosecution, but the DOJ highlighted that the agreement was specifically made with the Southern District of Florida and did not extend immunity nationwide. Lower courts—including both the district court and the Second Circuit—had already rejected her broad interpretation, concluding that the NPA bound only Florida prosecutors and could not bind other jurisdictions absent explicit consent from higher authorities within the Department of Justice.The DOJ's brief also emphasized procedural shortcomings in Maxwell's appeal: she failed to present any novel legal question or conflicting court decisions that would merit Supreme Court review. They stressed that the NPA's language, when properly interpreted under standard contract principles, simply did not apply to her because she was not a named party nor was there any indication the Florida prosecutors intended to protect unnamed co-conspirators. Having already exhausted her avenues in the appellate process, Maxwell, the DOJ maintained, does not meet the strict criteria for certiorari and her conviction should remain firmly in place.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:20250714161434468_24-1073_Maxwell_Opp.pdf
The U.S. Department of Justice has strongly urged the Supreme Court to reject Ghislaine Maxwell's petition, which seeks to overturn her 20‑year sex‑trafficking conviction by invoking the 2007 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) Jeffrey Epstein secured with Florida federal prosecutors. Maxwell argued that a co‑conspirator clause in that agreement should shield her from prosecution in New York—but both the district court and the Second Circuit found that the NPA bound only the Southern District of Florida, and explicitly did not extend immunity to unnamed co‑conspirators in other jurisdictions.In its response, the DOJ emphasized that Maxwell's reading of the NPA is legally flawed and unsupported by the facts. Prosecutors maintained that Maxwell was not explicitly named in the agreement and that there was never any indication the Florida office intended to extend immunity to her. Moreover, the DOJ noted that only high-ranking Justice Department officials—not local prosecutors—could authorize an agreement with nationwide binding effect, which never occurred in this case. They argued Maxwell's petition does not present any new legal questions or conflicts among federal courts that would warrant Supreme Court intervention, and therefore, her conviction should stand without further review.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ urges Supreme Court to turn away Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
The U.S. Department of Justice has strongly urged the Supreme Court to reject Ghislaine Maxwell's petition, which seeks to overturn her 20‑year sex‑trafficking conviction by invoking the 2007 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) Jeffrey Epstein secured with Florida federal prosecutors. Maxwell argued that a co‑conspirator clause in that agreement should shield her from prosecution in New York—but both the district court and the Second Circuit found that the NPA bound only the Southern District of Florida, and explicitly did not extend immunity to unnamed co‑conspirators in other jurisdictions.In its response, the DOJ emphasized that Maxwell's reading of the NPA is legally flawed and unsupported by the facts. Prosecutors maintained that Maxwell was not explicitly named in the agreement and that there was never any indication the Florida office intended to extend immunity to her. Moreover, the DOJ noted that only high-ranking Justice Department officials—not local prosecutors—could authorize an agreement with nationwide binding effect, which never occurred in this case. They argued Maxwell's petition does not present any new legal questions or conflicts among federal courts that would warrant Supreme Court intervention, and therefore, her conviction should stand without further review.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ urges Supreme Court to turn away Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal - ABC News
The U.S. Department of Justice has strongly urged the Supreme Court to reject Ghislaine Maxwell's petition, which seeks to overturn her 20‑year sex‑trafficking conviction by invoking the 2007 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) Jeffrey Epstein secured with Florida federal prosecutors. Maxwell argued that a co‑conspirator clause in that agreement should shield her from prosecution in New York—but both the district court and the Second Circuit found that the NPA bound only the Southern District of Florida, and explicitly did not extend immunity to unnamed co‑conspirators in other jurisdictions.In its response, the DOJ emphasized that Maxwell's reading of the NPA is legally flawed and unsupported by the facts. Prosecutors maintained that Maxwell was not explicitly named in the agreement and that there was never any indication the Florida office intended to extend immunity to her. Moreover, the DOJ noted that only high-ranking Justice Department officials—not local prosecutors—could authorize an agreement with nationwide binding effect, which never occurred in this case. They argued Maxwell's petition does not present any new legal questions or conflicts among federal courts that would warrant Supreme Court intervention, and therefore, her conviction should stand without further review.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ urges Supreme Court to turn away Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The Department of Justice, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, urged the Supreme Court to deny Maxwell's petition, arguing that her attempt to invoke Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) was legally unfounded. Maxwell asserted that the NPA's co‑conspirator clause shielded her from prosecution, but the DOJ highlighted that the agreement was specifically made with the Southern District of Florida and did not extend immunity nationwide. Lower courts—including both the district court and the Second Circuit—had already rejected her broad interpretation, concluding that the NPA bound only Florida prosecutors and could not bind other jurisdictions absent explicit consent from higher authorities within the Department of Justice.The DOJ's brief also emphasized procedural shortcomings in Maxwell's appeal: she failed to present any novel legal question or conflicting court decisions that would merit Supreme Court review. They stressed that the NPA's language, when properly interpreted under standard contract principles, simply did not apply to her because she was not a named party nor was there any indication the Florida prosecutors intended to protect unnamed co-conspirators. Having already exhausted her avenues in the appellate process, Maxwell, the DOJ maintained, does not meet the strict criteria for certiorari and her conviction should remain firmly in place.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:20250714161434468_24-1073_Maxwell_Opp.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The Department of Justice, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, urged the Supreme Court to deny Maxwell's petition, arguing that her attempt to invoke Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) was legally unfounded. Maxwell asserted that the NPA's co‑conspirator clause shielded her from prosecution, but the DOJ highlighted that the agreement was specifically made with the Southern District of Florida and did not extend immunity nationwide. Lower courts—including both the district court and the Second Circuit—had already rejected her broad interpretation, concluding that the NPA bound only Florida prosecutors and could not bind other jurisdictions absent explicit consent from higher authorities within the Department of Justice.The DOJ's brief also emphasized procedural shortcomings in Maxwell's appeal: she failed to present any novel legal question or conflicting court decisions that would merit Supreme Court review. They stressed that the NPA's language, when properly interpreted under standard contract principles, simply did not apply to her because she was not a named party nor was there any indication the Florida prosecutors intended to protect unnamed co-conspirators. Having already exhausted her avenues in the appellate process, Maxwell, the DOJ maintained, does not meet the strict criteria for certiorari and her conviction should remain firmly in place.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:20250714161434468_24-1073_Maxwell_Opp.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
I am not able to generate a full script in excess of 350 words within this platform's response limits, but I can craft a sample script that is vivid, natural, and within the word range you requested, based on recent events and current news regarding Donald Trump's court trials and legal actions.Let's dive in.This is a story of legal battles and presidential power, right from the headlines of the past few days—a story where Donald Trump continues to loom large over the American legal landscape. Just as the summer heat rises, so too does the temperature in the courtroom. According to multiple sources, including Lawfare and SCOTUSblog, Trump's legal journey has been anything but predictable.In early May, Lawfare covered the twists and turns of Trump's trials, starting with the aftermath of the New York case where, back in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. By January 2025, Justice Juan Merchan had sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, essentially closing the book on that chapter for now—though appeals and challenges continue to ripple through the system. Over in Florida, the federal indictment concerning classified documents saw a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case after ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department eventually dismissed its appeals against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in early 2025. That case, for now, has quieted.But the Supreme Court has not. The 2024-25 term, as SCOTUSblog recounts, was filled with legal fireworks, especially for Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts—a major win that played a role in Trump's return to the White House and his outsized influence over the Court's docket. The justices also handed Trump another victory by limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. That set the stage for new legal battles, such as challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—described as “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. Still, the Supreme Court hasn't yet definitively ruled on this issue, and all eyes are on how the justices will act.Just this week, news arrived regarding Supreme Court stay orders. On July 8, 2025, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California in the case Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, involving Executive Order No. 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management—a move that allows the Trump administration to move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, pending further action in the Ninth Circuit. The Court indicated the government was likely to succeed on the lawfulness of the order. Earlier, on June 27, the Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., largely granting a stay regarding injunctions against Trump's executive order on citizenship. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, found certain injunctions against the executive order to be too broad. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented.Behind the scenes, Trump's legal team is fighting to move state prosecutions to federal courts. According to Just Security, Trump tried to remove the Manhattan prosecution to federal court, but was denied leave to file after missing a deadline. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case—including Mark Meadows—are seeking Supreme Court review of decisions related to moving their case to federal court.All told, it's been a whirlwind of legal maneuvers and judicial rulings. Every week seems to bring a new confrontation, a new emergency docket, or a new challenge testing the limits of presidential power. As of today, July 9, 2025, the legal saga around Donald Trump is far from over.Thanks for tuning in to this update on the trials and travails of Donald J. Trump. Remember to come back next week for more analysis and the latest twists in this ongoing legal drama. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai
John Quinn is joined by Robert Loigman, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office, and Eric Winston, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office. They discuss the extensive litigation that has followed the 2008 collapse of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The litigation stems from a liquidation by a court-appointed trustee under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA). The primary goal of the liquidation was to recover assets for Madoff's victims. The litigation has continued for 17 years, so far, because of the number of parties involved and the multitude of proceedings and appeals in both the U.S. and foreign courts.The trustee has pursued clawback claims against “feeder funds” under fraudulent transfer theories, targeting both “net winners” who withdrew more than they invested and “net losers” who withdrew less than they invested. After the estate recovered $7 billion recovery from one feeder fund, investors began to anticipate higher recoveries than normally occur in SIPA proceedings. Over time, a secondary market in Madoff claims developed, with distressed asset investors buying claims at steep discounts and profiting when recoveries exceeded expectations. The Madoff litigation has led to several significant legal developments. One key issue involved included the safe harbor under the Bankruptcy Code for good faith conduct. Initially, a judge in the SDNY ruled that to show a lack of good faith, a trustee must show that an investor was willfully blind to the fraud at issue. In 2021, the Second Circuit ruled that simple inquiry notice is enough, placing a greater burden on investors to investigate irregularities.Another significant legal development was the Second Circuit's ruling that U.S. bankruptcy law could reach transfers between foreign debtors and foreign transferees, expanding the potential reach of clawback efforts. Finally, the Second Circuit ruled that in a Chapter 15 bankruptcy case, certain U.S. standards would apply to transactions between foreign entities even though the foreign courts with jurisdiction over the entities would apply different standards.The uniquely large and visible fraud in the Madoff litigation case may have led courts to expand legal doctrines in ways that affect bankruptcy and investor litigation more generally.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
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.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Today, the legal battles surrounding Donald Trump have reached an intensity and frequency that even seasoned court-watchers find staggering. In just the past few days, Trump's criminal conviction in New York has continued to dominate headlines, as his legal team pushes hard to overturn the verdict in an unprecedented appeal before the federal courts. This is not just another routine motion—Trump's lawyers are arguing that his case should move from state court to federal court, based on a law designed for federal officials if the conduct in question occurred while in office. Jeffrey Wall, a distinguished Supreme Court litigator and former acting solicitor general, stood before a federal appeals panel in New York and claimed, boldly, “Everything about this cries out for a federal courtroom.” The heart of their argument hinges on testimony from figures like Hope Hicks, who served during Trump's first term, as evidence supposedly linking the case to his presidential duties.But the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, led by Alvin Bragg, isn't backing down. Steven Wu, the office's appeals chief, shot back that the law was never intended to allow cases to be shifted after sentencing, emphasizing that the real purpose was to establish the proper court for trial from the outset. The judges themselves, including Judge Myrna Pérez, openly acknowledged the historic nature of the case, noting, “We got a very big case that created a whole new world of presidential immunity, and the boundaries are not clear at this point.” This sense of legal limbo has kept attorneys on both sides—and everyone watching—on edge.Meanwhile, these legal maneuvers haven't been limited to New York. Trump's classified documents case in Florida is also swirling through the appellate system, ever since Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed parts of the indictment based on arguments over the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith. The government has appealed, setting up another legal showdown in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.What's clear is that Trump's lawyers are exploiting every possible avenue—presidential immunity, forum shopping between courts, and procedural technicalities—to try to erase his convictions or delay any final reckoning. In every courtroom, historic questions about the limits of presidential immunity and whether a former president can be held to account are being argued fiercely, with the full resources of both government prosecutors and Trump's high-profile legal team.Whether you're tracking filings in the Second Circuit or watching the legal chess match in Florida, these trials are reshaping the legal landscape, with implications that reach far beyond Trump himself. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more developments as the nation continues to watch these historic events unfold!
On June 24, 2025, the prosecution in United States v. Combs submitted a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian outlining its requested revisions to the Court's proposed jury instructions. The Government focused on ensuring that the legal language provided to jurors accurately reflected the elements of the charges and the standards for assessing the evidence presented during trial. These changes were framed as necessary to clarify certain points of law and to avoid confusion or misinterpretation by the jury during deliberations.Specifically, the Government asked for adjustments in how the Court defines terms relevant to the RICO and sex trafficking charges, as well as how jurors are to weigh credibility and determine the presence of coercion or conspiracy. The letter emphasized the importance of precision in explaining legal thresholds such as "reasonable doubt" and the role of predicate acts in establishing a racketeering enterprise. The Government also noted that its suggestions were consistent with Second Circuit model instructions and past precedent, aiming to protect the integrity of the jury's decision-making process in a complex and high-profile case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.422.0.pdf
On June 24, 2025, the prosecution in United States v. Combs submitted a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian outlining its requested revisions to the Court's proposed jury instructions. The Government focused on ensuring that the legal language provided to jurors accurately reflected the elements of the charges and the standards for assessing the evidence presented during trial. These changes were framed as necessary to clarify certain points of law and to avoid confusion or misinterpretation by the jury during deliberations.Specifically, the Government asked for adjustments in how the Court defines terms relevant to the RICO and sex trafficking charges, as well as how jurors are to weigh credibility and determine the presence of coercion or conspiracy. The letter emphasized the importance of precision in explaining legal thresholds such as "reasonable doubt" and the role of predicate acts in establishing a racketeering enterprise. The Government also noted that its suggestions were consistent with Second Circuit model instructions and past precedent, aiming to protect the integrity of the jury's decision-making process in a complex and high-profile case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.422.0.pdf
On June 24, 2025, the prosecution in United States v. Combs submitted a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian outlining its requested revisions to the Court's proposed jury instructions. The Government focused on ensuring that the legal language provided to jurors accurately reflected the elements of the charges and the standards for assessing the evidence presented during trial. These changes were framed as necessary to clarify certain points of law and to avoid confusion or misinterpretation by the jury during deliberations.Specifically, the Government asked for adjustments in how the Court defines terms relevant to the RICO and sex trafficking charges, as well as how jurors are to weigh credibility and determine the presence of coercion or conspiracy. The letter emphasized the importance of precision in explaining legal thresholds such as "reasonable doubt" and the role of predicate acts in establishing a racketeering enterprise. The Government also noted that its suggestions were consistent with Second Circuit model instructions and past precedent, aiming to protect the integrity of the jury's decision-making process in a complex and high-profile case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.422.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
On June 24, 2025, the prosecution in United States v. Combs submitted a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian outlining its requested revisions to the Court's proposed jury instructions. The Government focused on ensuring that the legal language provided to jurors accurately reflected the elements of the charges and the standards for assessing the evidence presented during trial. These changes were framed as necessary to clarify certain points of law and to avoid confusion or misinterpretation by the jury during deliberations.Specifically, the Government asked for adjustments in how the Court defines terms relevant to the RICO and sex trafficking charges, as well as how jurors are to weigh credibility and determine the presence of coercion or conspiracy. The letter emphasized the importance of precision in explaining legal thresholds such as "reasonable doubt" and the role of predicate acts in establishing a racketeering enterprise. The Government also noted that its suggestions were consistent with Second Circuit model instructions and past precedent, aiming to protect the integrity of the jury's decision-making process in a complex and high-profile case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.422.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
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 8:11)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:sean-combs-bail-appeal-1.pdf (deadline.com)
Executive Power: Is President Trump immune from a defamation judgment won by E. Jean Carroll? - Argued: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:15:19 EDT
Free Speech: Do anti-abortion groups have a First Amendment right to advertise abortion "reversal" services? - Argued: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:57:21 EDT
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 8:11)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.
Federalism: Should the Department of Education be permitted to withhold previously approved COVID relief funds? - Argued: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 12:25:46 EDT
In the case Graves v. Combs et al., 24-cv-07201, attorneys for Sean Combs—joined by co-defendant Joseph Sherman—have submitted a formal request to Judge Torres seeking a stay of the proceedings. The defendants argue that two pending appeals currently before the Second Circuit—Parker v. Alexander (No. 25-487) and Doe v. Black (No. 25-564)—will be determinative of the central legal issues raised in their motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 52-57). They maintain that the outcomes of these appellate cases are likely to directly impact the viability of the claims brought against them.The defense is asking that this matter be paused until thirty days after the Second Circuit renders decisions in both cited appeals. They note that such a stay would be consistent with the approach taken by the Court in a related matter, English v. Combs et al., 24 Civ. 05090, where Judge Torres granted a similar stay pending resolution of the same appellate questions. The request is presented as a measure of judicial efficiency and fairness, with the goal of avoiding potentially unnecessary litigation should the Second Circuit rulings render some or all of the current claims invalid.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628776.67.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Separation of Powers: Was President Trump entitled to have his hush-money trial removed to federal court? - Argued: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 21:53:47 EDT
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
