Podcasts about second circuit

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

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I talk about new rulings out of the Fifth Circuit upholding a lifetime gun ban for someone who committed a traffic crime and the Second Circuit against a white collar criminal. We also provide new reporting on the ATF's recent use of masked agents to conduct operations. Finally, we update everyone on a new concealed carry reciprocity agreement between Pennsylvania and Virginia before covering some big stories from outside of The Reload.

Criminal Procedure: Should Sen Bob Menendez be released on bail from his bribery conviction based upon the argument that excluded evidence was shown to the jury? - Argued: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 15:40:22 EDT

Good morning, America. The legal saga surrounding Donald Trump continues to unfold with significant developments in recent days. Today is June 6th, 2025, and the Trump administration has once again turned to the Supreme Court, this time seeking large-scale reductions in the federal workforce. This move, made just three days ago, marks another chapter in Trump's contentious relationship with government institutions.The Trump administration's legal battles have been numerous and complex. Looking back at the timeline, Trump's New York criminal case reached a conclusion earlier this year. After being found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records by a Manhattan jury on May 30th, 2024, Trump received his sentence on January 10th, 2025, when Justice Merchan handed down an unconditional discharge.In the classified documents case in Florida, we saw a dramatic turn last summer when Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal indictment against Trump on July 15th, 2024. Her ruling stated that Special Counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed and funded. The Justice Department initially appealed this decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals but ultimately dismissed the appeal against Trump on November 29th, 2024. By January 29th of this year, the Justice Department had also dismissed appeals against Trump's co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.The legal calendar for Trump has been packed with other significant events as well. Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari following the 11th Circuit's decision to dismiss his attempt to move his Georgia criminal case to federal court.In the New York civil fraud case, Trump and other defendants have filed appeals against Justice Engoron's September 2023 summary judgment and February 2024 final decision. The Appellate Division has granted New York Attorney General Letitia James's request to consolidate these appeals.Meanwhile, defendants are appealing Judge McAfee's order regarding motions to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis in Georgia. Although each appellant has an individual case number, all oral arguments will be heard together.Trump has also made another attempt to remove Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to federal court. After his second notice of removal was rejected as deficient and Judge Hellerstein denied his request for leave, Trump appealed to the Second Circuit.As the legal battles continue to unfold, the Trump administration's recent move to seek workforce reductions through the Supreme Court signals that the intersection of law and politics remains as active as ever in the Trump era.

Good morning, folks. The legal world surrounding Donald Trump continues to evolve rapidly, with several significant developments in just the past week. Today, May 23rd, 2025, we've seen some major court decisions that will shape the political landscape in the months ahead.Just this morning, a federal judge in Florida—one who was actually nominated by Trump himself—indicated that the president does have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs. However, interestingly, the judge decided to punt the actual lawsuit to another court rather than making a final ruling on the case.Last week, on May 16th, the Supreme Court issued an important decision in a case between the AARP and President Trump. The Court vacated a judgment from the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case, while also issuing an injunction preventing the government from removing certain detainees under the AEA pending further court orders. This stems from Trump's presidential proclamation issued on March 14th this year.Then just yesterday, May 22nd, another Supreme Court case emerged involving President Trump against Gwynne A. Wilcox and others, with Justice Kagan issuing an opinion on an application for stay.These recent cases add to an already complex legal calendar for the former and now current president. Earlier legal battles from 2024 continue to reverberate through the system. Trump's classified documents case in Florida saw Judge Cannon grant his motion to dismiss a superseding indictment last July, with the government quickly appealing to the 11th Circuit.The New York civil fraud case appeals are moving forward as well, with defendants appealing both Justice Engoron's September 2023 summary judgment and his February 2024 final decision. The consolidation of these appeals means they'll proceed with a single record and set of briefs.There's also ongoing litigation regarding Trump's attempt to remove Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to federal court. His second notice of removal was initially rejected as deficient, and after Judge Hellerstein denied his request for leave, Trump appealed to the Second Circuit.The legal challenges facing the Trump administration extend beyond the president himself, with cases like Washington v. Department of Transportation regarding a federal funding freeze still pending in Maryland District Court as of earlier this month.As these cases continue to unfold, they'll undoubtedly shape both policy and politics during this tumultuous presidential term. The courts remain a crucial battleground for defining the limits of executive power in the Trump administration.

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.pdf

Good morning, I'm reporting live on this Monday, May 19, 2025, with the latest developments in Donald Trump's legal battles.Just three days ago, on May 16, the Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, vacating a Fifth Circuit judgment and remanding the case back for further consideration. The Court has temporarily enjoined the government from removing named plaintiffs or putative class members under the AEA pending the Fifth Circuit's order. This stems from President Trump's March 14th Proclamation, which has been legally challenged on multiple fronts.Earlier this month, on May 5th, we saw movement in Pacito v. Trump, where a District Court ordered a compliance framework forcing the government to follow preliminary injunction orders related to refugees. This case directly challenges Trump's controversial suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which has left thousands in limbo since his return to office.The legal calendar for Trump remains packed across multiple jurisdictions. His classified documents case continues to work through the appeals process after Judge Cannon granted his motion to dismiss the superseding indictment last July. The government promptly appealed to the 11th Circuit.Meanwhile, former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has taken his Georgia criminal case all the way to the Supreme Court, seeking to move it to federal court. In New York, Trump and his co-defendants are appealing Justice Engoron's decisions in the civil fraud case, with Attorney General Letitia James successfully consolidating these appeals.In Georgia, several defendants are appealing Judge McAfee's order regarding motions to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis, with oral arguments for all appellants scheduled to be heard together.Trump also continues his efforts to remove Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to federal court, despite previous rejections. His opening brief to the Second Circuit was due last October.What's particularly striking about these developments is how they've unfolded against the backdrop of Trump's second term. The Supreme Court's recent ruling signals their willingness to place at least temporary limits on executive authority, even with Trump back in the White House.As these cases continue to wind through the courts, they're testing the boundaries of presidential power and setting precedents that will shape our democracy for generations. The coming weeks promise more significant legal developments as the courts grapple with these complex constitutional questions.

Today is May 16, 2025, and I've been closely tracking the flurry of courtroom drama surrounding Donald Trump. It's felt like headlines haven't had a break—just keeping up with the sheer amount of legal action attached to Trump's name is dizzying.One of the most heated developments happened in Florida, where Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment in the classified documents case. The government, not backing down, filed its notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals almost instantly. The briefing schedule is now underway, and the legal fight over whether Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment and funding were lawful is far from settled. The stakes here are significant, given how central these classified documents are to the larger question of presidential privilege and accountability.Meanwhile, in New York, Trump's legal team is navigating a different path. They've appealed both Justice Arthur Engoron's summary judgment from September 2023 and his final decision from February 2024 in the civil fraud case. New York Attorney General Letitia James moved to consolidate the appeals. Now, the Appellate Division, First Department, has ordered that all arguments will proceed together. The appeals center on whether Trump and his companies fraudulently inflated property values and other assets—an issue that has both civil and political consequences hanging in the balance.Georgia is another hot spot, especially with Mark Meadows petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court. He wants to move his state-level criminal case to federal court after the Eleventh Circuit denied his bid. Though this move didn't directly involve Trump, it's part of the wider universe of prosecutions linked to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.And back in Manhattan, Trump has once again attempted to lift his criminal prosecution by District Attorney Alvin Bragg into the federal courts. His latest filing for removal was rejected for being untimely, a setback he tried to counter by seeking Judge Alvin Hellerstein's permission—denied yet again. Now, Trump's team is appealing to the Second Circuit, with briefs due later this year.If all that weren't enough, just yesterday at the Supreme Court, the justices heard oral arguments in Trump v. CASA Inc. The dispute centers on birthright citizenship and the reach of executive power, stemming from an executive order Trump issued on his inauguration day this year. Multiple district courts have already blocked the order, and the Supreme Court will now weigh in, with implications for citizenship itself and, likely, for the 2024 campaign narrative.In every jurisdiction, from Florida to New York, Georgia to the highest court in the land, Donald Trump faces a legal calendar as relentless and high-stakes as any in American history. Each court date, each appeal, every ruling shapes not only Trump's personal future but America's ongoing clash over law, power, and politics.

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.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

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.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Good morning, America. I'm standing here today, May 11th, 2025, reflecting on what has been an unprecedented legal journey for former President Donald Trump. Just four months into 2025, and the aftermath of numerous court battles continues to shape our political landscape.Back in January, we witnessed the conclusion of the Manhattan criminal case where Trump faced charges of falsifying business records. On January 10th, Justice Merchan delivered his sentence - an unconditional discharge - following the Manhattan jury's verdict from May 30th last year that found Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts. This marked the first time in American history that a former president was convicted of felony crimes.Meanwhile, the classified documents case in Florida took a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the entire indictment against Trump last July, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed and funded. The Justice Department initially appealed to the 11th Circuit but ultimately dropped their appeal against Trump in late November 2024, followed by dismissing appeals against his co-defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira in January of this year.The legal calendar for Trump has been relentless. Just yesterday, news broke that the Supreme Court is preparing to review what critics have described as a "power grab" by the President. The justices will be examining the constitutional limits of presidential authority in a case that could have far-reaching implications.Trump's legal team has been working overtime, filing appeals in multiple jurisdictions. In the New York civil fraud case, Trump and his co-defendants have appealed both Justice Engoron's September 2023 summary judgment and his February 2024 final decision. The Appellate Division consolidated these appeals at the request of New York Attorney General Letitia James.In Georgia, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has taken his case all the way to the Supreme Court, seeking to move his state criminal case to federal court after the 11th Circuit dismissed his previous attempt.Trump himself has made another attempt to remove Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to federal court, though his filing was rejected as deficient and his request for leave was denied by Judge Hellerstein. His appeal to the Second Circuit is still pending.As we move deeper into 2025, these legal battles continue to unfold against the backdrop of Trump's controversial judicial appointments, which many legal experts have characterized as transformative for the federal judiciary. The intersection of legal proceedings and politics remains a defining feature of our current moment in American history.

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

Good morning, viewers. I'm reporting live from Washington, D.C., where the legal landscape surrounding former President Donald Trump continues to evolve rapidly. Just yesterday, a significant development emerged when Eric Iverson, a U.S. citizen and prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, filed a complaint against President Trump and several cabinet members including Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.The case, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on May 5th, appears to involve Iverson's work as lead prosecutor in cases against individuals accused of war crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan. This adds yet another layer to the complex web of legal challenges facing the Trump administration.Meanwhile, the classified documents case in Florida has taken a dramatic turn. Judge Cannon granted Trump's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on allegations regarding Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment. The government quickly filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and a briefing schedule is now in place.In New York, defendants in the civil fraud case have appealed Justice Engoron's decisions from both September 2023 and February 2024. Attorney General Letitia James successfully requested the consolidation of these appeals, which will now proceed with a single record and set of briefs.Georgia's criminal case continues its complex journey through the courts. Former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has petitioned the Supreme Court following the 11th Circuit's dismissal of his attempt to move his state criminal case to federal court. Additionally, defendants are appealing Judge McAfee's order regarding motions to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis.In Manhattan, Trump is making another attempt to move District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to federal court. After filing a second notice of removal that was rejected as deficient, Trump's request for leave was denied by Judge Hellerstein. He's now appealed to the Second Circuit, with his opening brief due October 14th.Just two days ago, on May 5th, the House floor proceedings reflected the contentious political climate surrounding these legal battles.Refugee rights organizations have also become entangled in the administration's legal issues. A court recently ordered the administration to process refugee cases, provide resettlement support, and fund organizations handling resettlement or face sanctions.As these legal proceedings continue to unfold across multiple jurisdictions, the impact on both the political landscape and policy implementation remains profound. We'll continue to bring you updates as this unprecedented situation develops.

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

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