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
Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal originated from her conviction in December 2021 for facilitating the sexual abuse of underage girls by Jeffrey Epstein. After being found guilty on five of six counts and sentenced in June 2022 to 20 years in prison, her legal team sought to overturn the conviction largely by arguing that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) made between Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida should have shielded her from being prosecuted in New York. They contended that the language in the NPA (“the United States … will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”) prevented her prosecution as a co-conspirator.However, her appeal ultimately failed. On September 17 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction, finding the Florida NPA did not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. It also held the indictment was timely under the statute of limitationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
In December 2023, Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered a massive unsealing of Jeffrey Epstein–related documents from the Ghislaine Maxwell defamation case. These files, long kept under seal, contained names of associates, depositions, and exhibits that had been hidden for years. Preska ruled that the public interest outweighed any remaining privacy concerns, emphasizing that secrecy was no longer justified except for information identifying minor victims. The decision paved the way for one of the largest Epstein document releases yet—revealing hundreds of pages that shed light on how Epstein and Maxwell operated their network and who may have been connected to it.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later affirmed the underlying principle behind Preska's ruling, upholding that the presumption of public access applies to judicial records in Epstein-related litigation. This affirmation followed the precedent set in Brown v. Maxwell (2019), where the court found that lower courts must provide a “particularized review” before keeping such documents sealed. By affirming the transparency mandate, the Second Circuit reinforced the public's right to know and ensured that future attempts to hide materials related to Epstein's crimes would face steep judicial resistance. Together, these rulings represent a rare and decisive push toward accountability in a case long plagued by secrecy and institutional protection.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
This Day in Legal History: Black TuesdayOn October 29, 1929, the United States experienced one of the most catastrophic financial events in its history—Black Tuesday, the climax of the stock market crash that helped trigger the Great Depression. While primarily remembered as an economic crisis, this day also had profound and lasting legal consequences that reshaped American financial regulation and the federal government's role in the economy.In the immediate aftermath, the lack of oversight and rampant speculation that had fueled the 1920s bull market came under intense scrutiny. The legal system responded in the 1930s with a suite of landmark legislative reforms designed to stabilize financial markets and restore public confidence. Chief among these were the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which established mandatory disclosure requirements for public companies and created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to enforce federal securities laws.These laws introduced the legal principle that corporations owe a duty of candor to investors and that misleading or fraudulent statements can be subject to civil and criminal penalties. They also laid the foundation for modern financial regulation, including rules governing insider trading, market manipulation, and fiduciary duties of brokers and advisors.The legal legacy of October 29, 1929, is thus not limited to market losses but includes the birth of a federal regulatory framework that continues to govern securities markets today. It marked a turning point where the federal government took a permanent role in policing Wall Street and protecting investors through statutory and administrative mechanisms.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will hear Argentina's appeal of a $16.1 billion judgment related to its 2012 expropriation of oil company YPF. The judgment, issued by U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in 2023, awarded $14.39 billion to Petersen Energia Inversora and $1.71 billion to Eton Park Capital Management, former minority shareholders of YPF. They claimed Argentina violated contractual obligations by failing to make a tender offer when it nationalized 51% of YPF from Spanish energy firm Repsol.Argentina argues the case should not be heard in a U.S. court, citing sovereign immunity, misapplication of Argentine law, and the principle of international comity. It also contends the damages are vastly overstated—amounting to 45% of its 2024 national budget. The litigation has been financially backed by Burford Capital, which could receive a large payout if the appeal fails.The appeal arrives as President Javier Milei, a libertarian reformer, works to stabilize Argentina's economy with austerity measures, having recently achieved a rare budget surplus. Meanwhile, Argentina is also separately appealing a court order to hand over YPF shares, an order currently on hold. The U.S. government has not taken a stance on the appeal but opposed the share turnover, citing foreign policy risks.Argentina to ask US appeals court to overturn $16.1 billion YPF judgment | ReutersA federal judge ruled that Bilal Essayli was unlawfully appointed as acting U.S. attorney for California's Central District, which includes Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright found that Essayli's continued service beyond the 120-day interim period allowed by law was improper since he had neither been nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. This decision disqualifies him from serving in the acting role but allows him to remain as first assistant U.S. attorney.The ruling does not dismiss three criminal indictments issued during Essayli's tenure, as they were signed by other prosecutors and no due process violations were found. Still, the judgment raises concerns about leadership stability in the largest federal judicial district in the country, serving roughly 19 million people.Essayli's appointment was part of a broader pattern under the Trump administration of bypassing Senate confirmation for key prosecutorial roles. A similar ruling recently invalidated the acting U.S. attorney appointment in Nevada, and another decision in New Jersey blocked Alina Habba, a Trump ally, from participating in prosecutions. These appointments are now under appeal.Judge disqualifies ‘acting' US attorney in California | ReutersThe celebrity video platform Cameo filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against OpenAI in a California federal court, accusing it of unlawfully using the name “Cameo” for a new feature in its Sora video generation app. Cameo claims that OpenAI's use of the term for AI-generated virtual likenesses causes brand confusion and threatens the distinctiveness of its trademark.OpenAI launched Sora as a standalone app in late September, and its feature—also named “Cameo”—lets users create AI-generated videos that can include virtual celebrities. Cameo argues this directly competes with its own service, where users pay real celebrities for personalized video messages. The company pointed to examples of AI-generated videos featuring public figures like Mark Cuban and Jake Paul, claiming this puts OpenAI in head-to-head competition with their business model.Cameo said it attempted to resolve the issue privately, but OpenAI declined to change the feature's name. OpenAI responded that it disagrees with the lawsuit, arguing no one can monopolize a generic term like “cameo.”The lawsuit seeks financial damages and a court injunction to stop OpenAI from using the name “Cameo.”OpenAI sued for trademark infringement over Sora's ‘Cameo' feature | ReutersTexas has hired the law firm Keller Postman—which previously secured a $1.4 billion settlement from Meta—to lead a new lawsuit alleging that Tylenol use during pregnancy increases the risk of autism in children. Filed in Panola County, the suit accuses Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, Tylenol's current owner, of misleading consumers by marketing the drug to pregnant women despite knowing potential developmental risks tied to its active ingredient, acetaminophen.Ashley Keller, a senior partner at the firm, said the case will be handled on a contingency basis, meaning Texas pays only if it wins, similar to prior deals with Meta and Google. The firm's effective hourly rate under that model can reach $3,780, though its total fees are capped at 11% of any recovery. Keller defended the state's approach, saying the firm invests heavily and shares the litigation risk with Texas.The lawsuit builds on ongoing national litigation over acetaminophen and childhood developmental disorders, though courts have previously rejected similar claims. A 2024 federal ruling in New York dismissed related cases after expert testimony linking acetaminophen to ADHD was excluded. Texas' case, however, is distinct because it focuses on state-level claims of deceptive trade practices and fraudulent transfer, alleging J&J unlawfully moved Tylenol liabilities to Kenvue.Texas Returns to Keller Postman to Link Tylenol to Child Autism 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
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.Tom Hayes v. UBS, Connecticut Superior Court case filed on October 27, 2025 seeking $400 Million (Read Complaint HERE): A tiny shift in an interest rate can move oceans of money. We follow that ripple to its breaking point, tracing how Tom Hayes became the public face of LIBOR manipulation, then—years later—won full vindication in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Along the way, we unpack the documents, emails, and internal spreadsheets that allegedly turned “commercially aware” rate submissions into an institutional practice, and the crisis‑era pivot that recast one trader as the perfect fall guy.We set the stage with a clear explanation of LIBOR's design, why a bank's submissions sit within a plausible range, and how that nuance became the hinge of subsequent court decisions. Then we walk through the complaint's central claims: that UBS policy told staff to consider the bank's trading positions, that management tracked exposures and directed desired outcomes, and that the bank later secured a non‑prosecution agreement by advancing a narrative of isolated misconduct. The result, according to the lawsuit, was a devastating chain reaction—selective disclosures, missing spreadsheets, and a jury instruction that erased the difference between choosing within a legitimate range and committing fraud.Hayes' convictions collapsed after the U.S. Second Circuit and the UK Supreme Court clarified that profit‑motivated choices are not criminal if the submitted rate stays within a genuine range of estimated borrowing costs. With legal ground restored, Hayes now sues UBS for malicious prosecution and indemnification, seeking at least $400 million in damages. We examine the stakes: lifetime earnings lost, health and family fallout, and the broader question of who should bear responsibility when corporate incentives steer behavior and later demand a scapegoat.If you care about financial regulation, corporate accountability, and how legal narratives are built and unbuilt, this story matters. Listen, share your take, and help us bring more people into the conversation. If this resonated, subscribe, leave a review, and tell a friend what surprised you most. 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's appeal originated from her conviction in December 2021 for facilitating the sexual abuse of underage girls by Jeffrey Epstein. After being found guilty on five of six counts and sentenced in June 2022 to 20 years in prison, her legal team sought to overturn the conviction largely by arguing that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) made between Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida should have shielded her from being prosecuted in New York. They contended that the language in the NPA (“the United States … will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”) prevented her prosecution as a co-conspirator.However, her appeal ultimately failed. On September 17 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction, finding the Florida NPA did not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. It also held the indictment was timely under the statute of limitationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In December 2023, Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered a massive unsealing of Jeffrey Epstein–related documents from the Ghislaine Maxwell defamation case. These files, long kept under seal, contained names of associates, depositions, and exhibits that had been hidden for years. Preska ruled that the public interest outweighed any remaining privacy concerns, emphasizing that secrecy was no longer justified except for information identifying minor victims. The decision paved the way for one of the largest Epstein document releases yet—revealing hundreds of pages that shed light on how Epstein and Maxwell operated their network and who may have been connected to it.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later affirmed the underlying principle behind Preska's ruling, upholding that the presumption of public access applies to judicial records in Epstein-related litigation. This affirmation followed the precedent set in Brown v. Maxwell (2019), where the court found that lower courts must provide a “particularized review” before keeping such documents sealed. By affirming the transparency mandate, the Second Circuit reinforced the public's right to know and ensured that future attempts to hide materials related to Epstein's crimes would face steep judicial resistance. Together, these rulings represent a rare and decisive push toward accountability in a case long plagued by secrecy and institutional protection.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal originated from her conviction in December 2021 for facilitating the sexual abuse of underage girls by Jeffrey Epstein. After being found guilty on five of six counts and sentenced in June 2022 to 20 years in prison, her legal team sought to overturn the conviction largely by arguing that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) made between Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida should have shielded her from being prosecuted in New York. They contended that the language in the NPA (“the United States … will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”) prevented her prosecution as a co-conspirator.However, her appeal ultimately failed. On September 17 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction, finding the Florida NPA did not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. It also held the indictment was timely under the statute of limitationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In December 2023, Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered a massive unsealing of Jeffrey Epstein–related documents from the Ghislaine Maxwell defamation case. These files, long kept under seal, contained names of associates, depositions, and exhibits that had been hidden for years. Preska ruled that the public interest outweighed any remaining privacy concerns, emphasizing that secrecy was no longer justified except for information identifying minor victims. The decision paved the way for one of the largest Epstein document releases yet—revealing hundreds of pages that shed light on how Epstein and Maxwell operated their network and who may have been connected to it.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later affirmed the underlying principle behind Preska's ruling, upholding that the presumption of public access applies to judicial records in Epstein-related litigation. This affirmation followed the precedent set in Brown v. Maxwell (2019), where the court found that lower courts must provide a “particularized review” before keeping such documents sealed. By affirming the transparency mandate, the Second Circuit reinforced the public's right to know and ensured that future attempts to hide materials related to Epstein's crimes would face steep judicial resistance. Together, these rulings represent a rare and decisive push toward accountability in a case long plagued by secrecy and institutional protection.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the ways in which the federal government's ongoing shutdown is impacting key functions that gun-rights advocates care about, drawing fresh criticism of the Trump administration. We also talk about a recent ruling out of the Second Circuit where a three-judge panel of all Trump-appointed judges ruled that ammunition sales aren't protected by the Second Amendment.
Ghislaine Maxwell's efforts to secure a retrial faced daunting legal obstacles from the start. One central hurdle was proving that a significant procedural or constitutional error occurred during her original trial—mere disagreement with the result isn't enough on appeal. Her team advanced arguments such as a juror failing to disclose a history of sexual abuse (which Maxwell's lawyers claimed influenced deliberations) and prosecutorial overreach in applying “conscious avoidance” instructions to the jury. But trial judges largely rejected those arguments, and appellate courts are historically very deferential to trial-level rulings on admissibility, jury selection, and instructional issues.On appeal to the Second Circuit, Ghislaine Maxwell challenged multiple elements of her conviction. Among her central arguments was that Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida included a clause protecting co-conspirators, and that it should have shielded her from prosecution in New York. She contended that because the NPA referred broadly to “the United States” (rather than naming a specific district), it was intended to bind all federal prosecutors, not just those in Florida. She also raised claims about the statute of limitations, alleged juror nondisclosure, potential constructive amendment of her indictment, and that her sentence was not procedurally reasonable.The Second Circuit rejected all those arguments and affirmed the conviction. It held that the NPA did not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, reasoning that unless an agreement “affirmatively shows” an intent to bind beyond its district, it is limited to the district in which it was made. The court also determined that the indictment was timely, that no abuse of discretion occurred in handling jury or procedural questions, and that Maxwell's sentence was lawful under the relevant standards.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In October 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Maxwell's appeal aimed at overturning her 2021 conviction for helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse minors. The appeal argued that Maxwell should have been protected from prosecution under a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that had been made with Epstein — Maxwell's legal team claimed that the government's promise in that deal extended to co-conspirators like her, across jurisdictions. But lower courts (including the Second Circuit) rejected that argument, and the DOJ urged the high court not to take the case, saying the NPA did not cover Maxwell's prosecution in New York. The Supreme Court's denial (without explanation) means the conviction stands and Maxwell's 20-year sentence remains intact.Maxwell's plea of “but the deal should protect me” now lies in ashes. The refusal by the Supreme Court sends a message: the serious, prolonged, documented role she played in trafficking and grooming minors for Epstein can't be overwritten by legal technicalities or bargains made behind closed doors. Her efforts to invoke immunity through someone else's deal were flatly dismissed, underscoring that privilege and high-social standing won't shield her from full accountability for her actions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
When Congress amended the Civil Rights Act in 1976, it directed federal courts to use judicial discretion to award “reasonable attorney’s fees” to a prevailing party. Yet when state actors are found in violation of the nation’s civil rights laws, what is “reasonable” often means that civil rights attorneys take a reduced fee award. Because of this, states are emboldened to enact and enforce more unconstitutional laws and the pattern repeats.Mere days following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the New York Assembly enacted new legislation allowing secular businesses to permit customers to carry concealed weapons on their property, but refusing to afford sensitive locations, like churches, the same choice. His Tabernacle Church in Elmira, New York filed suit under the Civil Rights Act claiming the new law violated its First and Second Amendment rights. It prevailed both in district court and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.When the matter returned to the district court, the State of New York claimed the church’s attorneys were entitled to just 16% of the fees requested in their application. Judge John R. Sinatra, Jr. of the Western District of New York rejected New York’s arguments, awarding 100% of the requested fees, concluding that the Civil Rights Act “encourages lawyers taking meritorious cases like this one” but to engage in “[p]erennial ‘haircuts’” in fee awards would “discourage well qualified counsel.”Join the Federalist Society for a discussion on the importance of courts awarding appropriate attorney’s fees in civil rights litigation.Featuring:Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC(Moderator) Jeremy G. Dys, Senior Counsel, First Liberty
In October 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Maxwell's appeal aimed at overturning her 2021 conviction for helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse minors. The appeal argued that Maxwell should have been protected from prosecution under a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that had been made with Epstein — Maxwell's legal team claimed that the government's promise in that deal extended to co-conspirators like her, across jurisdictions. But lower courts (including the Second Circuit) rejected that argument, and the DOJ urged the high court not to take the case, saying the NPA did not cover Maxwell's prosecution in New York. The Supreme Court's denial (without explanation) means the conviction stands and Maxwell's 20-year sentence remains intact.Maxwell's plea of “but the deal should protect me” now lies in ashes. The refusal by the Supreme Court sends a message: the serious, prolonged, documented role she played in trafficking and grooming minors for Epstein can't be overwritten by legal technicalities or bargains made behind closed doors. Her efforts to invoke immunity through someone else's deal were flatly dismissed, underscoring that privilege and high-social standing won't shield her from full accountability for her actions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In October 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Maxwell's appeal aimed at overturning her 2021 conviction for helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse minors. The appeal argued that Maxwell should have been protected from prosecution under a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that had been made with Epstein — Maxwell's legal team claimed that the government's promise in that deal extended to co-conspirators like her, across jurisdictions. But lower courts (including the Second Circuit) rejected that argument, and the DOJ urged the high court not to take the case, saying the NPA did not cover Maxwell's prosecution in New York. The Supreme Court's denial (without explanation) means the conviction stands and Maxwell's 20-year sentence remains intact.Maxwell's plea of “but the deal should protect me” now lies in ashes. The refusal by the Supreme Court sends a message: the serious, prolonged, documented role she played in trafficking and grooming minors for Epstein can't be overwritten by legal technicalities or bargains made behind closed doors. Her efforts to invoke immunity through someone else's deal were flatly dismissed, underscoring that privilege and high-social standing won't shield her from full accountability for her actions.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Sean “Diddy” Combs' legal team has filed notice of appeal following his conviction on two federal counts of transporting individuals for prostitution under the Mann Act. His attorneys argue that the verdict was inconsistent with the sentencing, claiming the judge improperly considered conduct the jury had rejected — particularly allegations of coercion — to impose a harsher penalty. The defense contends this violated Diddy's constitutional right to a fair trial and effectively turned the judge into a “13th juror,” overriding the jury's findings. They are seeking either a full reversal of the conviction or a new trial.The appeal will also challenge several procedural rulings from the eight-week trial, including evidentiary decisions and jury instructions the defense claims were prejudicial. Diddy was sentenced to 50 months in federal prison and fined $500,000 — far less than the 11 years prosecutors had sought, but still viewed by his team as excessive given the acquittals on other charges. The appellate process will now move to the Second Circuit, where his attorneys plan to argue that the sentencing exceeded the lawful scope of the jury's verdict and that key testimony was improperly admitted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Sean “Diddy” Combs' legal team has filed notice of appeal following his conviction on two federal counts of transporting individuals for prostitution under the Mann Act. His attorneys argue that the verdict was inconsistent with the sentencing, claiming the judge improperly considered conduct the jury had rejected — particularly allegations of coercion — to impose a harsher penalty. The defense contends this violated Diddy's constitutional right to a fair trial and effectively turned the judge into a “13th juror,” overriding the jury's findings. They are seeking either a full reversal of the conviction or a new trial.The appeal will also challenge several procedural rulings from the eight-week trial, including evidentiary decisions and jury instructions the defense claims were prejudicial. Diddy was sentenced to 50 months in federal prison and fined $500,000 — far less than the 11 years prosecutors had sought, but still viewed by his team as excessive given the acquittals on other charges. The appellate process will now move to the Second Circuit, where his attorneys plan to argue that the sentencing exceeded the lawful scope of the jury's verdict and that key testimony was improperly admitted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Sean “Diddy” Combs' legal team has filed notice of appeal following his conviction on two federal counts of transporting individuals for prostitution under the Mann Act. His attorneys argue that the verdict was inconsistent with the sentencing, claiming the judge improperly considered conduct the jury had rejected — particularly allegations of coercion — to impose a harsher penalty. The defense contends this violated Diddy's constitutional right to a fair trial and effectively turned the judge into a “13th juror,” overriding the jury's findings. They are seeking either a full reversal of the conviction or a new trial.The appeal will also challenge several procedural rulings from the eight-week trial, including evidentiary decisions and jury instructions the defense claims were prejudicial. Diddy was sentenced to 50 months in federal prison and fined $500,000 — far less than the 11 years prosecutors had sought, but still viewed by his team as excessive given the acquittals on other charges. The appellate process will now move to the Second Circuit, where his attorneys plan to argue that the sentencing exceeded the lawful scope of the jury's verdict and that key testimony was improperly admitted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Free Speech: May a visa holder object on free speech grounds to the Secretary of State's revocation of their visa? - Argued: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 20:38:58 EDT
Free Speech: May a visa holder object on free speech grounds to the Secretary of State's revocation of their visa? - Argued: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 20:33:48 EDT
It's Friday, October 3, 2025, and the legal drama swirling around Donald Trump is at a fever pitch once again. For listeners who have been following every twist and turn, the past few days have been loaded with developments across federal courtrooms, appellate panels, and even the Supreme Court. Let's jump right to the heart of the matter.Earlier this week, a major story unfolded as the Supreme Court formally consolidated two headline cases involving Donald Trump—one titled “Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al.” The Court granted a motion to expedite these cases, fast-tracking them for oral argument the first week of November this year. The eyes of the country, political analysts included, are already zeroing in on November 5, when those arguments will hit center stage in the nation's highest court.These Supreme Court cases aren't happening in isolation. They stem from recent decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and also from the ongoing legal battles over claims tied to presidential immunity, Trump's 2020 election interference allegations, and disputes over the appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith. The litigation landscape is as broad as ever—with criminal indictments, civil fraud appeals, and constitutional questions all converging.Just days ago, the Supreme Court declined to take immediate action on Trump's unusual request regarding firing a sitting Fed governor. This non-decision keeps the issue simmering, hinting at possible future conflicts over the extent of presidential power—a subject at the core of Trump's legal defense in several other cases.Meanwhile, in federal courts, new briefs and motions are flooding in. Trump's legal team is vigorously pushing arguments about presidential immunity and contesting the legitimacy of Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment. These questions fuel both legal debate and political intrigue, as deadlines for briefs and responses keep stacking up on the master calendar. For example, Trump's next major opening brief in his Second Circuit appeal regarding the New York case is due October 14.Political allies and opponents alike are watching, as each court ruling has ripple effects on Trump's standing, campaign ambitions, and broader constitutional precedents. What's especially dramatic now is that deadlines for amicus curiae briefs and oral arguments across several circuits are colliding with arguments in the Supreme Court—a rare, high-octane moment in legal history.Every day seems to bring a new motion, a fresh appeal, or another layer to these battles. From consolidating appeals in the New York civil fraud case to new filings aimed at Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution, Trump's legal calendar looks more crowded than ever.To all those tuning in, thank you for sticking with this intricate, high-stakes story. Join me again next week as these cases unfold and fresh developments emerge. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
In this second episode of Ogletree Deakins' new podcast series Litigation Lens, Michael Nail (Greenville) is joined by Fiona Ong (Baltimore) and Sarah Zucco (New York) to discuss a recent Second Circuit decision that clarifies employers' obligations to provide reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—even when an employee can technically perform essential job functions without them. The speakers unpack the facts of a case involving a New York teacher's request for accommodations due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), explain the court's rejection of a “necessity-only” standard, and offer practical tips for navigating the fact-intensive, multi-jurisdictional landscape of disability accommodation law.
It's been a whirlwind few days in the world of U.S. courtrooms, and Donald Trump remains firmly at the center of the storm. Nearly every headline I've caught since the middle of the week has opened with the latest twist in Trump's sprawling legal calendar—a saga stretching from New York streets to Washington, D.C. federal offices, and onward to Florida's district courts. You'd think by now folks might slow down, but the cases keep coming at a dizzying pace.Right now, listeners, several major cases demand Trump's attention. The stakes are extraordinary—not just for him personally, but for the American judicial system. According to Just Security, Trump's legal schedule for fall and winter has been crowded with deadlines and appeals. On October 24, Trump is due to submit a request to dismiss one of the most talked-about cases: the D.C. Election Interference prosecution. His lawyers argue the indictment should be tossed based on the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses, naming Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment and funding as suspect. The following day, October 25, Trump's legal team faces the federal government in Florida, defending Judge Aileen Cannon's earlier move to dismiss the classified documents case over similar concerns about Special Counsel Smith's legitimacy.That's not all. Late last month Trump tried—unsuccessfully—to move his Manhattan criminal case, led by District Attorney Alvin Bragg, to federal court. Judge Alvin Hellerstein wasn't convinced, rejecting Trump's request and delivering a setback. The push for federal jurisdiction continues, with Trump appealing to the Second Circuit, his opening brief now due October 14.Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump is linked to broader appeals as his co-defendants challenge the fairness of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's role. All oral arguments are scheduled together, making Atlanta another courtroom buzzing with activity.But possibly the most significant legal moment this summer came in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit's ruling that had previously denied Trump's presidential immunity argument. This sent the whole affair back to Judge Tanya Chutkan in the district court, where all pretrial deadlines are on pause until late October, a move that will shape the next pivotal months of proceedings.Experts like Max Yoeli at Chatham House warn that these intertwining court battles could be a prelude to a constitutional crisis if the judiciary cannot effectively check Trump's actions—especially with appeals mounting and deadlines extended whenever a new wrinkle appears.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more and remember, this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Contracts: Are insurers liable when gun sellers face liability for trafficking in ghost gun parts? - Argued: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 11:29:29 EDT
All fifty states mandate certain vaccinations for schoolchildren. Forty-six of them allow religious exemptions. New York once did as well, maintaining such exemptions for more than half a century before eliminating them in 2019. Medical exemptions remain.Members of the Amish community now challenge New York’s policy, claiming that opposition to vaccines is integral to their “traditional way of life,” as recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The Petitioners include three Amish parents, one representing all Amish and Mennonites in New York, as well as three Amish schools—funded by and serving Amish communities on Amish land. In 2022, the state charged these schools with violating its vaccination law and levied $118,000 in penalties.The Petitioners defended themselves by filing a Section 1983 action in federal court, raising an as-applied challenge under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit affirmed under Employment Division v. Smith’s rational basis framework. The Petitioners are seeking Supreme Court review.Featuring:Robert M. Overing, Deputy Solicitor General, Alabama Office of the Attorney General(Moderator) Hon. Sean D. Jordan, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
The Supreme Court used the shadow docket to legalize racial profiling, although only Justice Kavanaugh was dumb enough to admit it out loud. It also overturned Humphrey's Executor, but this time even Kav wouldn't cop to it. Meanwhile at the White House, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought discovers ONE WEIRD trick to steal Congress's power of the purse. And the Second Circuit confirms, Alina Habba is still very bad at her job. Links: White House Prayer Executive Order https://www.whitehouse.gov/america250/america-prays/ SCOTUS Shadow Docket Order Trump v. Slaughter https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/090825zr_4f15.pdf Second Circuit Order Carroll v. Trump 1 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.e508a4b2-feae-4592-a6dc-d30f9ed35bb6/gov.uscourts.ca2.e508a4b2-feae-4592-a6dc-d30f9ed35bb6.134.1_1.pdf SCOTUS Docket Trump v. Vasquez Perdomo https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a169.html White House “pocket rescission” announcement (Aug. 29, 2025) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/08/historic-pocket-rescission-package-eliminates-woke-weaponized-and-wasteful-spending/ AIDS Vaccine Coalition v. State https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277333/gov.uscourts.dcd.277333.145.0_4.pdf Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod
This episode is particularly important. We are in a time where women's rights over their bodily autonomy are being threatened and denied. Scott Ruskay-Kidd is an expert on fetal personhood law and debates and joins us to discuss the history and relevance of the term “fetal personhood” in today's society.We hope you gain as much from this episode as we did. We understand this may be a sensitive issue for many people; we ask that you listen with an open mind. About Scott Ruskay-Kidd:Scott Ruskay-Kidd is a Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia Law School, where he teaches about gender and sexuality law, among other things. Scott previously was a Senior Attorney for Judicial Strategy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, where he led the amicus brief strategy in the last successful defense of the constitutional right to abortion in the U.S. Supreme Court. Beforehand, Scott practiced commercial litigation at Kramer Levin LLP and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. Scott began his career as a judicial clerk in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Scott is a graduate of Harvard College and Columbia Law School.About the Show:There's a Word For That! is a weekly podcast that centers around a different word or expression each episode. Host Suzanne Dressler believes in pushing the envelope to explore why and how we use words and the ways this impacts our lives. With a diverse assortment of intelligent, creative, and exciting guests, TAWFT! will force you to analyze and consider words in an entirely original and eye-opening way. Even better? NOTHING is off-limits.Where to Find Me:InstagramTwitterFacebook
I'm tuning in just after one of the most dramatic stretches in recent American political history, as the legal storm surrounding former President Donald Trump's court trials hits new highs. Let's jump right in—the courtroom battles featuring Trump have been exploding across national headlines, from Washington D.C. to California and beyond.Over the past few days, the nation's attention has been gripped by a federal judge's ruling out in California. California Attorney General Rob Bonta confirmed that President Trump's deployment of federalized California National Guard troops and Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles was in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, that foundational law limiting the military's role on our soil. According to Bonta, the District Court not only found Trump's actions unlawful, but also permanently blocked the administration from engaging in similar behavior in future, whether for arrests, riot control, or evidence gathering. The judge's order is stayed only until September 12th, making this a pivotal moment for executive reach and civil liberties.Meanwhile, the legal calendars covering Trump's trials have become almost as tangled as the cases themselves. After the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on Trump's presidential immunity claims in early August, the D.C. Circuit Court handed jurisdiction back to Judge Tanya Chutkan. However, the most recent scheduling order—coming just this week—has paused all pretrial deadlines until late October, essentially putting everything on hold in the Washington election subversion case. With time ticking away under the Speedy Trial Act, legal experts say this delay throws uncertainty over the proceedings, especially as appeals and procedural wrangling continue.It's not just criminal matters. On the civil side, Trump's legal team is still grappling with the fallout from previous verdicts, notably those involving E. Jean Carroll's defamation suits. The appeals are underway at the Second Circuit, but movement has slowed as defense attorneys look for openings in the appeals process. These cases, filed back in 2020 and 2022, have been persistent thorns in Trump's side, flaring up anew with each ruling.Also in the mix is the Democratic National Committee's lawsuit, challenging Trump's use of Executive Order 14215 to sway the Federal Election Commission. The U.S. District Court in D.C. dismissed the challenge earlier this summer, citing a lack of concrete injury. Still, with the FEC's independence on the line, insiders expect the issue to resurface as the end of election season nears.With Trump back in office, there's no shortage of Supreme Court petitions—over four dozen right now—ranging from immigration to telemarketing, tax laws, and challenges to federal policy moves dating back years. The administration is wielding the emergency docket as a powerful tool, regularly pressing to overturn lower court decisions and keep executive power front and center.So, as the clock moves forward, these cases are more than just legal drama—they're signposts of where America's institutions stand and how the rule of law will look in a rapidly shifting political landscape. Thanks for tuning in. Join me again next week for another Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai
Japan goes after arcades, Nintendo's Famicon gets its first licensee & Gamers come together online These stories and many more on this episode of the VGNRTM! This episode we will look back at the biggest stories in and around the video game industry in October 1984. As always, we'll mostly be using magazine cover dates, and those are of course always a bit behind the actual events. Alex Smith of They Create Worlds is our cohost. Check out his podcast here: https://www.theycreateworlds.com/ and order his book here: https://www.theycreateworlds.com/book Get us on your mobile device: Android: https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly92aWRlb2dhbWVuZXdzcm9vbXRpbWVtYWNoaW5lLmxpYnN5bi5jb20vcnNz iOS: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/video-game-newsroom-time-machine And if you like what we are doing here at the podcast, don't forget to like us on your podcasting app of choice, YouTube, and/or support us on patreon! https://www.patreon.com/VGNRTM Send comments on Mastodon @videogamenewsroomtimemachine@oldbytes.space Or twitter @videogamenewsr2 Or Instagram https://www.instagram.com/vgnrtm Or videogamenewsroomtimemachine@gmail.com Links: If you don't see all the links, find them here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/137421899 7 Minutes in Heaven: Lazy Jones Video Version: https://www.patreon.com/posts/7-minutes-in-137421447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_Jones Corrections: September 1984 Ep - https://www.patreon.com/posts/september-1984-127470165 Ethan's fine site The History of How We Play: https://thehistoryofhowweplay.wordpress.com/ https://archive.org/details/atariincbusiness0000gold http://jerrymomoda.com/universal-vs-nintendo-part-i-2/ https://www.patreon.com/posts/83174490/ https://www.filfre.net/2016/05/kit-williamss-golden-hare-part-1-the-contest/page_1big/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Uz0LMbWpI https://archive.org/details/zaprisefall00cohe/mode/2up 1944 Coinmen looking forward to VE Day https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/40s/44/CB-1944-10-03.pdf pg. 1 https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/40s/44/CB-1944-10-10.pdf pg. 3 https://www.ipdb.org/machine.cgi?id=2735 https://www.ipdb.org/machine.cgi?id=2736 https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/40s/44/CB-1944-10-31.pdf pg. 2 https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/40s/44/CB-1944-10-10.pdf pg. 2 https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/40s/44/CB-1944-10-17.pdf pg. 5 First National Electronics Conference held https://www.nytimes.com/1944/10/06/archives/electronics-holds-postwar-promise-war-expansion-of-uses-aids-in.html?searchResultPosition=2 1954 Popular Electronics debuts https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Poptronics/50s/54/Pop-1954-10.pdf pg. 52 Von Neumann joins Atomic Energy Commission https://www.nytimes.com/1954/10/24/archives/oppenheimer-friend-named-to-the-aec-von-neumann-gets-vacancy-on-aec.html?searchResultPosition=3 https://www.nytimes.com/1954/10/24/archives/von-neumann-had-key-hbomb-role-princeton-scientist-created.html?searchResultPosition=5 New York Magistrate resigns to head Comics Code Authority https://www.nytimes.com/1954/10/02/archives/magistrate-resigns-murphy-to-draft-a-code-for-comic-magazine.html?searchResultPosition=4 1964 UNIVAC experiments with airflow computing https://www.nytimes.com/1964/10/18/archives/new-digital-computer-introduced-by-univac.html?searchResultPosition=2 Big Tech hit by defense spending cuts https://www.nytimes.com/1964/10/13/archives/watson-announces-ibm-profits-mark-for-third-quarter.html?searchResultPosition=65 Bowling gets computerized https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Poptronics/60s/64/Pop-1964-10.pdf pg. 46 1974 ASCII code extensions proposed https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Poptronics/70s/1974/Poptronics-1974-10.pdf pg. 26 https://www.aivosto.com/articles/charsets-7bit.html#body Atari Debuts Touch Me https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/70s/1974/CB-1974-10-19.pdf pg. 31 Sega sponsors video game tournament https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/70s/1974/CB-1974-10-26.pdf pg. 45 https://segaretro.org/Sega_TV_Game-ki_Zenkoku_Contest 1984: Hasbro buys Milton Bradley Toys Hobbies & Crafts, October 1984 Warner returns to profitability "Posts $24.4 Million Profit Compared With Loss a Year Ago, The Associated Press October 23, 1984, Tuesday, AM cycle, Section: Business News" Atari Games Inc. established Replay, October 1984, pg. 15 Jack is looking for cash The second time around, Forbes, October 8, 1984, Section: COMPANIES; Pg. 42, Byline: By Anne Bagamery Electronic Games, October 1984, pg. 12 Gerard Leaves as Warner Co-President, The Associated Press, October 16, 1984, Tuesday, AM cycle, Section: Business News Commodore financials break records https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-18/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater Apple numbers soar Apple earnings soar six-fold in quarter, Financial Times (London,England), October 19, 1984, Friday, Section: SECTION II; International Companies; Pg. 21 TI settles investor suit Suit costs TI $12 million, Computerworld, October 15, 1984, Section: COMPUTER INDUSTRY; Pg. 116 Ocean buys Imagine https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-18/mode/1up?view=theater Sinclair buys rights to bandersnatch https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-11/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-04/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater Activision to spend big as computer game maker ACTIVISION; Details pre-Christmas advertising and promotion plans, Business Wire, October 24, 1984, Wednesday ACTIVISION; Financial results, Business Wire, October 29, 1984, Monday PCS going into bankruptcy https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-25/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater Konami goes public KONAMI INDUSTRY TRADED FIRST AT 8,300 YEN, Copyright 1984 Jiji Press Ltd.Jiji Press Ticker Service, OCTOBER 1, 1984, MONDAY Japanese Arcade law https://archive.org/details/game-machine-magazine-19841001p/page/n18/mode/1up?view=theater Japanese arcades diversify https://archive.org/details/game-machine-magazine-19841015p/page/n16/mode/1up Chuck E. Cheese operations normalize Play Meter, October 15, 1984, pg. 9 Fighting games are all the rage Replay, October 1984, pg. 16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch-Out!! AMOA set to be the battle of the carts Replay, October 1984, pg. 27, pg. 31 Video Games donated to Smithsonian https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/80s/1984/CB-1984-10-20.pdf pg. 38 Namco moves to Famicom https://archive.org/details/game-machine-magazine-19841001p/page/n18/mode/1up?view=theater http://www.videogameden.com/fc.htm?lor Parker Bros may be getting out https://archive.org/details/computer-entertainer-3-7/page/n14/mode/1up?view=theater Tom Dusenberry - Parker Brothers - Hasbro - Atari - https://www.patreon.com/posts/42807419 Adam woes continue https://archive.org/details/computer-entertainer-3-7/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/computer-entertainer-3-7/page/105/mode/1up?view=theater Cabbage Patch Sales Boost Coleco's 3rd-Qtr Profit, The Associated Press, October 25, 1984, Thursday, AM cycle, Section: Business News No Headline In Original, United Press International, October 24, 1984, Wednesday, BC cycle, Section: Financial Adam promotion costs hit earnings at Coleco, Financial Times (London,England), October 30, 1984, Tuesday, Section: SECTION II; International Companies; Pg. 15 Oric on the ropes https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-04/mode/1up?view=theater GEC drops MSX plans https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-11/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater Sega to launch MSX in UK https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-18/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater https://www.msx.org/wiki/Yashica_YC-64 https://www.msx.org/wiki/Category:Yeno Amstrad bullish on CPC Amstrad stays Sugar sweet, The Guardian (London), October 4, 1984, Byline: By MAGGIE BROWN Commodore prepping 128 https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-25/mode/1up?view=theater Sinclair denies rumors of expanded speccy https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-04/mode/1up?view=theater Sinclair announces Spectrum+ https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-18/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-25/page/n17/mode/2up?view=theater Home computers have the price right, just not the power Byte, October 1984, pg. 6 Final bonanza for home micros / Sales of cheap home computers, The Guardian (London), October 8, 1984, Byline: By PETER LARGE Games on cassette are dead https://archive.org/details/computer-entertainer-3-7/page/107/mode/1up?view=theater Bookware mania explodes! https://archive.org/details/computer-entertainer-3-7/mode/1up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-11/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater Toy & Hobby World, October 1984, pg. 8 Visi On sold to CDC https://books.google.de/books?id=d-tPdHcBE9wC&pg=PAPA41&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Microsoft delays Windows... again PERIPHERALS; SPECIAL INSURANCE COVERAGE COULD PREVENT COSTLY LOSSES, The New York Times, October 30, 1984, Tuesday, Late City Final Edition, Section: Section C; Page 6, Column 5; Science Desk Ensoniq plans ad campaign No Headline In Original, ADWEEK, October 22, 1984, Eastern Edition, Section: ACCOUNT ACQUISITIONS; New England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoniq Crackers get organized https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-25/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater https://csdb.dk/group/?id=3423 Playnet Launches nationwide PLAYNET; Launches national access to its in-home, on-line network, Business Wire, October 30, 1984, Tuesday Comp-U-Card hits 1 million COMP-U-CARD-INTL; Announces individual membership base exceeds one million, Business Wire, October 18, 1984, Thursday Micronet to take on Compunet in the UK https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-18/mode/1up?view=theater Futures (Micro Guardian): Search and you will find / The World Reporter full text news and current affairs database, The Guardian (London), October 18, 1984 Videotex or videotext? Business World;Infant videotext industry has identity problems in pitching home information systems to consumer, United Press International, October 21, 1984, Sunday, BC cycle, Section: Domestic News, Byline: By SUSAN POSTLEWAITE, UPI Business Writer Business World; Infant videotext industry has identity problems in pitching home information systems to consumer; First question: What does it do?; Second question: Why do I want it?; Third question: Can I afford it?, United Press International, October 21, 1984, Sunday, BC cycle, Section: Financial, Byline: By SUSAN POSTLEWAITE, UPI Business Writer Game creators get chatty https://archive.org/details/Computer_Gaming_World_Issue_4.5/page/n13/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/Computer_Gaming_World_Issue_4.5/page/n29/mode/2up ISBN adds software Byte, October 1984, pg. 10 Antic Reviews The Art of Computer Game Design https://archive.org/details/artofcomputergam00chri/mode/2up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/1984-10-anticmagazine/page/82/mode/2up Nintendo beats Universal on appeal "Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, May 23, 1984, Argued ; October 4, 1984, Decided, No. 84-7095 On the Light Side, The Associated Press, October 11, 1984, Thursday, PM cycle" MCA sues Atari https://archive.org/details/computer-entertainer-3-7/mode/1up https://www.atariprotos.com/2600/software/dune/dune.htm Commodore runs afoul of the FTC Byte, October 1984, pg. 9 Learn to speculate - the Video Game! INVESTMENT WATCH, The San Diego Union-Tribune, October 31, 1984 Wednesday, Section: BUSINESS; Pg. A-13, Byline: Janet Lowe, TRIBUNE FINANCIAL EDITOR https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/comex-game-market-simulator-software-3764189470 Acorn dives into Laserdiscs Venture in video discs,Financial Times (London,England), October 31, 1984, Wednesday, Section: SECTION I; Technology; Education; Pg. 15, Byline: EDITED BY ALAN CANE https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=1661 RIP HESWare https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-11/mode/1up?view=theater Jay Balakrishnan - HESWare, Radical, Dynamics, Solid State Software - https://www.patreon.com/posts/jay-balakrishnan-103071267 No Headline In Original, United Press International, October 8, 1984, Monday, BC cycle, Section: Financial, Dateline: EUGENE, Ore. Quote of the month: https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-25/page/n2/mode/1up?view=theater Recommended Links: The History of How We Play: https://thehistoryofhowweplay.wordpress.com/ Gaming Alexandria: https://www.gamingalexandria.com/wp/ They Create Worlds: https://tcwpodcast.podbean.com/ Digital Antiquarian: https://www.filfre.net/ The Arcade Blogger: https://arcadeblogger.com/ Retro Asylum: http://retroasylum.com/category/all-posts/ Retro Game Squad: http://retrogamesquad.libsyn.com/ Playthrough Podcast: https://playthroughpod.com/ Retromags.com: https://www.retromags.com/ Games That Weren't - https://www.gamesthatwerent.com/ Sound Effects by Ethan Johnson of History of How We Play. Copyright Karl Kuras
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)
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
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
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
