POPULARITY
14 episodes with subramanian
10 episodes with subramanian
8 episodes with subramanian
92 episodes with subramanian
4 episodes with subramanian
2 episodes with subramanian
3 episodes with subramanian
3 episodes with subramanian
2 episodes with subramanian
3 episodes with subramanian
9 episodes with subramanian
3 episodes with subramanian
3 episodes with subramanian
4 episodes with subramanian
3 episodes with subramanian
3 episodes with subramanian
2 episodes with subramanian
2 episodes with subramanian
In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdf
In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdf
This week's “How She Finds Purpose” insight comes from Uma Subramanian. She says – “Her journey is unique and the way purpose and meaning looks like in her life might be different from the other women that she's probably listening to. So just trusting her journey and trying to find meaning and purpose in just the day to day flow of life... being open to opportunities, being open to being courageous to, when she sees those opportunities, being able to seize those and follow-up with those.” Uma Subramanian is a certified executive leadership coach, speaker, and accomplished tech industry veteran, including a 20-year tenure at Microsoft. She's now the founder and CEO of Limitless Leaders, a global brand that helps mid-career tech professionals become empowered and sought-after leaders. Her mission is to help leaders thrive in their careers without burnout, hustle, or playing politics. Outside of work, she's a proud mom of two teenagers and now two beloved dogs. Here are 3 reasons why you should listen to this episode: You'll hear how a bold, unexpected career moment became the spark for purpose-led leadership. You'll hear how Uma found deep purpose after walking away from a toxic job—and how she turned that moment into a mission to help others. You'll get a fresh, honest perspective on why your purpose doesn't have to look like anyone else's—and how to spot opportunities that are already in front of you. Connect with Uma at: https://www.thelimitlessleaders.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/uma-subramanian Would you prefer to watch or listen to the podcast on YouTube?Head on over to https://www.youtube.com/@leadershippurposepodcast Want to connect? Connect with Dr. Robin on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robinlowensphd/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robinlowensphd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/robinlowensphd/ Email: Robin@LeadershipPurposePodcast.com Thank you for listening! Rate, review, & follow on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast player. Talk to you soon! This episode was produced by Lynda, Podcast Manager for GenX Creative Entrepreneurs at https://www.ljscreativeservices.co.nz
In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdf
In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdf
In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
On this week's episode of Troublemakers, Dom is stuck on a bus coming back from Ohio so Dylan sit's down with a special guest co-host, NTC Comedian Shyam Subramanian (@Instashimmy) It's a HOT one! New episodes are out every Wednesday on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, with full video on YouTube. Clips on TikTok and Instagram! Rate, review, comment, and subscribe for new content every week? Thanks for being here! Instagram: @DylanKrasinski; @Dominicleonelli @Troublemakers_PodcastTikTok: @DylanKrasinski; @Domofnyc; @TroublemakerspodcastYouTube: @dylankrasinski ; @domsdetails @troublemakerspodcast
During a closed-door meeting on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian sternly reprimanded attorney Mark Geragos for comments made on his podcast, "2 Angry Men," regarding the prosecution team in Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking trial. Geragos, who represents Combs' mother and has been observed consulting with the defense team, referred to the all-female group of federal prosecutors as "a six-pack of white women." Judge Subramanian condemned the remark as "outrageous" and emphasized that such language would not be tolerated in any courtroom. He further warned Geragos that he would be monitoring future episodes of the podcast to ensure compliance with court decorum and to prevent any potential influence on the jury pool .Geragos attempted to justify his comments by suggesting that Combs feels targeted due to his race, stating that his observation was rooted in the client's perspective. However, the judge dismissed this rationale, reiterating the importance of maintaining professionalism and impartiality in legal proceedings. Prosecutors expressed concern over Geragos' public commentary, highlighting the podcast's substantial audience and the risk of prejudicing the jury. They also noted that Geragos discussed key evidence, including a surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, and criticized the prosecution's strategy. In response, the judge underscored the necessity for all legal representatives to refrain from extrajudicial statements that could compromise the fairness of the trialto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Diddy Trial Judge Snaps at Lawyer Who Discussed Prosecutors on TMZ - Business Insider
During a closed-door meeting on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian sternly reprimanded attorney Mark Geragos for comments made on his podcast, "2 Angry Men," regarding the prosecution team in Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking trial. Geragos, who represents Combs' mother and has been observed consulting with the defense team, referred to the all-female group of federal prosecutors as "a six-pack of white women." Judge Subramanian condemned the remark as "outrageous" and emphasized that such language would not be tolerated in any courtroom. He further warned Geragos that he would be monitoring future episodes of the podcast to ensure compliance with court decorum and to prevent any potential influence on the jury pool .Geragos attempted to justify his comments by suggesting that Combs feels targeted due to his race, stating that his observation was rooted in the client's perspective. However, the judge dismissed this rationale, reiterating the importance of maintaining professionalism and impartiality in legal proceedings. Prosecutors expressed concern over Geragos' public commentary, highlighting the podcast's substantial audience and the risk of prejudicing the jury. They also noted that Geragos discussed key evidence, including a surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, and criticized the prosecution's strategy. In response, the judge underscored the necessity for all legal representatives to refrain from extrajudicial statements that could compromise the fairness of the trialto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Diddy Trial Judge Snaps at Lawyer Who Discussed Prosecutors on TMZ - Business InsiderBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Words of Wisdom / Gyan Ganga – Episode 271Dr Subramanian Swamy on 'The 50th Anniversary of The Draconian Emergency - Let's Vow Never Again' - Episode 271
Kalavu by Vidhya Subramanian - Tamil Short Story - களவு
happy listening
In case 24-cr-542 (AS), Judge Arun Subramanian issued an order addressing pretrial matters in the prosecution of Sean Combs. The order reaffirms the need to maintain the integrity of the trial process, particularly in light of media coverage and the high-profile nature of the case. Judge Subramanian emphasized that both parties must adhere strictly to court rules, ensuring that public statements and information sharing do not jeopardize the fairness of the proceedings.The order also outlines the implementation of specific measures, such as restricted access to certain documents and a potential gag order to limit public comments from attorneys and witnesses. Judge Subramanian notes that these measures are necessary to prevent undue influence on potential jurors and to maintain a balanced judicial process. Further hearings and motions related to this order are expected to be scheduled as the case progresses.(commercial at 8:10)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.50.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Mike Marza and ABC News Legal Analyst Channa Lloyd recap what happened in court on Thursday in the Sean Diddy Combs sex trafficking trial. During a break and without the jury present, Judge Arun Subramanian threatened to boot Sean Combs from trial if he makes facial expressions during testimony. "I was very clear there were not to be any facial expressions," Subramanian told lead defense counsel Marc Agnifilo. "There's a line of questioning where your client was nodding vigorously and looking at the jury and there was a subsequent moment when there was a sidebar and I saw your client looking at the jury." Subramanian said an additional violation "could result in the exclusion of your client from the courtroom." An alleged sex trafficking victim of Combs' who is testifying under the pseudonym 'Jane' also took the witness stand. It was late 2020 when, "Jane" testified, she met Combs during a girls trip to Miami. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
In a sealed letter submitted to Judge Subramanian, legal counsel for Jane Doe—referred to as Victim-2 in the Sean Combs federal criminal case—opposed a media request filed on May 12, 2025, by attorneys Robert Balin and Alexandra Perloff-Giles. That request, made on behalf of several news organizations, sought courtroom access to view “sexually explicit and sensitive” audiovisual exhibits that are set to be shown to the jury but not played in open court. Jane Doe's counsel argued against the release, emphasizing the highly personal and traumatic nature of the content and citing her court-granted right to proceed anonymously. The letter underscores the importance of safeguarding Jane Doe's dignity and privacy during trial proceedings that already carry significant emotional weight for her.The opposition also stresses the unique harm that could arise from permitting the press to view such sensitive materials, especially given their graphic and intimate nature. Jane Doe's legal team asserts that allowing the media to access these exhibits, even if only while they are played for the jury, would essentially nullify the court's protective measures and could lead to secondary dissemination—further traumatizing the victim and potentially undermining the integrity of the trial. The letter frames the issue not as a matter of transparency, but one of protecting victims' rights, ensuring due process, and upholding the court's earlier rulings that prioritized the safety and anonymity of individuals involved in the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.350.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In a sealed letter submitted to Judge Subramanian, legal counsel for Jane Doe—referred to as Victim-2 in the Sean Combs federal criminal case—opposed a media request filed on May 12, 2025, by attorneys Robert Balin and Alexandra Perloff-Giles. That request, made on behalf of several news organizations, sought courtroom access to view “sexually explicit and sensitive” audiovisual exhibits that are set to be shown to the jury but not played in open court. Jane Doe's counsel argued against the release, emphasizing the highly personal and traumatic nature of the content and citing her court-granted right to proceed anonymously. The letter underscores the importance of safeguarding Jane Doe's dignity and privacy during trial proceedings that already carry significant emotional weight for her.The opposition also stresses the unique harm that could arise from permitting the press to view such sensitive materials, especially given their graphic and intimate nature. Jane Doe's legal team asserts that allowing the media to access these exhibits, even if only while they are played for the jury, would essentially nullify the court's protective measures and could lead to secondary dissemination—further traumatizing the victim and potentially undermining the integrity of the trial. The letter frames the issue not as a matter of transparency, but one of protecting victims' rights, ensuring due process, and upholding the court's earlier rulings that prioritized the safety and anonymity of individuals involved in the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.350.0.pdf
In a sealed letter submitted to Judge Subramanian, legal counsel for Jane Doe—referred to as Victim-2 in the Sean Combs federal criminal case—opposed a media request filed on May 12, 2025, by attorneys Robert Balin and Alexandra Perloff-Giles. That request, made on behalf of several news organizations, sought courtroom access to view “sexually explicit and sensitive” audiovisual exhibits that are set to be shown to the jury but not played in open court. Jane Doe's counsel argued against the release, emphasizing the highly personal and traumatic nature of the content and citing her court-granted right to proceed anonymously. The letter underscores the importance of safeguarding Jane Doe's dignity and privacy during trial proceedings that already carry significant emotional weight for her.The opposition also stresses the unique harm that could arise from permitting the press to view such sensitive materials, especially given their graphic and intimate nature. Jane Doe's legal team asserts that allowing the media to access these exhibits, even if only while they are played for the jury, would essentially nullify the court's protective measures and could lead to secondary dissemination—further traumatizing the victim and potentially undermining the integrity of the trial. The letter frames the issue not as a matter of transparency, but one of protecting victims' rights, ensuring due process, and upholding the court's earlier rulings that prioritized the safety and anonymity of individuals involved in the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.350.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In an Opinion and Order issued by U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, the court addressed the handling of Sean "Diddy" Combs's notes seized during a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) sweep at the Metropolitan Detention Center between October 28, 2024, and November 1, 2024. During the operation, a BOP investigator, referred to as Investigator-1, took photographs of nineteen pages of Combs's handwritten notes and sent them to the Government's filter team. The filter team is composed of Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) who are not involved in the prosecution of the case. Their role was to review and redact any privileged or irrelevant material before passing the documents to the prosecution team.The case team, which includes the agents and AUSAs directly responsible for investigating and prosecuting Combs, received the redacted notes from the filter team. This procedural safeguard is meant to ensure that privileged or irrelevant information is not improperly accessed by prosecutors handling the case. The ruling underscores the court's scrutiny over how seized evidence is handled, particularly when it involves sensitive materials belonging to the defendant. The order may influence future legal arguments about attorney-client privilege, due process, and the integrity of the prosecution's access to evidence in this high-profile case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.148.0_1.pdf
In an Opinion and Order issued by U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, the court addressed the handling of Sean "Diddy" Combs's notes seized during a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) sweep at the Metropolitan Detention Center between October 28, 2024, and November 1, 2024. During the operation, a BOP investigator, referred to as Investigator-1, took photographs of nineteen pages of Combs's handwritten notes and sent them to the Government's filter team. The filter team is composed of Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) who are not involved in the prosecution of the case. Their role was to review and redact any privileged or irrelevant material before passing the documents to the prosecution team.The case team, which includes the agents and AUSAs directly responsible for investigating and prosecuting Combs, received the redacted notes from the filter team. This procedural safeguard is meant to ensure that privileged or irrelevant information is not improperly accessed by prosecutors handling the case. The ruling underscores the court's scrutiny over how seized evidence is handled, particularly when it involves sensitive materials belonging to the defendant. The order may influence future legal arguments about attorney-client privilege, due process, and the integrity of the prosecution's access to evidence in this high-profile case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.148.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In an Opinion and Order issued by U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, the court addressed the handling of Sean "Diddy" Combs's notes seized during a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) sweep at the Metropolitan Detention Center between October 28, 2024, and November 1, 2024. During the operation, a BOP investigator, referred to as Investigator-1, took photographs of nineteen pages of Combs's handwritten notes and sent them to the Government's filter team. The filter team is composed of Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) who are not involved in the prosecution of the case. Their role was to review and redact any privileged or irrelevant material before passing the documents to the prosecution team.The case team, which includes the agents and AUSAs directly responsible for investigating and prosecuting Combs, received the redacted notes from the filter team. This procedural safeguard is meant to ensure that privileged or irrelevant information is not improperly accessed by prosecutors handling the case. The ruling underscores the court's scrutiny over how seized evidence is handled, particularly when it involves sensitive materials belonging to the defendant. The order may influence future legal arguments about attorney-client privilege, due process, and the integrity of the prosecution's access to evidence in this high-profile case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.148.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
On April 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian denied Sean "Diddy" Combs' request to delay his upcoming sex trafficking and racketeering trial, which is scheduled to begin on May 5 in Manhattan. Combs' legal team had sought a two-month postponement, citing the need for additional time to prepare due to new charges and evidence introduced in a recent superseding indictment. However, Judge Subramanian rejected the request, stating that the defense, which includes multiple attorneys, has sufficient time to prepare and that the court would not permit a "fishing expedition" for more evidence.During the same hearing, Judge Subramanian made several other rulings affecting the trial proceedings. He allowed three alleged victims to testify under pseudonyms to protect their identities, while noting that Cassie Ventura, Combs' former girlfriend and a key accuser, will testify under her real name. The judge also denied the defense's motion to dismiss certain charges and ruled that outtakes from the documentary "The Fall of Diddy" are admissible as evidence. Combs, who has been held without bail since his arrest in September 2024, has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include sex trafficking, transportation to engage in prostitution, and racketeering conspiracy.In April 2025, Cassie Ventura, identified as "Victim-1" in Sean "Diddy" Combs' upcoming federal trial, filed a motion to quash a subpoena issued by Combs' legal team. The subpoena demanded access to all drafts of her memoir, personal diaries, journals, notes, and ten months of her bank statements from 2023. Ventura's attorney, Douglas Wigdor, argued that the subpoena was overly broad and lacked specificity, asserting that Combs' team failed to demonstrate the admissibility or relevance of the requested materials. Wigdor emphasized that the defense did not specify what information they expected to find in these documents, making the request an unjustified intrusion into Ventura's private life. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean "Diddy" Combs back in court as judge denies bid to delay trial by two months - CBS New York
Living Through the Aftershock: COVID-19's Lasting Impact on Our Lives and Leadership In this deep and wide-ranging conversation, Amrita Subramanian and Michael D. Levitt explore the profound and lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic—not just on health systems, but on our humanity, leadership, and everyday decisions. Reckoning With Collective Trauma The episode opens with a candid reflection on how society continues to carry the emotional residue of the pandemic. Amrita underscores the importance of acknowledging that crisis is not an interruption—it's a constant. Michael builds on this by noting how many individuals still carry unprocessed trauma, often triggered by subtle reminders from the pandemic era. Leaders, he argues, must create space for that healing, not push people to simply “move on.” Mortality, Reflection, and Missed Opportunities Amrita shares that COVID-19 accelerated deeper societal trends and forced a confrontation with mortality. Michael adds that the pandemic was a moment when the world could have come together—yet instead, we saw fragmentation. Together, they challenge listeners to reflect on whether we're growing from the crisis—or avoiding it. Growth Through Adversity Both hosts explore how some individuals used the pandemic as a springboard for transformation. Amrita calls these people "magnets"—those who attract possibility through growth and reflection. Michael discusses how our choices ripple outward, affecting teams, families, and communities, and urges leaders to lean into thoughtful, values-based decision-making. Making Peace With Chaos In a thought-provoking segment, Amrita reframes chaos—not as disorder, but as the natural state when clarity and consensus are missing. Michael and Amrita discuss the necessity of continuous learning and the paradox of a generation navigating both truth and noise. The takeaway? We're standing at a crossroads that could lead to either a new renaissance—or a descent into disconnection. Humility and Leadership in Uncertain Times Amrita calls for a return to humility, especially in leadership. She advocates for an unlearning of rigid systems and encourages empathy-based decision-making. Michael echoes this, pointing to the dangers of ego in crisis and the importance of making choices grounded in service and self-awareness. Decisions That Shape the Future Michael shares strategies for making clear-headed decisions amid chaos—removing emotion from the process and using systems like checklists to stay aligned. Amrita offers a counterbalance: the role of curiosity and inner wisdom in guiding leaders toward choices that benefit the greater good. Together, they highlight the legacy we're leaving for the next generation—a chance to lead with civility, courage, and care. Living Fully, Leading Wisely The episode closes with reflections on what it means to live a fulfilling life. Amrita encourages gentle self-examination, while Michael reminds us that leadership starts with personal responsibility—and a commitment to making choices that serve not just ourselves, but those around us. Amrita is a former Fortune 500 VP who has devoted 22+ years of her career to helping organizations thrive amid crises. She is also a trailblazer in post-disruptive growth as a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and a guest lecturer at Wharton. She has almost completed her Ph.D. on post-traumatic growth in adults through COVID-19. As the world faced the first collective trauma/crisis disruption in modern-day history, the COVID pandemic, Amrita launched a first-of-its-kind study to explore how pain leads to growth and analyze our ability to heal ourselves during an unparalleled crisis. Her work is dedicated to providing education and practical solutions for individuals and communities worldwide. Her lessons draw from the evidence-based practices of everyday people who have shown heartfelt humility and wisdom in the face of crisis and devastation. The research study has amassed global participation, and she is convinced that it will show the pandemic strengthened us and renewed our sense of identity, purpose, and community. Amrita knows well that there is growth from trauma based on what she's endured in her own life. At the age of five, she was abandoned in a convent. The trauma and abuse she endured throughout that time resulted in selective mutism until she was 11 years old, among other things. Amrita is now using her voice to help guide humanity and speak out about the many facets of pain and what good could come from them. On the podcast, she would love to talk about: What happens to the future and nature of work (employees, employers, departments, engagement, stress, fatigue, etc.) following the collective trauma we all walked through? What is the nature of post-disruptive/post-crisis leadership? Who do we need to be to lead ourselves to the next edge of growth and harmony, given crises are only now going to be constant (economic or ecological)? The pandemic is still largely under-processed, and folks do not seem to be making denial a choice. People seem to be hungry to process what they experienced. This article explains why we need to talk about and process pain and how pain can also lead to growth. To get a sense of Amrita, here's an episode she did recently on The Trauma Therapist Podcast, where she talked about how her life has been shaped by continuous growth from trauma.
On April 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian denied Sean "Diddy" Combs' request to delay his upcoming sex trafficking and racketeering trial, which is scheduled to begin on May 5 in Manhattan. Combs' legal team had sought a two-month postponement, citing the need for additional time to prepare due to new charges and evidence introduced in a recent superseding indictment. However, Judge Subramanian rejected the request, stating that the defense, which includes multiple attorneys, has sufficient time to prepare and that the court would not permit a "fishing expedition" for more evidence.During the same hearing, Judge Subramanian made several other rulings affecting the trial proceedings. He allowed three alleged victims to testify under pseudonyms to protect their identities, while noting that Cassie Ventura, Combs' former girlfriend and a key accuser, will testify under her real name. The judge also denied the defense's motion to dismiss certain charges and ruled that outtakes from the documentary "The Fall of Diddy" are admissible as evidence. Combs, who has been held without bail since his arrest in September 2024, has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include sex trafficking, transportation to engage in prostitution, and racketeering conspiracy.In April 2025, Cassie Ventura, identified as "Victim-1" in Sean "Diddy" Combs' upcoming federal trial, filed a motion to quash a subpoena issued by Combs' legal team. The subpoena demanded access to all drafts of her memoir, personal diaries, journals, notes, and ten months of her bank statements from 2023. Ventura's attorney, Douglas Wigdor, argued that the subpoena was overly broad and lacked specificity, asserting that Combs' team failed to demonstrate the admissibility or relevance of the requested materials. Wigdor emphasized that the defense did not specify what information they expected to find in these documents, making the request an unjustified intrusion into Ventura's private life. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean "Diddy" Combs back in court as judge denies bid to delay trial by two months - CBS New YorkBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdf
In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdf
In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdf
Send us a textColin and Russ discuss the trial of P.Diddy which just started earlier this week in Manhattan. They talk about the testimony of prosecution star witness Cassie Ventura, a long time partner of P.Diddy. They also forecast the rest of the trial and discuss the millions of dollars in assets that are subject to forfeiture by the U.S. Government, and what that means for victims who are currently suing him. Plus, Is This Legal and a new DCOTW. Listen here!
In case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs sought dismissal of counts three and five of the superseding indictment, which accuse him of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a). These counts allege that Combs transported Victim-1, Victim-2, and unnamed commercial sex workers across state and international borders with the intent of engaging them in prostitution. Combs' legal team argued that these charges amounted to selective prosecution, claiming the statute was being used unfairly and in a discriminatory manner against him due to his status as a prominent Black man. His defense positioned this argument within the context of alleged systemic bias, asserting that similar conduct by others has not historically drawn comparable federal charges.The presiding judge rejected Combs' motion and denied dismissal of the charges. The court found no credible basis for the claim of selective prosecution, emphasizing that Combs failed to meet the legal standard required to prove such a claim. Specifically, he did not present sufficient evidence showing that others similarly situated were not prosecuted or that the decision to charge him was driven by improper discriminatory motives. The ruling ensures that counts three and five will remain part of the case as it proceeds to trial, keeping key elements of the government's sex trafficking allegations intact.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.325.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs sought dismissal of counts three and five of the superseding indictment, which accuse him of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a). These counts allege that Combs transported Victim-1, Victim-2, and unnamed commercial sex workers across state and international borders with the intent of engaging them in prostitution. Combs' legal team argued that these charges amounted to selective prosecution, claiming the statute was being used unfairly and in a discriminatory manner against him due to his status as a prominent Black man. His defense positioned this argument within the context of alleged systemic bias, asserting that similar conduct by others has not historically drawn comparable federal charges.The presiding judge rejected Combs' motion and denied dismissal of the charges. The court found no credible basis for the claim of selective prosecution, emphasizing that Combs failed to meet the legal standard required to prove such a claim. Specifically, he did not present sufficient evidence showing that others similarly situated were not prosecuted or that the decision to charge him was driven by improper discriminatory motives. The ruling ensures that counts three and five will remain part of the case as it proceeds to trial, keeping key elements of the government's sex trafficking allegations intact.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.325.0_1.pdf
In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
On April 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian denied Sean "Diddy" Combs' request to delay his upcoming sex trafficking and racketeering trial, which is scheduled to begin on May 5 in Manhattan. Combs' legal team had sought a two-month postponement, citing the need for additional time to prepare due to new charges and evidence introduced in a recent superseding indictment. However, Judge Subramanian rejected the request, stating that the defense, which includes multiple attorneys, has sufficient time to prepare and that the court would not permit a "fishing expedition" for more evidence.During the same hearing, Judge Subramanian made several other rulings affecting the trial proceedings. He allowed three alleged victims to testify under pseudonyms to protect their identities, while noting that Cassie Ventura, Combs' former girlfriend and a key accuser, will testify under her real name. The judge also denied the defense's motion to dismiss certain charges and ruled that outtakes from the documentary "The Fall of Diddy" are admissible as evidence. Combs, who has been held without bail since his arrest in September 2024, has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include sex trafficking, transportation to engage in prostitution, and racketeering conspiracy.In April 2025, Cassie Ventura, identified as "Victim-1" in Sean "Diddy" Combs' upcoming federal trial, filed a motion to quash a subpoena issued by Combs' legal team. The subpoena demanded access to all drafts of her memoir, personal diaries, journals, notes, and ten months of her bank statements from 2023. Ventura's attorney, Douglas Wigdor, argued that the subpoena was overly broad and lacked specificity, asserting that Combs' team failed to demonstrate the admissibility or relevance of the requested materials. Wigdor emphasized that the defense did not specify what information they expected to find in these documents, making the request an unjustified intrusion into Ventura's private life. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean "Diddy" Combs back in court as judge denies bid to delay trial by two months - CBS New York
In case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs sought dismissal of counts three and five of the superseding indictment, which accuse him of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a). These counts allege that Combs transported Victim-1, Victim-2, and unnamed commercial sex workers across state and international borders with the intent of engaging them in prostitution. Combs' legal team argued that these charges amounted to selective prosecution, claiming the statute was being used unfairly and in a discriminatory manner against him due to his status as a prominent Black man. His defense positioned this argument within the context of alleged systemic bias, asserting that similar conduct by others has not historically drawn comparable federal charges.The presiding judge rejected Combs' motion and denied dismissal of the charges. The court found no credible basis for the claim of selective prosecution, emphasizing that Combs failed to meet the legal standard required to prove such a claim. Specifically, he did not present sufficient evidence showing that others similarly situated were not prosecuted or that the decision to charge him was driven by improper discriminatory motives. The ruling ensures that counts three and five will remain part of the case as it proceeds to trial, keeping key elements of the government's sex trafficking allegations intact.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.325.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
On April 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian denied Sean "Diddy" Combs' request to delay his upcoming sex trafficking and racketeering trial, which is scheduled to begin on May 5 in Manhattan. Combs' legal team had sought a two-month postponement, citing the need for additional time to prepare due to new charges and evidence introduced in a recent superseding indictment. However, Judge Subramanian rejected the request, stating that the defense, which includes multiple attorneys, has sufficient time to prepare and that the court would not permit a "fishing expedition" for more evidence.During the same hearing, Judge Subramanian made several other rulings affecting the trial proceedings. He allowed three alleged victims to testify under pseudonyms to protect their identities, while noting that Cassie Ventura, Combs' former girlfriend and a key accuser, will testify under her real name. The judge also denied the defense's motion to dismiss certain charges and ruled that outtakes from the documentary "The Fall of Diddy" are admissible as evidence. Combs, who has been held without bail since his arrest in September 2024, has pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include sex trafficking, transportation to engage in prostitution, and racketeering conspiracy.In April 2025, Cassie Ventura, identified as "Victim-1" in Sean "Diddy" Combs' upcoming federal trial, filed a motion to quash a subpoena issued by Combs' legal team. The subpoena demanded access to all drafts of her memoir, personal diaries, journals, notes, and ten months of her bank statements from 2023. Ventura's attorney, Douglas Wigdor, argued that the subpoena was overly broad and lacked specificity, asserting that Combs' team failed to demonstrate the admissibility or relevance of the requested materials. Wigdor emphasized that the defense did not specify what information they expected to find in these documents, making the request an unjustified intrusion into Ventura's private life. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean "Diddy" Combs back in court as judge denies bid to delay trial by two months - CBS New YorkBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
During a closed-door meeting on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian sternly reprimanded attorney Mark Geragos for comments made on his podcast, "2 Angry Men," regarding the prosecution team in Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking trial. Geragos, who represents Combs' mother and has been observed consulting with the defense team, referred to the all-female group of federal prosecutors as "a six-pack of white women." Judge Subramanian condemned the remark as "outrageous" and emphasized that such language would not be tolerated in any courtroom. He further warned Geragos that he would be monitoring future episodes of the podcast to ensure compliance with court decorum and to prevent any potential influence on the jury pool .Geragos attempted to justify his comments by suggesting that Combs feels targeted due to his race, stating that his observation was rooted in the client's perspective. However, the judge dismissed this rationale, reiterating the importance of maintaining professionalism and impartiality in legal proceedings. Prosecutors expressed concern over Geragos' public commentary, highlighting the podcast's substantial audience and the risk of prejudicing the jury. They also noted that Geragos discussed key evidence, including a surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, and criticized the prosecution's strategy. In response, the judge underscored the necessity for all legal representatives to refrain from extrajudicial statements that could compromise the fairness of the trialto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Diddy Trial Judge Snaps at Lawyer Who Discussed Prosecutors on TMZ - Business InsiderBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
During a closed-door meeting on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian sternly reprimanded attorney Mark Geragos for comments made on his podcast, "2 Angry Men," regarding the prosecution team in Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking trial. Geragos, who represents Combs' mother and has been observed consulting with the defense team, referred to the all-female group of federal prosecutors as "a six-pack of white women." Judge Subramanian condemned the remark as "outrageous" and emphasized that such language would not be tolerated in any courtroom. He further warned Geragos that he would be monitoring future episodes of the podcast to ensure compliance with court decorum and to prevent any potential influence on the jury pool .Geragos attempted to justify his comments by suggesting that Combs feels targeted due to his race, stating that his observation was rooted in the client's perspective. However, the judge dismissed this rationale, reiterating the importance of maintaining professionalism and impartiality in legal proceedings. Prosecutors expressed concern over Geragos' public commentary, highlighting the podcast's substantial audience and the risk of prejudicing the jury. They also noted that Geragos discussed key evidence, including a surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, and criticized the prosecution's strategy. In response, the judge underscored the necessity for all legal representatives to refrain from extrajudicial statements that could compromise the fairness of the trialto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Diddy Trial Judge Snaps at Lawyer Who Discussed Prosecutors on TMZ - Business Insider
During a closed-door meeting on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian sternly reprimanded attorney Mark Geragos for comments made on his podcast, "2 Angry Men," regarding the prosecution team in Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking trial. Geragos, who represents Combs' mother and has been observed consulting with the defense team, referred to the all-female group of federal prosecutors as "a six-pack of white women." Judge Subramanian condemned the remark as "outrageous" and emphasized that such language would not be tolerated in any courtroom. He further warned Geragos that he would be monitoring future episodes of the podcast to ensure compliance with court decorum and to prevent any potential influence on the jury pool .Geragos attempted to justify his comments by suggesting that Combs feels targeted due to his race, stating that his observation was rooted in the client's perspective. However, the judge dismissed this rationale, reiterating the importance of maintaining professionalism and impartiality in legal proceedings. Prosecutors expressed concern over Geragos' public commentary, highlighting the podcast's substantial audience and the risk of prejudicing the jury. They also noted that Geragos discussed key evidence, including a surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, and criticized the prosecution's strategy. In response, the judge underscored the necessity for all legal representatives to refrain from extrajudicial statements that could compromise the fairness of the trialto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Diddy Trial Judge Snaps at Lawyer Who Discussed Prosecutors on TMZ - Business InsiderBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi Arrest Soon | Subramanian Swamy Factor | Sanjay Dixit
Dr. Amrita Subramanian is a former Fortune 500 VP who has devoted 22+ years of her career to helping organizations thrive amid crises. Currently, she teaches at the University of Pennsylvania, focusing on post-traumatic growth through the pandemic.As the world faced COVID, the first collective trauma/crisis disruption in modern-day history, Amrita launched a first-of-its-kind study to explore how pain leads to growth and analyze our ability to heal ourselves during an unparalleled crisis.Her work is dedicated to providing education and practical solutions for individuals and communities worldwide. Her lessons draw from the evidence-based practices of everyday people who have shown heartfelt humility and wisdom in the face of crisis and devastation.The research study has amassed global participation, showing that the pandemic strengthened us and renewed our sense of identity, purpose, and community.Amrita knows well that there is growth from trauma based on what she's endured in her own life. At the age of five, she was abandoned in a convent. The trauma and abuse she endured throughout that time resulted in selective mutism (among other things) until she was 11 years old. Amrita is now using her voice to help guide humanity and speak out about the many facets of pain and what good could come from them.More Info: GrowBeyondPain.comSponsors: Master Your Podcast Course: MasterYourSwagFree Coaching Session: Master Leadership 360 CoachingSupport Our Show: Click HereLily's Story: My Trust ManifestoSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/masterleadership. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
