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
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
Whether caste census leads to balkanisation of India ? what purpsose does it aims to achieve ? whether this census will be deployed by political parties to divide votes and rule by pitching one against other ? how it hinders india's growth ? - join this discussion to hear and study
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 this heartfelt episode, RJ Vaishnavi sits down with Kaliyugam actor Iniyan Subramanian, who opens up about the emotional rollercoaster of his life—his struggles, setbacks, and the unwavering passion that kept him going. From humble beginnings to the silver screen, Iniyan shares the untold chapters of his journey through the highs and lows of cinema. This is more than a story of fame—it's a story of faith, fire, and finding purpose in the world of storytelling.Tune in to feel inspired, motivated, and reminded that every dreamer has a comeback waiting
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.
What's holding you back from reaching your next level? For many, the biggest obstacle is often a mental one, not a physical one. By shifting your perspective and zooming out, you can find pathways around the challenges that seem insurmountable. Uma Subramanian, founder of Limitless Leaders and former Microsoft leader, shares her journey of achieving extraordinary success by adopting a limitless mindset.Uma explains how she overcame limiting beliefs, reframed her mindset, and transformed her career, even in the early stages. Her story reveals the power of believing in yourself and tackling seemingly impossible constraints—spoiler alert, they're usually not as impossible as they seem.Resources from this episode:Subscribe to The Product Manager newsletterConnect with Uma on LinkedInCheck out the Limitless Leaders
Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi Arrest Soon | Subramanian Swamy Factor | Sanjay Dixit
Today's guest is Narayan Subramanian. Under the Biden administration, he was a legal advisor, and then an advisor to the Secretary at the Department of Energy (DOE). Later, he was the Director for Energy Transition at the White House National Security Council.We've talked to previous guests about how to ensure government money flows fast and effectively. At the DOE, Subramanian helped ensure that a big influx of money could best be used to support innovative energy projects. If you've followed Statecraft a while, you know we're very interested in how to actually deploy taxpayer dollars most effectively. Narayan played a key role in making sure that DOE could do just that.We Discuss:* How the DOE took its modern form* Why don't tools for funding R&D work for funding deployment?* Does the federal interest in IP stop banks from supporting new tech?* What kinds of technologies can you support with “other transactions authority”?The full transcript is available at www.statecraft.pub. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub
Episode 89 of The Prakhar Gupta Xperience features Subramanian Swamy. Subramanian Swamy is an Indian politician, economist and statistician.Recording Date: March 31, 2025This is what we talked about00:00 - Why isn't Subramanian Swamy expelled?08:02 - India's Economic Rise, Challenges & Swamy's Vision16:45 - Is he bitter?27:44 - Evolution of Indian Politics before Modi30:20 - Is India really progressing?34:18 - His contribution to Ram Mandir and the Hindutva Movement37:53 - Honesty & Free Speech in Modern India48:35 - Is PM Narendra Modi retiring?56:30 - Subramanian Swamy had private sources for intelligence1:00:06 - India's Relationship with Russia & the USA1:06:51 - Tensions between China and India1:14:38 - Subramanian Swamy praises Prakhar
The Melbourne International Comedy Festival has started, bringing together comedians from around the world. In this podcast, visiting Indian comedians Sumukhi Suresh and Rahul Subramanian share their experiences and reveal three things they want to take back to India.
In this episode of The Core Report Weekend Edition, Financial Journalist Govindraj Ethiraj speaks with R.S. Subramanian, Senior Vice President South Asia at DHL Express, to explore how global logistics is evolving amid economic uncertainty, supply chain complexity, and geopolitical shifts.From India's emergence as a global manufacturing hub to DHL's on-ground response during the Nepal earthquake, this episode dives deep into how DHL builds resilient, crisis-proof logistics networks and ensures supply chain continuity in the face of disruption.Discover how DHL is enabling faster trade routes, embracing digitalisation, and leading sustainable logistics practices across sectors like electronics, automotive, e-commerce, and life sciences. Learn why global trade isn't shrinking—but becoming more intricate—and how India is positioned to benefit.SHOW NOTES(00:00) Introduction(01:00) How is DHL coping with the current trade war situation(03:55) Understanding DHL's presence in India(07:06) Migration of Supply Chains(09:40) Sophistication of supply chains(11:32) Complexities of Electronics Supply chains(14:45) Trade Growth + DHL(17:08) International trade(20:16) Manufacturing(21:47) Multi-contingency options(24:20) Delivery infrastructure, partner network(29:19) TDS(31:11) Customs is very efficient, capacity is the issue(35:19) Supply Chain resilience(36:35) GT20(41:00) DHL's Sustainability efforts(46:14) DHL has been a market creator in India(47:36) DHL Express Network + customer Service(48:14) DHL + Customs(49:33) DHL Go Help (Disaster Relief Logistics)Listeners! We await your feedback....The Core and The Core Report is ad supported and FREE for all readers and listeners. Write in to shiva@thecore.in for sponsorships and brand studio requirementsFor more of our coverage check out thecore.inJoin and Interact anonymously on our whatsapp channelSubscribe to our NewsletterFollow us on:Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | Linkedin | Youtube
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.
In this engaging episode of MOJO: The Meaning of Life and Business, host Jennifer Glass welcomes SEO expert Senthilkumar Subramanian ("Senthil") to unravel the intricacies of search engine optimization. As the founder of SEO with Senthil, Senthil brings a wealth of knowledge, including his achievement of generating over $1 million in revenue through masterful SEO techniques in his previous businesses. Senthil shares the inspiring story of how he stumbled into the SEO world thanks to a birthday gift from his father—a transformative Internet marketing program. Together, Jennifer and Senthil explore the fundamental principles of SEO, emphasizing the creation of quality content that resonates with users and impresses search engines like Google. Senthil provides actionable advice on identifying the right keywords through meticulous research, aligning content with user intent, and nurturing potential customers.Moreover, the episode delves into the economics of SEO versus paid advertising on platforms like Google, highlighting SEO as a sustainable, long-term strategy for acquiring leads without escalating costs. Senthil explains the crucial elements of on-page optimization, such as enhancing user experience and speed, and reveals the power of link building for credibility. He cautions against replicating competitor content and emphasizes the necessity of originality and maintaining one's unique voice, even when leveraging AI tools. Senthil also touches on the role of multimedia, like videos and images, in enriching user engagement. Listeners will gain an understanding of how to maintain SEO efforts over time, and the importance of continuously refining content to maintain top search rankings. This episode is a must-listen for anyone eager to elevate their digital marketing strategy, offering a roadmap to being found by the right audience online.About my guest: Senthil is the founder of SEO with Senthil. Using his 5 Step Jumpstart Your SEO system, Senthil ranked for 100s of keywords on Google Page 1 and made over $1 million in revenue across his printing business and art studio business which he's since sold. Senthil is passionate about impactful SEO education that brings results and is accessible to all business owners.Connect with Senthil on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, and on the web at https://www.seowithsenthil.com/And make sure to check out the review management platform we mentioned at RecommendStation.com.
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.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-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Anduril is a technology defense company with a focus on drones, computer vision, and other problems related to national security. It is a full-stack company that builds its own hardware and software, which leads to a great many interesting questions about cloud services, engineering workflows, and management. Gokul Subramanian is Senior Vice President of Engineering The post Anduril with Gokul Subramanian appeared first on Software Engineering Daily.
My guest today is Savita Subramanian, Bank of America's Head of U.S. Equity Strategy & U.S. Quantitative Strategy. Barron's named Savita as one of the 100 Most Influential Women in U.S. Finance. In today's episode, we cover the key trends shaping markets as we start 2025. Savita discusses the evolution of the S&P 500 over the past 50 years and why that leads her to be more comfortable with higher valuations today. Then she explains why productivity gains could drive the next bull market and the surprising resilience of corporate margins despite inflation volatility. Plus, Savita weighs in on the future of small, mid, and large caps and why she favors selective stock picking over buying the index. (0:00) Intro (0:34) Sponsor: Farmland LP (2:02) The evolution of the S&P 500 (5:13) Does the market deserve a higher valuation? (11:02) 2025 market outlook (14:34) Corporate margin expansion and efficiency (19:43) Fixed income alternatives and large cap value stocks (26:03) IPO trends and private markets (32:23) Reshoring and US infrastructure investment (38:12) Market shift to focus on total return (51:17) Old economy stocks and global market opportunities (58:35) Most memorable investment ----- For detailed show notes, click here ----- Sponsor: Farmland LP is one of the largest investment funds in the US focused on converting chemical-based conventional farmland to organic, sustainably-managed farmland using a value-add commercial real estate strategy in the agriculture sector. ----- Follow Meb on X, LinkedIn and YouTube To learn more about our funds and follow us, subscribe to our mailing list or visit us at cambriainvestments.com Follow The Idea Farm: X | LinkedIn | Instagram | TikTok ----- Interested in sponsoring the show? Email us at Feedback@TheMebFaberShow.com ----- Past guests include Ed Thorp, Richard Thaler, Jeremy Grantham, Joel Greenblatt, Campbell Harvey, Ivy Zelman, Kathryn Kaminski, Jason Calacanis, Whitney Baker, Aswath Damodaran, Howard Marks, Tom Barton, and many more. ----- Meb's invested in some awesome startups that have passed along discounts to our listeners. Check them out here! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
