3 JUL 2024 · Sexual assault survivors are often allowed to proceed anonymously during court trials for several reasons, primarily aimed at protecting their privacy, safety, and well-being: - Reducing Trauma: Testifying about sexual assault can be an incredibly traumatic experience for survivors. Allowing them to proceed anonymously can help reduce the additional stress and trauma associated with public exposure and scrutiny. - Protecting Privacy: Anonymity shields survivors from unwanted public attention and intrusion into their personal lives. It allows them to maintain a level of privacy and control over their own narrative. - Encouraging Reporting: Fear of public exposure can deter survivors from reporting sexual assault or seeking justice. Anonymity can help encourage survivors to come forward and participate in legal proceedings without the fear of being publicly identified and stigmatized. - Ensuring Safety: In some cases, survivors may fear retaliation or harassment from the accused or their supporters. Anonymity can provide an added layer of protection and help ensure the safety of the survivor and their loved ones. However, there are also potential problems that may arise from allowing an accuser to remain anonymous: - Fairness to the Accused: Anonymity for the accuser can raise concerns about fairness in the legal process. It may limit the accused's ability to fully defend themselves if they cannot know the identity of their accuser or access potentially relevant information about them. - Presumption of Innocence: Anonymity may undermine the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" by creating an imbalance in the perception of the case. The accused may face increased scrutiny and presumption of guilt, especially in the absence of transparency regarding the accuser's identity. - Potential for False Accusations: Without the accuser's identity being disclosed, there may be concerns about false accusations going unchallenged. Anonymity could make it more difficult for the accused to present evidence or witnesses that could refute the allegations. - Impact on Public Confidence: Anonymity can sometimes lead to skepticism or distrust in the legal process, as it may be perceived as favoring one party over the other. This could affect public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the judicial system. Overall, while anonymity for sexual assault survivors serves important purposes in protecting their well-being and encouraging reporting, it's essential to balance these considerations with the rights of the accused and the principles of fairness and transparency in legal proceedings. In this episode, we get a look at the alleged underraged Jane Doe's motion to remain anonymous throughout the precedings.   (commercial at 9:43) to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.611545/gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.32.0_2.pdf

3 JUL 2024 · A declaration of support of allegations in a civil or criminal complaint is a sworn statement made by a party involved in the case, typically the plaintiff or the prosecutor. This statement provides factual details and evidence supporting the claims or charges being made in the complaint. The purpose of such a declaration is to provide the court with relevant information and evidence to support the legal arguments being presented. In civil cases, the declaration may include details about the events leading up to the dispute, any damages suffered, and any other pertinent information relevant to the case. In criminal cases, the declaration may contain information about the alleged criminal activity, evidence gathered by law enforcement, and witness statements. The individual making the declaration typically signs it under penalty of perjury, meaning they attest to the truthfulness of the statements contained within the document. This adds legal weight to the allegations or claims being made in the complaint. In this episode we take a look at the declaration made by Rodney Jones in support of his allegations against Diddy and the co-defendants. (commercial at 10:30) to contact me: bobbycaucci@protonmail.com source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.616406/gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.34.2.pdf

2 JUL 2024 · A declaration of support of allegations in a civil or criminal complaint is a sworn statement made by a party involved in the case, typically the plaintiff or the prosecutor. This statement provides factual details and evidence supporting the claims or charges being made in the complaint. The purpose of such a declaration is to provide the court with relevant information and evidence to support the legal arguments being presented. In civil cases, the declaration may include details about the events leading up to the dispute, any damages suffered, and any other pertinent information relevant to the case. In criminal cases, the declaration may contain information about the alleged criminal activity, evidence gathered by law enforcement, and witness statements. The individual making the declaration typically signs it under penalty of perjury, meaning they attest to the truthfulness of the statements contained within the document. This adds legal weight to the allegations or claims being made in the complaint. In this episode we take a look at the declaration made by Rodney Jones in support of his allegations against Diddy and the co-defendants. (commercial at 9:26) to contact me: bobbycaucci@protonmail.com source: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.616406/gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.34.2.pdf

2 JUL 2024 · Harve Pierre is a music industry executive, known primarily for his role as the President of Bad Boy Entertainment, a record label founded by Sean "Diddy" Combs. Pierre has been a key figure in the music business for over two decades, working closely with Diddy to oversee the label's operations and its roster of artists. He is known for his expertise in artist development, A&R (Artist and Repertoire), and overall strategic management within the music industry. Under his leadership, Bad Boy Entertainment has released numerous successful albums and singles, contributing to its significant impact on hip-hop and R&B music. Pierre's contributions have helped shape the careers of many prominent artists associated with Bad Boy, including The Notorious B.I.G., Faith Evans, and many others. He now finds himself caught up in the maelstrom that has engulfed Diddy as he has been directly accused by the alleged under aged accuser.     In this episode, we take a look at his response.   (commercial at 9:03) to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

2 JUL 2024 · Our journey into the heart of the allegations against Diddy continues in this episode, as we take a look at Diddy's response to the lawsuit filed against him by his alleged underaged accuser.   (commercial at 10:49) to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: https://www.scribd.com/document/707376093/Doe-v-Combs

2 JUL 2024 · As we continue to lay the foundation for our deep dive into the investigation into Diddy, we are now pivoting to the allegations made against him by the unnamed 17 year old girl who claims she was also trafficked and abused by Diddy and his rogues gallery of alleged abusers.     (commercial at 8:28) to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24193182-new-jane-doe-lawsuit-against-diddy-aka-sean-combs

2 JUL 2024 · As we continue to lay the foundation for our deep dive into the investigation into Diddy, we are now pivoting to the allegations made against him by the unnamed 17 year old girl who claims she was also trafficked and abused by Diddy and his rogues gallery of alleged abusers.     (commercial at 7:46) to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24193182-new-jane-doe-lawsuit-against-diddy-aka-sean-combs

2 JUL 2024 · The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense: - Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment. - Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights. Arguments by the U.S. Government: - Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security. - Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice. Court Rulings: - The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses. Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado. (commercial at 8:13) to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: https://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf

2 JUL 2024 · The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense: - Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment. - Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights. Arguments by the U.S. Government: - Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security. - Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice. Court Rulings: - The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses. Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado. (commercial at 8:13) to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: https://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf

2 JUL 2024 · The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense: - Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment. - Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights. Arguments by the U.S. Government: - Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security. - Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice. Court Rulings: - The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses. Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado. (commercial at 10:14) to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: https://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf