The UK Column is an independent news organisation analysing the information war.
…
continue reading
内容由Bobby Capucci提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 Bobby Capucci 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal。
Player FM -播客应用
使用Player FM应用程序离线!
使用Player FM应用程序离线!
The Mega Edition: Prosecution's Opposition To Diddy's Motion For A Hearing And Other Relief (Part 1-2) (1/5/25)
Manage episode 459372821 series 3380507
内容由Bobby Capucci提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 Bobby Capucci 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal。
In United States v. Combs, Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS, the government filed an opposition to the defendant's motion for a hearing and other relief. The defendant, Sean Combs, had requested an evidentiary hearing to investigate alleged government misconduct, specifically claiming that unlawful leaks by government agents led to prejudicial pre-trial publicity. Combs sought discovery of government communications, a gag order to prevent further disclosures, and suppression of any evidence obtained through these alleged leaks.
The government's opposition argued that the defendant's motion lacked sufficient evidence to warrant the requested relief. They contended that there was no substantiated proof of unlawful leaks or misconduct by government personnel that would justify an evidentiary hearing or the suppression of evidence. The government maintained that existing legal safeguards were adequate to ensure a fair trial and that the defendant's claims were speculative, thus not meeting the legal standards required for the court to grant the motion.
(commercial at 11:33)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.117.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
…
continue reading
The government's opposition argued that the defendant's motion lacked sufficient evidence to warrant the requested relief. They contended that there was no substantiated proof of unlawful leaks or misconduct by government personnel that would justify an evidentiary hearing or the suppression of evidence. The government maintained that existing legal safeguards were adequate to ensure a fair trial and that the defendant's claims were speculative, thus not meeting the legal standards required for the court to grant the motion.
(commercial at 11:33)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.117.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
1041集单集
Manage episode 459372821 series 3380507
内容由Bobby Capucci提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 Bobby Capucci 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal。
In United States v. Combs, Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS, the government filed an opposition to the defendant's motion for a hearing and other relief. The defendant, Sean Combs, had requested an evidentiary hearing to investigate alleged government misconduct, specifically claiming that unlawful leaks by government agents led to prejudicial pre-trial publicity. Combs sought discovery of government communications, a gag order to prevent further disclosures, and suppression of any evidence obtained through these alleged leaks.
The government's opposition argued that the defendant's motion lacked sufficient evidence to warrant the requested relief. They contended that there was no substantiated proof of unlawful leaks or misconduct by government personnel that would justify an evidentiary hearing or the suppression of evidence. The government maintained that existing legal safeguards were adequate to ensure a fair trial and that the defendant's claims were speculative, thus not meeting the legal standards required for the court to grant the motion.
(commercial at 11:33)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.117.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
…
continue reading
The government's opposition argued that the defendant's motion lacked sufficient evidence to warrant the requested relief. They contended that there was no substantiated proof of unlawful leaks or misconduct by government personnel that would justify an evidentiary hearing or the suppression of evidence. The government maintained that existing legal safeguards were adequate to ensure a fair trial and that the defendant's claims were speculative, thus not meeting the legal standards required for the court to grant the motion.
(commercial at 11:33)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.117.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
1041集单集
所有剧集
×欢迎使用Player FM
Player FM正在网上搜索高质量的播客,以便您现在享受。它是最好的播客应用程序,适用于安卓、iPhone和网络。注册以跨设备同步订阅。