The UK Column is an independent news organisation analysing the information war.
…
continue reading
Konten disediakan oleh Bobby Capucci. Semua konten podcast termasuk episode, grafik, dan deskripsi podcast diunggah dan disediakan langsung oleh Bobby Capucci atau mitra platform podcast mereka. Jika Anda yakin seseorang menggunakan karya berhak cipta Anda tanpa izin, Anda dapat mengikuti proses yang diuraikan di sini https://id.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Aplikasi Podcast
Offline dengan aplikasi Player FM !
Offline dengan aplikasi Player FM !
The Prosecution's Opposition To Diddy's Motion For A Hearing And Other Relief (Part 3) (12/23/24)
MP3•Beranda episode
Manage episode 457146725 series 2987886
Konten disediakan oleh Bobby Capucci. Semua konten podcast termasuk episode, grafik, dan deskripsi podcast diunggah dan disediakan langsung oleh Bobby Capucci atau mitra platform podcast mereka. Jika Anda yakin seseorang menggunakan karya berhak cipta Anda tanpa izin, Anda dapat mengikuti proses yang diuraikan di sini https://id.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 8:56)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.117.0.pdf
…
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 8:56)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.117.0.pdf
1096 episode
MP3•Beranda episode
Manage episode 457146725 series 2987886
Konten disediakan oleh Bobby Capucci. Semua konten podcast termasuk episode, grafik, dan deskripsi podcast diunggah dan disediakan langsung oleh Bobby Capucci atau mitra platform podcast mereka. Jika Anda yakin seseorang menggunakan karya berhak cipta Anda tanpa izin, Anda dapat mengikuti proses yang diuraikan di sini https://id.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 8:56)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.117.0.pdf
…
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 8:56)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.117.0.pdf
1096 episode
所有剧集
×Selamat datang di Player FM!
Player FM memindai web untuk mencari podcast berkualitas tinggi untuk Anda nikmati saat ini. Ini adalah aplikasi podcast terbaik dan bekerja untuk Android, iPhone, dan web. Daftar untuk menyinkronkan langganan di seluruh perangkat.