Scheer Intelligence features thoughtful and provocative conversations with "American Originals" -- people who, through a lifetime of engagement with political issues, offer unique and often surprising perspectives on the day's most important issues.
…
continue reading
Content provided by Bobby Capucci. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Bobby Capucci or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!
Go offline with the Player FM app!
Diddy Opposes The Governments Continued Attempts To Quash The Cassie Ventura Subpoena (6/9/25)
MP3•Episode home
Manage episode 487924909 series 3380507
Content provided by Bobby Capucci. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Bobby Capucci or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.
In their letter to Judge Subramanian, the defense opposed motions by Mia, Ms. Ventura, and the government seeking to quash compliance with a subpoena directed to Mia, which the Court had previously ordered on May 31, 2025. The defense argued that the objections raised by both Ms. Ventura and the government lacked valid legal grounds and did not justify quashing the subpoena. They contended that Mia’s arguments were also without merit, asserting that the subpoena was properly issued under Rule 17(c) and sought relevant, admissible evidence essential to preparing the defense.
The defense maintained that the subpoena targeted materials directly related to Mia’s credibility and potential biases, which were critical to the cross-examination process. They emphasized that the subpoena did not represent an undue burden or violate any protections afforded to the witness. Instead, they argued that granting the motions to quash would undermine the defendant’s right to a fair trial and to confront witnesses. Accordingly, the defense urged the Court to deny the motions and enforce compliance with the subpoena as originally ordered.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.385.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
…
continue reading
The defense maintained that the subpoena targeted materials directly related to Mia’s credibility and potential biases, which were critical to the cross-examination process. They emphasized that the subpoena did not represent an undue burden or violate any protections afforded to the witness. Instead, they argued that granting the motions to quash would undermine the defendant’s right to a fair trial and to confront witnesses. Accordingly, the defense urged the Court to deny the motions and enforce compliance with the subpoena as originally ordered.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.385.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
1033 episodes
MP3•Episode home
Manage episode 487924909 series 3380507
Content provided by Bobby Capucci. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Bobby Capucci or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.
In their letter to Judge Subramanian, the defense opposed motions by Mia, Ms. Ventura, and the government seeking to quash compliance with a subpoena directed to Mia, which the Court had previously ordered on May 31, 2025. The defense argued that the objections raised by both Ms. Ventura and the government lacked valid legal grounds and did not justify quashing the subpoena. They contended that Mia’s arguments were also without merit, asserting that the subpoena was properly issued under Rule 17(c) and sought relevant, admissible evidence essential to preparing the defense.
The defense maintained that the subpoena targeted materials directly related to Mia’s credibility and potential biases, which were critical to the cross-examination process. They emphasized that the subpoena did not represent an undue burden or violate any protections afforded to the witness. Instead, they argued that granting the motions to quash would undermine the defendant’s right to a fair trial and to confront witnesses. Accordingly, the defense urged the Court to deny the motions and enforce compliance with the subpoena as originally ordered.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.385.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
…
continue reading
The defense maintained that the subpoena targeted materials directly related to Mia’s credibility and potential biases, which were critical to the cross-examination process. They emphasized that the subpoena did not represent an undue burden or violate any protections afforded to the witness. Instead, they argued that granting the motions to quash would undermine the defendant’s right to a fair trial and to confront witnesses. Accordingly, the defense urged the Court to deny the motions and enforce compliance with the subpoena as originally ordered.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.385.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
1033 episodes
All episodes
×Welcome to Player FM!
Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.