A Look Back: A Man From Wisconsin Kills His Girlfriend While Out On Bail

Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 (Mass. R. Crim. P. 17) outlines the procedures for subpoenas in criminal cases within the Massachusetts court system. Here's a detailed summary of its key provisions:Authority and Purpose: Rule 17 derives its authority from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and is designed to facilitate the production of evidence and the summoning of witnesses in criminal proceedings.Issuance of Subpoenas: The rule allows for the issuance of subpoenas by the clerk of the court, a notary public, or any attorney authorized to practice law in Massachusetts. Subpoenas may be issued for the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents or other tangible evidence.Form and Content: Subpoenas must be issued in writing and must command the person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony, or to produce specified documents or tangible things, at a specified time and place.Service of Subpoenas: Subpoenas may be served by any person who is not a party to the case and who is at least 18 years old. Service may be made by delivering a copy of the subpoena to the person named in it, or by leaving a copy at their residence with a person of suitable age and discretion.Witness Fees and Mileage: Witnesses who comply with a subpoena are entitled to receive witness fees and mileage reimbursement as provided by law.Protection of Persons Subject to Subpoenas: Persons subject to subpoenas may seek protection from undue burden or harassment by filing a motion with the court. The court may quash or modify a subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive.Contempt for Failure to Obey Subpoena: Failure to obey a subpoena without reasonable excuse may result in a finding of contempt by the court. Contempt may be punished by fines, imprisonment, or other sanctions.Service of Subpoenas Outside the Commonwealth: The rule provides procedures for the service of subpoenas outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.Service of Subpoenas on Behalf of the Commonwealth: When the Commonwealth is the party seeking evidence or witnesses, subpoenas may be issued and served by any attorney authorized to represent the Commonwealth.Notice to Parties: The rule requires that notice of the issuance of a subpoena must be given to all parties in the case.Overall, Mass. R. Crim. P. 17 is designed to ensure the efficient and fair gathering of evidence and witness testimony in criminal cases, while also providing protections for individuals subject to subpoenas. It establishes clear procedures for the issuance, service, and enforcement of subpoenas within the Massachusetts court system.As we continue to get prepared for the Karen Read trial that kicks off April 29th, we are now takign a look at the Commonwealth's memorandum in opposition to defendants motion pursusant to rule 17 of criminal precedure directed to Brian Albert, Verizon and AT&T.(commercial at 8:21)to contact me:[email protected]:PDF.COMMONWEALTH - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew is on borrowed time. When his brother takes the crown and has the power to control Andrew's fate, one could reasonably expect him to completely cut Andrew off. Without the Queen's favor, Prince Andrew is going to find out very quickly just how rough things can get.(commercial at 16:03)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/daniela-elser-prince-andrew-could-be-penniless-if-prince-charles-cuts-him-off/KWELSTYWRSUMO56TGDQ7ZMK4A4/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

According to a new, 54 page filing that has been uploaded to the court dockett, Judge Rakoff claims that not only was Jes Staley an enabler of Epstein's financially, he also took part in abusing not just one, but multiple girls. While this information has been rumored for quite some time, it's a whole other thing to have a Judge confirm these rumors or at least, the validity surrounding these rumors, in a court filing.In this episode, we take a look at Judge Rakoff's ruling and what it might mean moving forward in the case.(commercial at 8:29)to contact me:[email protected]:Jes Staley allegedly abused 'some' Epstein victims: Judge (lawandcrime.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The moronity of Prince Andrew is the stuff of legend at this point, and he just continues to build on that foundation of stupidity by the day. When Prince Andrew was originally nailed for hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein, after the picture of the two emerged during a walk in central park, the Joe Exotic of the Windsor family told us that he was only there to do the honorable thing: Break up with his bff in person. At the time, we called it BS.Breaking news:It's still a load of manure. In this episode, we hear how Prince Andrew was trying to get Jeffrey Epstein involved in a 200 million dollar scheme to fund an energy company while he was supposed to be "breaking up" with Epstein.(commercial at 7:42)to contact me:[email protected]:Court documents reveal Prince Andrew asked Jeffrey Epstein for help over $200million oil deal | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Les Wexner has been one of the most powerful men in Ohio for decades and also one of the most beloved. Even in the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, Wexner has maintained a large amount of support in Ohio. In this episode, we dive into Les Wexner and his hypnotic hold on Ohio.(commercial at 11:29)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.columbusmonthly.com/story/lifestyle/features/2022/10/25/what-jeffrey-epstein-scandal-means-to-columbus-and-les-wexner/69589703007/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Les Wexner has been one of the most powerful men in Ohio for decades and also one of the most beloved. Even in the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, Wexner has maintained a large amount of support in Ohio. In this episode, we dive into Les Wexner and his hypnotic hold on Ohio.(commercial at 13:40)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.columbusmonthly.com/story/lifestyle/features/2022/10/25/what-jeffrey-epstein-scandal-means-to-columbus-and-les-wexner/69589703007/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this look back episode...We dive right back into Epstein's finances and take a look at the mystery bank that just so happened to come back online...after his death. (commercial at 14:00)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/business/jeffrey-epstein-estate-bank.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Diddy has fired back at Joi Dickerson Neal and her allegations against him and in this episode, we are going to get a look at what Diddy had to say.   A "Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint" is a legal document filed by defendants in a lawsuit. Let's break down what each component means:Memorandum of Law: This is a written legal document that presents arguments and supporting authorities (such as statutes, regulations, and case law) in support of a specific legal position. It is used to persuade the court to rule in favor of the party presenting the memorandum.Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss: A motion to dismiss is a request made by one party in a lawsuit to terminate the case before it goes to trial. In this case, the defendants are asking the court to dismiss only certain parts of the complaint filed against them. This motion is "partial" because it seeks dismissal of only some claims or allegations, rather than the entire complaint.The Complaint: This refers to the initial document filed by the plaintiff(s) in a lawsuit, which outlines the claims and allegations against the defendant(s). The defendants' motion to dismiss is a response to the complaint, arguing that some or all of the claims in the complaint should be dismissed for various reasons, such as failure to state a legal claim, lack of jurisdiction, or other deficiencies in the complaint.So, the "Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint" would be a document prepared by the defendants' legal team that lays out the legal arguments and authorities supporting their request to dismiss certain parts of the complaint. It would likely include analysis of relevant case law, statutes, and legal principles to demonstrate why the court should grant their motion to dismiss.(commercial at 7:35)to contact me:[email protected]:diddy-motion.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Diddy has fired back at Joi Dickerson Neal and her allegations against him and in this episode, we are going to get a look at what Diddy had to say.   A "Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint" is a legal document filed by defendants in a lawsuit. Let's break down what each component means:Memorandum of Law: This is a written legal document that presents arguments and supporting authorities (such as statutes, regulations, and case law) in support of a specific legal position. It is used to persuade the court to rule in favor of the party presenting the memorandum.Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss: A motion to dismiss is a request made by one party in a lawsuit to terminate the case before it goes to trial. In this case, the defendants are asking the court to dismiss only certain parts of the complaint filed against them. This motion is "partial" because it seeks dismissal of only some claims or allegations, rather than the entire complaint.The Complaint: This refers to the initial document filed by the plaintiff(s) in a lawsuit, which outlines the claims and allegations against the defendant(s). The defendants' motion to dismiss is a response to the complaint, arguing that some or all of the claims in the complaint should be dismissed for various reasons, such as failure to state a legal claim, lack of jurisdiction, or other deficiencies in the complaint.So, the "Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint" would be a document prepared by the defendants' legal team that lays out the legal arguments and authorities supporting their request to dismiss certain parts of the complaint. It would likely include analysis of relevant case law, statutes, and legal principles to demonstrate why the court should grant their motion to dismiss.(commercial at 10:34)to contact me:[email protected]:diddy-motion.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Karen Read trial is set to kick off today and there are still many, many questions that must be answered and a lot of that is due to the lack of transparancy that we have seen from the authorities due to several factors, such as Mass. state law when it comes to autopsy results being released.   Due to the lack of transparancy, a fertile ground has developed for all sorts of conspiracy theories to thrive and have led to a circus like atmosphere.    So, how does a lack of transparancy cause chaos?Transparency in criminal trials serves multiple vital purposes in ensuring justice is fair, impartial, and accountable. Here's why it's crucial:Public Confidence: Transparency fosters trust in the judicial system. When proceedings are open to the public, it demonstrates that justice is being administered fairly and impartially. Citizens are more likely to have faith in the outcomes of trials when they can observe the process.Accountability: Openness holds both the judiciary and law enforcement accountable for their actions. When trials are transparent, it becomes more difficult for authorities to abuse power or engage in corrupt practices. Knowing that their actions are subject to public scrutiny can act as a deterrent against misconduct.Preventing Injustice: Transparency helps prevent miscarriages of justice. When trials are conducted in the open, it allows for greater scrutiny of evidence, procedures, and decisions. This scrutiny can help identify errors or biases that may have otherwise gone unnoticed, potentially preventing wrongful convictions.Education and Understanding: Open trials provide an educational opportunity for the public to understand the legal process. By witnessing courtroom procedures firsthand, citizens can gain insight into how the law operates and how decisions are made. This promotes civic engagement and a better-informed citizenry.Deterrence of Conspiracy Theories: When the state operates with transparency, there's less room for speculation and conspiracy theories to take hold. When information is withheld or proceedings are conducted in secret, it can fuel mistrust and skepticism. Conspiracy theories often thrive in environments where there is a perceived lack of transparency or accountability.A lack of transparency from the state can indeed fuel conspiracy theories and rumors for several reasons:Speculation: When information is not readily available, people may speculate about what is being concealed and why. This speculation can give rise to unfounded theories and rumors as individuals attempt to fill in the gaps with their own interpretations.Mistrust: A lack of transparency erodes trust in the authorities and the judicial system. When people feel that information is being withheld or manipulated, they are more likely to question the legitimacy of official explanations and entertain alternative, often more sensational, narratives.Confirmation Bias: In the absence of transparent information, individuals may be more inclined to believe information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs or suspicions, even if it lacks evidence or credibility. This confirmation bias can contribute to the spread of conspiracy theories.Credibility of Institutions: When institutions fail to operate transparently, their credibility is undermined. This loss of credibility can make people more receptive to alternative explanations, including conspiracy theories, which purport to offer hidden truths that mainstream institutions are unwilling or unable to provide.(commercial at 11:52)to contact me:[email protected]:A key piece of the Karen Read case remains a mystery due to Mass. law: the autopsy report (msn.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.