Garth Brooks Motion To Dismiss The Lawsuit Filed Against Him (Part 2) (12/26/24)

In the case 24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter (also known as Jay-Z) has filed a motion opposing the plaintiff's request to proceed anonymously under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), which generally requires parties to be named in public court proceedings. Carter argues that the plaintiff's anonymity could prejudice his ability to defend against the claims and that public interest and transparency in judicial proceedings favor disclosure of the plaintiff's identity. Alternatively, he seeks dismissal of the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), asserting that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims presented.Carter's motion emphasizes that anonymity in litigation is an extraordinary measure requiring strong justification, which he claims the plaintiff has failed to provide. Furthermore, he questions the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claims and argues that the court should dismiss the case if it determines it lacks jurisdiction or if the plaintiff does not adequately establish the grounds for proceeding anonymously. The motion seeks to resolve these procedural and jurisdictional issues before addressing the substantive merits of the complaint.(commercial at 7:53)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.38.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.(commercial at 14:00)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.(commercial at 6:21)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.(commercial at 6:21)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to the letter filed with the court by the Bureau of Prisons, Maxwell's legal team doubled down on their assertions of her mistreatment while in custody adding that she is also losing her hair.Join me as I break it down.(Commercial at 14:48)To contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2020/12/07/ghislaine-maxwell-losing-her-hair-from-imprisonment-lawyers/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a complaint that has seen more miles at this point than Dale Earnhardt, Jr could have ever hoped, Team Maxwell is once again evoking the name of a fictional serial killer.To contact me:[email protected](commercial at 13 mins)Source:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/04/ghislaine-maxwell-jail-lawyers-hannibal-lecter-bail-requestBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode...According to unsealed testimony...Ghislaine Maxwell forced girls into erotic dance routines for her and Epstein's gratification, once again solidifying her role as a participant in his schemes and not the victim her team has tried to make her out to be.(Commercial at 12:02)To contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2021/01/28/ghislaine-maxwell-forced-girls-into-lurid-performances-report/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier and convicted sex offender, had significant connections to the United States Virgin Islands (USVI). Epstein owned a private estate called "Little Saint James" located on the island of Saint Thomas, which he frequently visited. This property gained notoriety as a site where Epstein allegedly engaged in illicit activities involving underage girls.Epstein's presence in the USVI drew attention from local authorities and residents due to rumors and reports of suspicious activities taking place on his private island.It was alleged that Epstein used the secluded location to operate a sex trafficking ring, exploiting underage girls for the pleasure of influential individuals, including politicians, businessmen, and celebrities.Investigations into Epstein's activities intensified in the USVI after he was arrested in July 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges in New York. Following his arrest, federal agents conducted a raid on Little Saint James, uncovering evidence that supported the allegations against him.In August 2019, Epstein was found dead in his jail cell under controversial circumstances, officially ruled as suicide. His death raised numerous questions and led to widespread speculation and conspiracy theories regarding the potential involvement of high-profile individuals in his criminal activities.After Epstein's death, legal proceedings continued, focusing on his vast estate, which included multiple properties, luxury vehicles, and extensive financial assets.The victims of Epstein's crimes pursued civil lawsuits against his estate seeking compensation and justice.The USVI government also took action to address the situation. In January 2020, the government created the Virgin Islands Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund to provide financial restitution to Epstein's victims within the territory. The fund was established to assist victims in their recovery and provide an alternative to lengthy court battles.Meanwhile, the politicians in the USVI were all stuffing their pockets full of Jeffrey Epstein's dirty money. In this episode, we take a deep dive into some of those relationships, including Stacey Plaskett.(commercial at 15:41)to contact me:[email protected]:How Jeffrey Epstein's Island Politics Helped Elect Stacey Plaskett (businessinsider.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A memorandum of law in support of a motion to dismiss a complaint is a legal document prepared by an attorney that outlines the legal arguments and authorities supporting the dismissal of a lawsuit.When a defendant files a motion to dismiss a complaint, they are essentially asking the court to throw out the case against them. The memorandum of law serves to explain to the court why the complaint should be dismissed based on legal principles, statutes, regulations, and relevant case law.Typically, a memorandum of law in support of a motion to dismiss will:Outline the Legal Standard: It will begin by stating the legal standard for dismissing a complaint in the jurisdiction where the case is being heard. This often involves citing relevant rules of civil procedure or case law.Present Legal Arguments: The memorandum will then present the specific legal arguments as to why the complaint fails to state a valid claim for relief. This might include arguments that the complaint lacks legal merit, fails to establish jurisdiction, or is barred by a statute of limitations.Cite Case Law and Precedent: The attorney will cite relevant case law and legal precedent to support their arguments. They may show how similar cases were dismissed by courts in the past under similar circumstances.Address Counterarguments: If there are potential counterarguments that the opposing party might raise, the memorandum may also address these and explain why they do not undermine the motion to dismiss.Conclusion: Finally, the memorandum will conclude by summarizing the key points and reiterating why the court should grant the motion to dismiss.A reply to a motion to dismiss a complaint is a legal document filed by the plaintiff (the party who filed the complaint) in response to the defendant's motion to dismiss. In this document, the plaintiff addresses the arguments made by the defendant in their motion to dismiss and presents counterarguments or additional evidence to support the validity of their complaint. The reply typically highlights legal authorities, precedents, and factual assertions to persuade the court to deny the defendant's motion to dismiss and allow the case to proceed. It's crucial for the plaintiff's reply to be well-researched, articulate, and legally sound to effectively counter the defendant's arguments.In this episode we hear from Tyrone Blackburn who is responding to the UMG corporate defendants motion to dismiss the claim filed against them and Diddy.(commerical at 7:02)to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In November 2024, country music star Garth Brooks filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss a sexual assault and battery lawsuit brought against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks contended that Roe's claims should be dismissed or transferred to Mississippi, where a related lawsuit he initiated against her was already pending. He argued that the allegations were part of an extortion attempt and that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.In this episode, we take a look at that motion.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.12.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.