Hosted by Ryan Warner and Chandra Thomas Whitfield, CPR News' daily interview show focuses on the state's people, issues and ideas.
…
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://player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!
Go offline with the Player FM app!
The USVI And Their Reply Memo In Support To Dismiss The Epstein Survivor Suit (8/31/24)
MP3•Episode home
Manage episode 437314732 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://player.fm/legal.
The Government of the United States Virgin Islands, in their reply to support the motion to dismiss, argues that the court lacks both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over them. They assert that the plaintiffs have not provided sufficient factual evidence to demonstrate why the court should have jurisdiction in this case. Additionally, the government contends that even if jurisdiction were proper, the plaintiffs’ claims do not satisfy the legal requirements necessary to move forward. They argue the complaints are either too vague, improperly framed, or fail to establish a concrete legal basis for proceeding under federal law.
Moreover, the reply emphasizes procedural issues and questions the standing of the plaintiffs, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims do not establish direct harm that would warrant court intervention. The government also points out that the claims are based on speculative allegations rather than solid, actionable facts. They conclude by urging the court to dismiss the case to prevent unnecessary litigation and uphold the integrity of legal standards that require clear, actionable claims and appropriate jurisdictional grounds.
(commercial at 9:28)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.158.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
…
continue reading
Moreover, the reply emphasizes procedural issues and questions the standing of the plaintiffs, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims do not establish direct harm that would warrant court intervention. The government also points out that the claims are based on speculative allegations rather than solid, actionable facts. They conclude by urging the court to dismiss the case to prevent unnecessary litigation and uphold the integrity of legal standards that require clear, actionable claims and appropriate jurisdictional grounds.
(commercial at 9:28)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.158.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
1037 episodes
MP3•Episode home
Manage episode 437314732 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://player.fm/legal.
The Government of the United States Virgin Islands, in their reply to support the motion to dismiss, argues that the court lacks both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over them. They assert that the plaintiffs have not provided sufficient factual evidence to demonstrate why the court should have jurisdiction in this case. Additionally, the government contends that even if jurisdiction were proper, the plaintiffs’ claims do not satisfy the legal requirements necessary to move forward. They argue the complaints are either too vague, improperly framed, or fail to establish a concrete legal basis for proceeding under federal law.
Moreover, the reply emphasizes procedural issues and questions the standing of the plaintiffs, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims do not establish direct harm that would warrant court intervention. The government also points out that the claims are based on speculative allegations rather than solid, actionable facts. They conclude by urging the court to dismiss the case to prevent unnecessary litigation and uphold the integrity of legal standards that require clear, actionable claims and appropriate jurisdictional grounds.
(commercial at 9:28)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.158.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
…
continue reading
Moreover, the reply emphasizes procedural issues and questions the standing of the plaintiffs, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims do not establish direct harm that would warrant court intervention. The government also points out that the claims are based on speculative allegations rather than solid, actionable facts. They conclude by urging the court to dismiss the case to prevent unnecessary litigation and uphold the integrity of legal standards that require clear, actionable claims and appropriate jurisdictional grounds.
(commercial at 9:28)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.158.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
1037 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.