A Case Study in Hypocrisy: Dan Bongino and Epstein (12/5/25)

In the amended complaint filed under case number 1:24-cv-07977-VSB, plaintiff Shareka Sherrod accuses Sean Combs and a network of his affiliated companies—including Daddy’s House Recordings, Combs Global, and multiple Bad Boy Entertainment entities—of engaging in a pattern of egregious misconduct that she alleges amounts to sex trafficking, assault, battery, and other civil rights violations. Sherrod claims she was manipulated, exploited, and abused while under the influence and control of Combs and his enterprise, which she describes as operating with a coordinated structure designed to lure, intimidate, and silence victims. The complaint also names numerous “Organizational Does” and “Individual Does,” suggesting additional perpetrators and enablers whose identities may be revealed through discovery.Sherrod’s lawsuit demands a jury trial and asserts that the abuse she suffered was not incidental, but part of a broader, systematized operation of exploitation embedded within Combs’ business empire. The complaint details alleged psychological and physical harm, and frames her experience as one of many involving women recruited and harmed under similar circumstances. Through this civil action, Sherrod seeks not only monetary damages but legal accountability for what she claims was a deliberate and sustained campaign of abuse and cover-up enabled by corporate infrastructure and protected by power.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630246.64.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Joulu 33min

A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones.   (commercial at 7:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Joulu 59min

The lawsuit between Sean "Diddy" Combs and Diageo is centered on allegations of contract breaches and unequal treatment of Combs' liquor brands. Combs sued Diageo in May 2023, accusing the company of failing to properly support his brands, Cîroc Vodka and DeLeón Tequila, by not providing the resources necessary to position DeLeón as a premium product. Combs argued that Diageo underfunded and mismanaged the brands, which hindered their market performance.Diageo attempted to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming they had invested heavily in the brands. However, in August 2023, a judge allowed some of Combs’ claims to move forward, indicating there were legitimate issues to be addressed. Following this, Diageo ended its partnership with Combs, citing that their relationship had deteriorated due to ongoing disputes and public criticism.The lawsuit has raised questions about Diageo’s handling of Combs' brands and their contractual obligations. Combs seeks to hold Diageo accountable for what he claims is insufficient support that affected the brands' growth and market competitiveness.(commercial at 8:19)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:v0 (bwbx.io)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Joulu 44min

In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (24 Cr. 542), federal prosecutors have filed an opposition to the defense's motions requesting a hearing, a bill of particulars, and a gag order. The defense sought a hearing to investigate alleged government leaks of evidence, specifically a 2016 video purportedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. Prosecutors refuted these claims, stating they did not possess the video prior to its public release and had no involvement in its dissemination. They argued that the defense's allegations are baseless and represent a strategic attempt to suppress critical evidence that is highly probative of Combs' alleged criminal conduct.Regarding the request for a bill of particulars, the defense sought detailed information about the charges to prepare for trial. Prosecutors contended that the indictment already provides sufficient detail, outlining the nature of the charges and the alleged criminal activities. They maintained that additional specifics are unnecessary and could compromise ongoing investigations or witness safety. Concerning the motion for a gag order to prevent public statements by potential witnesses and attorneys, prosecutors argued that existing court orders already address these concerns, rendering the defense's request redundant. They emphasized the importance of balancing the defendant's right to a fair trial with the public's right to information, asserting that current measures are adequate to maintain this balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:diddy.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Joulu 40min

In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (24 Cr. 542), federal prosecutors have filed an opposition to the defense's motions requesting a hearing, a bill of particulars, and a gag order. The defense sought a hearing to investigate alleged government leaks of evidence, specifically a 2016 video purportedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. Prosecutors refuted these claims, stating they did not possess the video prior to its public release and had no involvement in its dissemination. They argued that the defense's allegations are baseless and represent a strategic attempt to suppress critical evidence that is highly probative of Combs' alleged criminal conduct.Regarding the request for a bill of particulars, the defense sought detailed information about the charges to prepare for trial. Prosecutors contended that the indictment already provides sufficient detail, outlining the nature of the charges and the alleged criminal activities. They maintained that additional specifics are unnecessary and could compromise ongoing investigations or witness safety. Concerning the motion for a gag order to prevent public statements by potential witnesses and attorneys, prosecutors argued that existing court orders already address these concerns, rendering the defense's request redundant. They emphasized the importance of balancing the defendant's right to a fair trial with the public's right to information, asserting that current measures are adequate to maintain this balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:diddy.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Joulu 23min

In early 2022, Andrew’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, contending that Giuffre’s complaint did not “articulate what supposedly happened” with sufficient detail. They argued the claims were too general — lacking precise dates, clear descriptions of where alleged events occurred, and specific conduct — which, they said, made it impossible for Andrew to respond meaningfully or defend himself. This line of attack framed the allegations as legally insufficient because they allegedly failed to meet the standards required to bring a viable civil case.The court rejected that argument. A federal judge overseeing the case found that Giuffre had provided enough detail — about timing (early 2000s), locations (including a London residence and properties tied to Jeffrey Epstein), and context (her status as a minor and trafficking victim) — to allow the lawsuit to proceed. The judge ruled that the complaint was not “too vague” to survive a motion to dismiss, meaning that Giuffre’s core claims had been sufficiently described to proceed toward discovery or resolution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Joulu 22min

Jeffrey Epstein’s legal team spent years working to conceal the worst details of his crimes through aggressive legal maneuvering, intimidation tactics, and highly orchestrated settlements. They used confidentiality agreements and NDAs to silence survivors, pressuring them into signing documents that barred them from speaking publicly or cooperating with investigators. His lawyers also fought relentlessly to seal court records and suppress testimony, framing the allegations as unreliable, sensationalized, or financially motivated. By deploying an army of high-powered attorneys — including well-connected political figures and constitutional scholars — they attempted to create an image of Epstein as a misunderstood philanthropist targeted by opportunists rather than a serial predator.At the same time, Epstein’s legal strategy relied heavily on influence and manipulation of the justice system. His lawyers negotiated the infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement, which not only granted him minimal punishment but also protected unnamed co-conspirators and shut down ongoing federal investigations. They leveraged personal connections, political pressure, and procedural technicalities to steer the case away from public scrutiny, turning what should have been an open examination of a large trafficking network into a secret deal that concealed the scale of the abuse. Ultimately, the tactics his lawyers used to mask his crimes became central to public outrage, exposing a system where wealth and power were weaponized to shield a predator rather than protect his victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Joulu 17min

After legal pressure mounted on Black for his close relationship with Epstein — including revelations that Black paid Epstein tens of millions of dollars for “tax and estate planning” even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction — new lawsuits and investigations began to cast a wider net. Among those subpoenaed in a broad civil case against financial institutions linked to Epstein was Zuckerman, as part of efforts to trace the money trails and financial networks that may have funded or facilitated Epstein’s enterprise. The inclusion of Zuckerman’s name signaled a legal strategy aiming to pull in other wealthy associates and financiers who might have had business or financial exposure to Epstein — effectively broadening liability beyond Black.Black’s own legal maneuvers complicated matters further. While he faced civil lawsuits (for alleged sexual misconduct) and regulatory scrutiny over his payments to Epstein, the broader legal actions — including suits against banks and other financial players — sought to implicate individuals like Zuckerman in chains of financial relationships tied to Epstein’s operations. By doing this, Black’s case became not just about his personal associations, but part of a larger legal attempt to map and hold accountable the network of affluent, high-profile individuals and institutions whose money may have indirectly supported Epstein’s activities.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

6 Joulu 34min