The Moscow Murders and More

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs’s iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government’s warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.

Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government’s affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.

to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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:

[email protected]


source:

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.

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:

[email protected]


source:

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.

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.


Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.


Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger’s defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger’s AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.

The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger’s constitutional protections.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger’s defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger’s AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.

The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger’s constitutional protections.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger’s defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger’s AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.

The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger’s constitutional protections.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Sean Combs’ motion to dismiss the civil lawsuit filed by Anthony Tate, allowing the case to proceed. The lawsuit alleges that Combs sexually assaulted Tate in the 1990s when Tate was a minor. Combs’ legal team had argued for dismissal on several grounds, including statute of limitations and insufficiency of the claims under relevant law. However, Judge Kaplan concluded that the complaint plausibly alleged conduct falling within the scope of the New York Adult Survivors Act, which temporarily revives claims of sexual misconduct that would otherwise be time-barred. The judge emphasized that the law’s purpose was to give survivors of sexual abuse a chance to seek justice regardless of when the alleged abuse occurred.

Additionally, Judge Kaplan found that Tate’s allegations were specific enough to survive a motion to dismiss. He rejected arguments that the claims were too vague or lacked the necessary legal basis, ruling that the complaint provided sufficient detail to warrant further proceedings. The court did not make any determinations about the truth of the allegations but affirmed that Tate’s claims met the legal threshold to move forward. As a result, the case against Combs will proceed into the discovery phase, where both sides will gather evidence before any potential trial or settlement.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.632026.48.0.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On the afternoon of June 6, 2025, during Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking trial, a woman testifying under the pseudonym "Jane" provided detailed and emotional testimony about her experiences with Combs. She described being coerced into prolonged, drug-fueled sexual encounters, referred to as "hotel nights," which often involved male escorts and could last up to three and a half days. Jane testified that Combs supplied her with Ecstasy to endure these sessions and pressured her to continue despite her exhaustion, using phrases like "Let's finish strong." She recounted that Combs directed the activities, instructing her on how to interact with the escorts and herself, and that he would watch and masturbate during these encounters. Jane also detailed the physical toll these events took on her, including chronic back pain and frequent urinary tract infections. She stated that despite expressing her discomfort, Combs dismissed her concerns, and she felt compelled to comply due to her financial dependence on him, as he was paying her rent and providing other support.


In addition to the physical and emotional abuse, Jane testified about the psychological manipulation she endured. She shared text messages and personal notes with the jury, revealing her feelings of being used and dismissed by Combs. One note read, "You lie straight to my face...all you want is another hotel night like you've been doing for two years." Jane recounted an instance where she was promised a vacation without any "hotel nights," but upon arrival, she was subjected to another coerced sexual encounter. She described feeling betrayed and manipulated, stating that she would not have gone on the trip had she known what was planned. Jane's testimony also highlighted the ongoing financial control Combs had over her, as she revealed that he continued to pay her rent even after their relationship ended


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

June 6, 2025 - Day 18 of testimony in the Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial | CNN

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.