Podcasts about Affidavit

CHARLESTON GOTHIC Episode 4: Tekeli   The Charleston Library Society has survived fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, and war—emerging each time with its treasures intact. Among those treasures: the world's most complete archive of Charleston newspapers from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.   In this episode, we enter the stacks where a ghost named Hinson is said to wander, where Henry Timrod's blood-stained manuscript bears witness to a poet's final days, and where a century-old scholarly article waited decades for someone to understand what it revealed. What was Edgar Allan Poe really searching for when he visited Charleston's archives during his time at Fort Moultrie? For over a hundred years, the legend said he came looking for pirate treasure—the buried gold that would inspire "The Gold-Bug." But a 1922 discovery by a Texas scholar suggested something far more personal. Following threads that connect the Poetry Society of South Carolina, a Harvard-trained philologist, and the vanished stage of the Charleston Theatre, we trace Poe's footsteps to a secret hidden in plain sight—one that may unlock the strangest passage he ever wrote.   The answer lies where it has always been: in the newspapers, in the archives, in the advertisements for a play called Tekeli.   Sources:   Books   - Allen, Hervey. Israfel: The Life and Times of Edgar Allan Poe (1926) - Allen, Hervey and DuBose Heyward. Carolina Chansons (1922) - Allen, Hervey and Thomas Ollive Mabbott. Poe's Brother: The Life and Poetry of William Henry Leonard Poe (1926) - Downey, Christopher Byrd. Edgar Allan Poe's Charleston (2020) - Kopley, Richard. Edgar Allan Poe: A Life (2025) - Mabbott, Thomas Ollive, ed. Collected Works of Edgar Allan Poe, Volume 1: Poems (Harvard University Press, 1969) - Poe, Edgar Allan. The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket (1838) - Ravenel, Beatrice Witte. The Arrow of Lightning (1926)   Academic Articles   - Law, Robert Adger. "A Source for 'Annabel Lee'" Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Volume 21 (April 1922) - Peeples, Scott and Michelle Van Parys. "Unburied Treasure: Edgar Allan Poe in the South Carolina Lowcountry." Southern Cultures (2016)   Newspapers & Periodicals   - Charleston Courier (December 4, 1807) - Charleston Courier (March 22, 1811) - Charleston Mercury (2011) - News and Courier (February 6, 1889) - News and Courier (1938) - Southern Patriot (July 25, 1833) - Russell's Magazine - Southern Literary Messenger - Texas Review / Southwest Review   Archival & Primary Sources   - Charleston Library Society archives - Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Volume 21 — inscribed "Gift of author, Oct. 1934" - Surveyor's plat for Captain William C. Hammer (February 16, 1867) - Affidavit dated September 5, 1745 (Cid Campeador treasure deposition)   Plays   - Hook, Theodore Edward (libretto) and James Hook (music). Tekeli; or, The Siege of Montgatz   Television   - "Time Enough at Last." The Twilight Zone (1959)   Reference Works   - South Carolina Encyclopedia (entry on Henry Timrod)   Interviews & Personal Communications   - Christopher Byrd Downey (conversation at Owlbear Café) - Danielle Cox, Digital Historian, Charleston Library Society - Scott Peeples, phone interview   

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

From the archives: 1-7-23Bryan Kohberger is in Idaho and it's about time for him to start facing the music.In this episode, we have the full affadavit (some redactions) and we are going through it, without commentary, in it's entirety.(commercial at 15:54)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho Killings: Bryan Kohberger affidavit reveals DNA, cell phone evidence (newsnationnow.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

CannCon and Alpha Warrior take a full SITREP approach to the newly released affidavit in the January 6 pipe-bomber case, breaking down the timeline, receipts, surveillance clips, clothing changes, and the long-delayed investigative breadcrumbs that finally led to an arrest. They dig into the gaps, missing timestamps, unexplained investigative pauses, contradictory details about cell data and cameras, and the FBI's claim that key evidence surfaced only years later. The hosts question whether incompetence, narrative pressure, or intentional obstruction shaped the investigation, while examining Kyle Seraphin's early reporting, the suspect's behaviors, and how the story has shifted over time. With Alpha's skepticism and CannCon's document-driven analysis, they unpack what holds up, what doesn't, and why this case raises more questions than answers.

Turn online alignment into an offline community — join us at TheWayFwrd.com to connect with like-minded people near you.What if the most important contract of your life was one you never read, never signed… and never even knew existed?In this episode, I sit down with Michael Joseph, Phil Mederi, and Daniel Menz from the Sacred Honor Educational Fellowship to break down the hidden world of commerce, jurisdiction, and private vs public status, the stuff that quietly shapes your daily life.Most people move through life assuming they're “free,” but the real structure sits underneath, in the language, the commerce system, and the contracts that define your status. Once you understand how the system actually works, you start to see why the trap is subtle… and why the exit requires clarity, not chaos.If you're exploring status correction, common law, the private domain, or how the corporate system actually operates, this conversation will give you a framework that finally makes sense.You'll Learn:[00:00:00] Introduction[00:05:05] Pre-Civil War America: gold-backed money, no income tax, permits, or licenses[00:07:39] People vs. persons: Bill of Rights language vs. 14th Amendment terminology[00:11:41] 1913 Federal Reserve, 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act, wartime powers[00:12:01] 1933 Emergency Relief Act: US citizens made debtors backing the Fed[00:17:52] The original Republic still exists; Americans choose federal or pre-Civil War state citizenship[00:20:34] “State national” has no legal basis[00:35:37] Contracts can't remove unalienable rights without consent[00:42:31] People are controlled by ignorance, not force[00:50:03] Birth certificate bond: future labor as collateral[00:53:52] Legal tender includes bills of exchange, rarely taught[01:01:39] Public vs. private: US citizens as debtors vs. living men and women as credit[01:06:11] The US uniquely allows multiple ways to renegotiate with the corporate fiction[01:10:31] The Trifecta: church, trust, and private clubs[01:12:39] Status correction starts with an affidavit to the Secretary of State[01:16:16] Passport oath: US citizen or non-citizen national unless adding an explanatory statement[01:34:57] Allodial land: true freehold without taxes or encumbrances[01:54:30] Post-1933 concurrent equity vs. pre-1933 exclusive equity[02:06:29] Law of offer: offeror carries liability[02:14:12] Secured vs. unsecured debt in equity[02:22:50] Supreme Court equity filing against 300 elites[02:23:52] Plausible deniability via obscure church tax exemptionResources Mentioned:Movie: Breaking The Spell (available to members only - join here) The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin | BookEp 193 The Hidden Ledger: Taxes, Debt, & Restoration Of The Living with Govinda Tidball | Spotify or AppleInitiate your Active Fellow Membership in the Sacred Honor Fellowship. It includes exclusive teachings, live calls, community support, and access to advanced support when enrolling in pathways.Learn more about the Sacred Honor Educational FellowshipStep into the transformative reality of Equity Jurisprudence, the ultimate remedy in natural justice with your free copy of Equity Unveiled. Find more from Alec:Alec Zeck | InstagramAlec Zeck | XThe Way Forward | InstagramThe Way Forward is Sponsored By:Designed for deep focus and well-being. 100% blue light and flicker free. For $50 off your Daylight Computer, use discount code: TWF50RMDY Academy & Collective: Homeopathy Made AccessibleHigh-quality remedies and training to support natural healing. Enroll hereExplore hereNew Biology Clinic: Redefine Health from the Ground UpExperience tailored terrain-based health services with consults, livestreams, movement classes, and more. Visit www.NewBiologyClinic.com and use code TheWayForward for $50 off activation. Members get the $150 fee waived

In this week's episode I talk about how the Onondaga County Board of Elections finished our vote by Mail and Affidavit counting this week. I touch on why we are still counting 10 days after election Day. I also talk about what's next including write in canvassing and manual recounts. Enjoy.

The dive into the court documents continues in this episode as we take a look at the affidavit of Leah Larkin, a genealogy expert who has been brought on board by Bryan Kohberger's team to help try to punch holes in the official narrative. (commercial at 11:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:080923-Notice-Filing-Affidavit-Leah-Larkin-Support-Defendants-3rd-Motion-Compel.pdf (amazonaws.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

https://theprint.in/judiciary/delhi-riots-case-delhi-police-cite-regime-change-bid-plot-to-draw-eyes-to-caa-during-trump-visit/2773760/

OA1197 - The National Guard is being federalized and sent into cities that the President doesn't like against the explicit will of state governors and local populations. Matt covers as much as we know from the legal developments around this ongoing national emergency, and Jenessa shares some good news which is already coming out of NY's recent recently-enhanced equal protection amendment. Finally, in today's footnote: how do you ticket a car from a moving violation when no one is driving it? NOTE: since the time of this recording, a federal judge has found that the Trump administration's stated reasons for deploying federal troops in Chicago are “simply unreliable” and blocked the deployment of the National Guard. More next week on this vital story. “Department of Defense Security For the Protection of Homeland Security Functions,” The White House (June 7, 2025)  Affidavit of Portland Police Bureau Assistant Chief of Operations Craig Dobson, filed 9/29/2025 Judge Immergut's injunction in Trump v. Oregon dated 10/4/2025 9th Circuit's order staying Judge Breyer's injunction dated 6/19/2025 Memo from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth dated 9/28/2025 ”For Trump Administration, Fighting Crime Takes a Backseat to Immigration Arrests,” The Marshall Project, Beth Schwarzapfel (10/4/2025) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

In the early hours of Oct 4, 2025 in downtown Indianapolis, former NFL QB and Fox Sports analyst Mark Sanchez got into a confrontation with Perry Tole, a 69-year-old truck driver collecting used cooking oil. The dispute reportedly started over blocked access/parking near an alley. During the struggle, Tole pepper-sprayed Sanchez and then stabbed him multiple times, saying it was self-defense after Sanchez allegedly tried to get into his truck and attacked him. Sanchez fled and was later hospitalized with serious injuries. Sanchez was arrested and initially booked on misdemeanors; prosecutors have since upgraded to felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury (a charge that can carry 1–6 years if convicted). Authorities say parts of the incident were captured on video. Tole has filed a civil lawsuit seeking damages against Sanchez and Fox over alleged permanent disfigurement and other injuries. ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.

Reading the arrest affidavit for Laken Snelling & what we know so far. Also, high school classmates and parents are speaking out saying Laken was a mean girl in high school, pushing some to leave for another school. Donna Adelson Bodycam https://youtu.be/d6UBjNQpe_4?si=jnrJmfSpe8O3MAEdALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.

In part 2 of our deep dive into the 120+ page arrest affidavit, we got through searching Barry & Suzanne's cars, interviews with their daughters, Barry, Suzanne's best friend, her sister, and her lover, Jeff.ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.

From the archives: 1-7-23Bryan Kohberger is in Idaho and it's about time for him to start facing the music.In this episode, we have the full affadavit (some redactions) and we are going through it, without commentary, in it's entirety.(commercial at 15:54)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho Killings: Bryan Kohberger affidavit reveals DNA, cell phone evidence (newsnationnow.com)

New Direction Family Law layers and staff discuss the complexities around parentage. They cover the process of establishing and disestablishing parentage, the legal implications, and the need for paternity actions. The team also explores issues related to legitimation actions, the legal challenges of changing a child's surname, and the complications that arise within same-sex parent families. Tune in for an informative discussion about the legal intricacies of parentage and the importance of having an attorney navigate these complicated matters.00:00 Introduction and Team Introduction00:36 Understanding Parentage: Establishing and Disestablishing01:10 Affidavit of Parentage: Hospital Procedures01:52 Paternity Tests and Legal Actions02:43 Legitimation Actions: Replacing the Wrong Dad03:36 Legal Implications of Birth Certificates05:30 Disestablishment of Paternity: Legal Steps07:41 Changing the Child's Surname10:52 Complexities in Same-Sex Parentage12:26 Conclusion and Final Thoughts------ To contact us visit https://newdirectionfamilylaw.com/contact-us-today/

Part 1 of several where we deep dive into the newest Barry Morphew documents. The 1st episode is more of a refresher with the on scene reports from responding officers just after Suzanne had been reported missing.ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.

Brand new documents released by Utah courts reveal charges the alleged killer of political activist Charlie Kirk is expected to face. The FBI announced Tyler Robinson, 22, was arrested Thursday night. The court filings also provide details on the possible threat Robinson could pose to the community if he were released. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber breaks it all down with litigator Rich Schoenstein.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Download the FREE Upside App at https://upside.app.link/sidebar to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Majorjon Kaylor is a man from Idaho who allegedly executed four of his neighbors after one of them allegedly exposed himself to his wife and child. The police were dispatched to investigate and when the alleged suspect wasn't punished, Majorjon allegedly told his wife and the police that he would take care of it himself if it happened again. Accoring to the affidavit, that's exactly what he did. In this episode we dive into that affidavit and arrest warrant filed by the state of Idaho against Majorjon Kaylor as we begin to explore the case against him. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062023+Affidavit+of+Probable+Cause.pdf (amazonaws.com)

Majorjon Kaylor is a man from Idaho who allegedly executed four of his neighbors after one of them allegedly exposed himself to his wife and child. The police were dispatched to investigate and when the alleged suspect wasn't punished, Majorjon allegedly told his wife and the police that he would take care of it himself if it happened again. Accoring to the affidavit, that's exactly what he did. In this episode we dive into that affidavit and arrest warrant filed by the state of Idaho against Majorjon Kaylor as we begin to explore the case against him. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062023+Affidavit+of+Probable+Cause.pdf (amazonaws.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This is a clip from Bloody History! Get access to the full episode and all thier content on all podcast platforms or click the link belowFull episode here! https://www.spreaker.com/episode/confessions-of-a-killer-the-kerry-thornley-affidavit--67369938Get access to every episode of Bloody History https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/cory-hughes-bloody-history--5875229Forbidden Knowledge Network https://forbiddenknowledge.news/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/forbidden-knowledge-news--3589233/support.

   I took over the podcast to show everyone how to stay busy in stressful times. If you find yourself in family court, any court situation, or family dysfunction with no one by your side, it's best to stay busy and find joy in the little things.   Also, encouraging court watching and what to do when you see a judge or an attorney treat a Pro Se Litigant (someone who represents themselves) badly. This is explained in depth.To Reach Maryann Petri:  dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com   https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetrihttps://www.zazzle.com/store/slam_the_gavel/about*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright infringement is subject to legal prosecution.Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Whats up bros? Miami is still in Seville and the ladies are going dress shopping. Larsa brings up Lisa following Marcus still and the rest of the group doesn't understand why Lisa still follows him. Stephanie and Alexia appear to be cordial at the very least. Even Marysol and Adriana are getting along. It's obvious that Larsa is yearning for the spotlight as she continues to force in this Marcus stuff. At dinner, Lisa receives an affidavit claiming she must respond in 1 hour or face trial. Larsa throws a fit at dinner blaming Lisa for ruining the whole weekend. Kiki opens up about her life some more and it looks like Guerdy and Julia may have found some peace. Just in time for Larsa and Lisa to lose theirs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

     Slam The Gavel welcomes Marianne Perz, from Canada on to the podcast. Marianne is a former national team athlete for ultramarathon running for Canada. She has been a mediator in civil procedure and in family matters for over 22 years.      Her daughter remains stolen from her due to forgery of my signatures on adoption papers that the Court and Government is aware of but is concealing.       When lawyer JD Coon crafted an Affidavit and forged Marianne's signature purporting she gave up her daughter to the crown wardship for adoption to her brother and his wife. He forged her signature and notarized this forgery which he served to CAS. He also crafted a forged document as a Plan of Care, all purporting that Marianne gave up her daughter. In the interim he played her by telling her he was preparing to defend and would get her daughter back in 4 days on the day of the motion hearing.      On the day of the motion hearing on June 17, 2013, JD Coon came down the court house hallway to Marianne before the start and said he reached an agreement for her to get her daughter back and told her to sign a lone signature page and to initial it. He refused to give her the two content pages as he said it was a huge rush and when she asked him what the agreement was for he told her it was for CAS closing the file and her daughter returning to her via her aunt and uncle where she would live. The CAS had a weak case so this made sense to Marianne.......To Reach Marianne Perz:  dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com   https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetrihttps://www.zazzle.com/store/slam_the_gavel/about*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright infringement is subject to legal prosecution. Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

In this episode we dive into the court documents and take a look at Gabriella Vargas declaration in support of Bryan Kohberger. (commercial 5:40)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:081723-Notice-of-Filing-Declaration-of-Gabriella-Vargas.pdf (amazonaws.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

•Mom Accused of 'Excluding' Local 9-Year-Old Boy from Outings Because He's 'Not Potty Trained': 'That Is Not My Responsibility.' https://people.com/mom-excludes-local-9-year-old-boy-from-outings-because-hes-not-potty-trained-11765764•Should You Give Your Kids Screen Time on Long Road Trips? https://www.thetopicalfruit.com/should-you-give-your-kids-screen-time-on-long-road-trips/•St. Louis ranks 4th in U.S. in dog attacks on Letter Carriers. https://labortribune.com/st-louis-ranks-4th-in-u-s-in-dog-attacks-on-letter-carriers/•The worst-behaved dog breed, according to data. Plus, see if your dog's breed is one of the 70 least obedient. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-worst-behaved-dog-breed-according-to-data-plus-see-if-your-dog-s-breed-is-one-of-the-70-least-obedient/ss-AA1pvFU1•Hundreds of Amazon packages mistakenly shipped to woman's home for over a year: 'It's been hell'. https://abc7.com/post/hundreds-amazon-car-seat-covers-packages-fill-san-jose-womans-garage-year-long-mishap-overseas-seller/17035752/•Affidavit: 71-year-old grandma bought unlicensed grandson car before deadly Logan County crash. https://www.5newsonline.com/article/news/crime/arkansas-grandma-grandson-crash-scranton-sisters-racing/527-195cd276-3fa9-4d51-a5e8-1d8747850dd6Follow us @RizzShow @MoonValjeanHere @KingScottRules @LernVsRadio @IamRafeWilliams - Check out King Scott's Linktr.ee/kingscottrules + band @FreeThe2SG and Check out Moon's bands GREEK FIRE @GreekFire GOLDFINGER @GoldfingerMusic THE TEENAGE DIRTBAGS @TheTeenageDbags and Lern's band @LaneNarrows ⁠http://www.1057thepoint.com/RizzSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Declaration by Christy Slavik, filed in Case 1:24-cr-00542-AS on January 17, 2025, outlines her qualifications and involvement as an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) with the Southern District of New York (SDNY). Slavik has been part of the SDNY since November 2019 and joined the prosecution team for this case in August 2024. The declaration is in response to the Court's Order dated January 3, 2025 (Dkt. No. 123), and it supports the Government's opposition to the defendant's motion submitted on December 4, 2024 (Dkt. No. 117)..This filing reaffirms the Government's stance on issues raised by the defense, leveraging Slavik's expertise and direct involvement in the investigation and prosecution. It indicates the prosecution team's commitment to addressing the court's queries and advancing arguments against the defendant's motion, aiming to solidify the case's legal foundation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.131.1_1.pdf

The Declaration by Christy Slavik, filed in Case 1:24-cr-00542-AS on January 17, 2025, outlines her qualifications and involvement as an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) with the Southern District of New York (SDNY). Slavik has been part of the SDNY since November 2019 and joined the prosecution team for this case in August 2024. The declaration is in response to the Court's Order dated January 3, 2025 (Dkt. No. 123), and it supports the Government's opposition to the defendant's motion submitted on December 4, 2024 (Dkt. No. 117)..This filing reaffirms the Government's stance on issues raised by the defense, leveraging Slavik's expertise and direct involvement in the investigation and prosecution. It indicates the prosecution team's commitment to addressing the court's queries and advancing arguments against the defendant's motion, aiming to solidify the case's legal foundation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.131.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Today we answer a question from Peter about what happens when a parent dies with a fully planned estate that avoids probate — and how the Small Estate Affidavit process works in practice. We discuss handling unexpected estate assets like refund checks, whether you can open an estate bank account without letters testamentary, and who's responsible for final taxes and bills Although this show does not provide specific tax, legal, or financial advice, you can engage Devin or John through their individual firms. 

News of an affidavit from Justin Baldoni's legal team sparked my interest and led to dive #18 that covers a tea-filled allegation that Blake Lively wanted Taylor Swift to publicly endorse her, or else. From there we delve into a September 2024 lawsuit filed by the defunct Vanzan LLC, seemingly used to initiate a subpoena for the trove of texts from former Wayfarer PR rep, Stephanie Jones. In addition, the Time 100 Most Influential People of 2025, including Blake's write-up and a speech she gave at the event. BONUS: a rant about plantations All opinions are personal and not representative of any outside company, person, or agenda. Information shared is cited via published articles, legal documents, press releases, government websites, public videos, news reports, and/or direct quotes and statements, and all may be paraphrased for brevity and presented in layman's terms.Wanna support this independent pod? Links below:BuyMeACoffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/BBDBVenmo @TYBBDB Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Vandalism at draft board offices as U.S. involvement in Vietnam was escalating was deeply divisive. Opponents of the war were stereotyped as dirty hippies and sanctimonious white college kids, but the anti-Vietnam-war movement in the U.S. was really broad. Research: "Statement: the Boston Eight" Newsletter. ULS Digital Collections. https://digital.library.pitt.edu/islandora/object/pitt%3A31735058194170 “Draftees ‘Lost’ in Raids Immune for January.” Boston Globe. 12/10/1969. “Draftees ‘Lost’ in Raids Immune for January.” The Boston Globe. 12/10/1969. “Hardy Rites Tomorrow.” Camden Courier-Post. 10/4/1971. Arnold, Hillel. “Draft Board Raids.” https://hillelarnold.com/draft-board-raids/ Associated Press. “Testify FBI Had Role in N.J. Break-in.” De Moines Register. 5/21/1973. Astor, Maggie. “Their Protest Helped End the Draft. 50 Years Later, It’s Still Controversial.” New York Times. 5/19/2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/us/catonsville-nine-anniversary.html Berrigan, Frida. “50 years later, the spirit of the Catonsville Nine lives on.” Waging Nonviolence. 5/16/2018. https://wagingnonviolence.org/2018/05/catonsville-nine-50-years-later/ Cassie, Ron. “Trial by Fire.” Baltimore. May 2018. https://www.baltimoremagazine.com/section/historypolitics/50-years-ago-catonsville-nine-sparked-national-wave-of-vietnam-war-resistance/ Dear, John. “The Camden 28.” National Catholic Reporter. 9/18/2007. https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/road-peace/camden-28 Enoch Pratt Free Library. “Fire and Faith: The Cantonville Nine File.” 2005. http://c9.digitalmaryland.org/ Fisher, James T. “Debating 'The Camden 28': A scholar and an activist discuss a new film about the Catholic Left.” America: The Jesuit Review. 9/17/2007. https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/625/100/debating-camden-28 Fisher, James T. “Debating 'The Camden 28': Activist nuns, punk rock and the demise of the Catholic Left.” America: The Jesuit Review. 9/17/2007. https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/625/100/debating-camden-28-0 Friedman, Jason. “Draft Card Mutilation Act of 1965.” Free Speech Center. 7/2/2024. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/draft-card-mutilation-act-of-1965/ Giacchino, Anthony, director. “Camden 28.” PBS Point of View. 2007. Gilette, Howard Jr. “Camden, New Jersey.” The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia. https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/camden-new-jersey/ Greenberg, Kyrie. “Camden 28 revisit court where they were tried for ’71 break-in to protest Vietnam War.” WHYY. 12/6/2018. https://whyy.org/articles/camden-28-revisit-court-where-they-were-tried-for-71-break-in-to-protest-vietnam-war/ Hammond, Linda C. “FBI Says Informer Was Paid $7500.” Courier-Post. 5/30/1973. Hardy, Robert. “Affidavit.” Via Camden28.org. Kroncke, Francis X. “RESISTANCE AS SACRAMENT.” http://www.minnesota8.net/Kroncke/essays/resistance.htm Lacy, Tim. “The Media Raiders: The FBI, Hoover, and the Catholic Left.” Society for U.S. Intellectual History. https://s-usih.org/2024/12/media-raiders-fbi-hoover-catholic-left/ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Photos: The Milwaukee 14 - a fiery '68 protest against the Vietnam War.” 9/20/2016. https://www.jsonline.com/picture-gallery/life/2016/09/20/photos-the-milwaukee-14---a-fiery-68-protest-against-the-vietnam-war/90517276/ Mische, George. “Inattention to accuracy about 'Catonsville Nine' distorts history.” National Catholic Reporter. 5/17/2013. https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/inattention-accuracy-about-catonsville-nine-distorts-history Nelson, Paul. "Minnesota Eight." MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. http://www.mnopedia.org/group/minnesota-eight Nelson, Paul. “The Minnesota Eight’s attempts to destroy draft files during the Vietnam War were mostly unsuccessful.” MNopedia via MinnPost. 6/15/2020. https://www.minnpost.com/mnopedia/2020/06/the-minnesota-eights-attempts-to-destroy-draft-files-during-the-vietnam-war-were-mostly-unsuccessful/ Nixon, Richard M. “The Great Silent Majority.” https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/nixon-silent-majority-speech-text/ Norland, Rod. “Camden 28 Trial Looks to Juror No. 10.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. 5/20/1973. O’Farrell, Sean. “Milwaukee Fourteen.” Encyclopedia of Milwaukee. https://emke.uwm.edu/entry/milwaukee-fourteen/ Presbrey, Paul. “Draft Vandalism Willful? Jury Hears Father’s Beliefs.” Minneapolis Star. 12/2/1966. Roden, Renee. “Book paints the Camden 28 as 'Spiritual Criminals.' But were their actions effective?” National Catholic Reporter. 2/22/2025. https://www.ncronline.org/culture/book-reviews/book-paints-camden-28-spiritual-criminals-were-their-actions-effective Rothman, Lily. “This Photo Shows the Vietnam Draft-Card Burning That Started a Movement.” Time. 10/15/2015. https://time.com/4061835/david-miller-draft-card/ Sadowski, Dennis. “After 50 years, draft board protesters insist what they did was right.” National Catholic Reporter. 9/1/2018. https://www.ncronline.org/news/after-50-years-draft-board-protesters-insist-what-they-did-was-right Silver, Maayan. “Member Of The Milwaukee 14 Reflects 50 Years After Draft Card Burning.” WUWM. 9/25/2018. https://www.wuwm.com/podcast/wuwm-news/2018-09-25/member-of-the-milwaukee-14-reflects-50-years-after-draft-card-burning Stanford University Libraries. “The Berrigans & the Catonsville Nine, 1968-1972.” https://exhibits.stanford.edu/fitch/browse/the-berrigans-the-catonsville-nine-1968-1972 The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Lyndon B. Johnson". Encyclopedia Britannica, 19 Mar. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lyndon-B-Johnson. Accessed 20 March 2025. The Harvard Crimson. “Six Draft Boards Raided; Paint Thrown on Records.” 11/10/1969. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1969/11/10/six-draft-boards-raided-paint-thrown/ Walsh, Lori. “The Camden 28: Standing Against The Vietnam War.” SDPB. 9/8/2017. https://www.sdpb.org/margins/2017-09-08/the-camden-28-standing-against-the-vietnam-war Zinn Education Project. “Aug. 21, 1971: Anti-war Protesters Raid Draft Offices.” https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/anti-war-protesters-raid-offices/ Zunes, Stephen and Jesse Laird. “The US Anti-Vietnam War Movement (1964-1973).” International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. January 2010. https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/us-anti-vietnam-war-movement-1964-1973/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The draft board raids were part of an antiwar movement, largely grounded in Catholic religious convictions, that spanned almost four years. Part one covers the basic context of the Vietnam War and why the U.S. was involved in the first place, and the earliest raids on draft boards. Research: "Statement: the Boston Eight" Newsletter. ULS Digital Collections. https://digital.library.pitt.edu/islandora/object/pitt%3A31735058194170 “Draftees ‘Lost’ in Raids Immune for January.” Boston Globe. 12/10/1969. “Draftees ‘Lost’ in Raids Immune for January.” The Boston Globe. 12/10/1969. “Hardy Rites Tomorrow.” Camden Courier-Post. 10/4/1971. Arnold, Hillel. “Draft Board Raids.” https://hillelarnold.com/draft-board-raids/ Associated Press. “Testify FBI Had Role in N.J. Break-in.” De Moines Register. 5/21/1973. Astor, Maggie. “Their Protest Helped End the Draft. 50 Years Later, It’s Still Controversial.” New York Times. 5/19/2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/19/us/catonsville-nine-anniversary.html Berrigan, Frida. “50 years later, the spirit of the Catonsville Nine lives on.” Waging Nonviolence. 5/16/2018. https://wagingnonviolence.org/2018/05/catonsville-nine-50-years-later/ Cassie, Ron. “Trial by Fire.” Baltimore. May 2018. https://www.baltimoremagazine.com/section/historypolitics/50-years-ago-catonsville-nine-sparked-national-wave-of-vietnam-war-resistance/ Dear, John. “The Camden 28.” National Catholic Reporter. 9/18/2007. https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/road-peace/camden-28 Enoch Pratt Free Library. “Fire and Faith: The Cantonville Nine File.” 2005. http://c9.digitalmaryland.org/ Fisher, James T. “Debating 'The Camden 28': A scholar and an activist discuss a new film about the Catholic Left.” America: The Jesuit Review. 9/17/2007. https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/625/100/debating-camden-28 Fisher, James T. “Debating 'The Camden 28': Activist nuns, punk rock and the demise of the Catholic Left.” America: The Jesuit Review. 9/17/2007. https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/625/100/debating-camden-28-0 Friedman, Jason. “Draft Card Mutilation Act of 1965.” Free Speech Center. 7/2/2024. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/draft-card-mutilation-act-of-1965/ Giacchino, Anthony, director. “Camden 28.” PBS Point of View. 2007. Gilette, Howard Jr. “Camden, New Jersey.” The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia. https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/camden-new-jersey/ Greenberg, Kyrie. “Camden 28 revisit court where they were tried for ’71 break-in to protest Vietnam War.” WHYY. 12/6/2018. https://whyy.org/articles/camden-28-revisit-court-where-they-were-tried-for-71-break-in-to-protest-vietnam-war/ Hammond, Linda C. “FBI Says Informer Was Paid $7500.” Courier-Post. 5/30/1973. Hardy, Robert. “Affidavit.” Via Camden28.org. Kroncke, Francis X. “RESISTANCE AS SACRAMENT.” http://www.minnesota8.net/Kroncke/essays/resistance.htm Lacy, Tim. “The Media Raiders: The FBI, Hoover, and the Catholic Left.” Society for U.S. Intellectual History. https://s-usih.org/2024/12/media-raiders-fbi-hoover-catholic-left/ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Photos: The Milwaukee 14 - a fiery '68 protest against the Vietnam War.” 9/20/2016. https://www.jsonline.com/picture-gallery/life/2016/09/20/photos-the-milwaukee-14---a-fiery-68-protest-against-the-vietnam-war/90517276/ Mische, George. “Inattention to accuracy about 'Catonsville Nine' distorts history.” National Catholic Reporter. 5/17/2013. https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/inattention-accuracy-about-catonsville-nine-distorts-history Nelson, Paul. "Minnesota Eight." MNopedia, Minnesota Historical Society. http://www.mnopedia.org/group/minnesota-eight Nelson, Paul. “The Minnesota Eight’s attempts to destroy draft files during the Vietnam War were mostly unsuccessful.” MNopedia via MinnPost. 6/15/2020. https://www.minnpost.com/mnopedia/2020/06/the-minnesota-eights-attempts-to-destroy-draft-files-during-the-vietnam-war-were-mostly-unsuccessful/ Nixon, Richard M. “The Great Silent Majority.” https://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/nixon-silent-majority-speech-text/ Norland, Rod. “Camden 28 Trial Looks to Juror No. 10.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. 5/20/1973. O’Farrell, Sean. “Milwaukee Fourteen.” Encyclopedia of Milwaukee. https://emke.uwm.edu/entry/milwaukee-fourteen/ Presbrey, Paul. “Draft Vandalism Willful? Jury Hears Father’s Beliefs.” Minneapolis Star. 12/2/1966. Roden, Renee. “Book paints the Camden 28 as 'Spiritual Criminals.' But were their actions effective?” National Catholic Reporter. 2/22/2025. https://www.ncronline.org/culture/book-reviews/book-paints-camden-28-spiritual-criminals-were-their-actions-effective Rothman, Lily. “This Photo Shows the Vietnam Draft-Card Burning That Started a Movement.” Time. 10/15/2015. https://time.com/4061835/david-miller-draft-card/ Sadowski, Dennis. “After 50 years, draft board protesters insist what they did was right.” National Catholic Reporter. 9/1/2018. https://www.ncronline.org/news/after-50-years-draft-board-protesters-insist-what-they-did-was-right Silver, Maayan. “Member Of The Milwaukee 14 Reflects 50 Years After Draft Card Burning.” WUWM. 9/25/2018. https://www.wuwm.com/podcast/wuwm-news/2018-09-25/member-of-the-milwaukee-14-reflects-50-years-after-draft-card-burning Stanford University Libraries. “The Berrigans & the Catonsville Nine, 1968-1972.” https://exhibits.stanford.edu/fitch/browse/the-berrigans-the-catonsville-nine-1968-1972 The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Lyndon B. Johnson". Encyclopedia Britannica, 19 Mar. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lyndon-B-Johnson. Accessed 20 March 2025. The Harvard Crimson. “Six Draft Boards Raided; Paint Thrown on Records.” 11/10/1969. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1969/11/10/six-draft-boards-raided-paint-thrown/ Walsh, Lori. “The Camden 28: Standing Against The Vietnam War.” SDPB. 9/8/2017. https://www.sdpb.org/margins/2017-09-08/the-camden-28-standing-against-the-vietnam-war Zinn Education Project. “Aug. 21, 1971: Anti-war Protesters Raid Draft Offices.” https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/anti-war-protesters-raid-offices/ Zunes, Stephen and Jesse Laird. “The US Anti-Vietnam War Movement (1964-1973).” International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. January 2010. https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/us-anti-vietnam-war-movement-1964-1973/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.