Podcasts about Affidavit

The affidavit supporting a search warrant in the case against Tyler Robinson laid out investigators' developing theory that Robinson was the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk during the September 10, 2025 event at Utah Valley University. Investigators described surveillance footage tracking a suspect before and after the shooting, the recovery of a rifle believed to have been used in the attack, and evidence they said connected Robinson to the weapon and the surrounding circumstances. The affidavit also detailed information obtained from Robinson's family and others after authorities released images of the suspected shooter. According to the warrant materials, Robinson allegedly admitted to his father that he was responsible, and his family subsequently became involved in arranging his surrender. Investigators used those statements, the physical evidence and Robinson's movements to establish probable cause to search locations, accounts and devices they believed could contain additional evidence.The affidavit also revealed considerably more about Robinson's alleged communications after the shooting, including messages with his roommate and romantic partner, Lance Twiggs. Robinson allegedly instructed Twiggs to look underneath his keyboard, where investigators later said they recovered a handwritten letter in which Robinson described leaving home “on a mission” and stated that he had the opportunity to kill Kirk and took it. The warrant materials further described messages in which Robinson allegedly discussed the rifle, efforts to retrieve or conceal it, concerns about his family recognizing the weapon, and his eventual decision to surrender. Investigators also sought access to electronic communications and online accounts, including Discord activity, as they attempted to reconstruct Robinson's planning, motive, movements and conversations surrounding the killing. Taken together, the affidavit presented the search requests as part of a much broader effort to preserve digital and physical evidence and determine exactly what Robinson allegedly did before, during and after Kirk's death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Search Warrant | PDF | Affidavit | Search Warrant

Direct Primary Care no longer disqualifies patients from HSA eligibility. As of January 1, 2026, DPC membership fees are a qualified HSA expense at or below $150 per month for one person and $300 for a family. Above $150 you are not in violation. You are in the same gray zone DPC lived in for a decade, and the tax position belongs to the patient and their accountant, not to you.Dr. Phil Eskew (DO, JD, MBA) of DPC Frontier joins Dr. Maryal Concepcion to break down what changed and what it means for your practice, then walks through the Medicare opt-out calendar most physicians discover too late.KEY NUMBERS AND DATES $150/month per person, $300 family. Effective January 1, 2026. Opt-outs take effect only on January 1, April 1, July 1, October 1. Affidavit must be filed at least 30 days before the effective date. File by roughly December 1, 2026 to be opted out January 1, 2027. 90-day reversal window, but you must refund every membership dollar collected.QUESTIONS ANSWEREDCan patients use an HSA to pay for direct primary care? Yes, as of January 2026. Both old IRS objections were fixed: whether the fee is a medical expense, and whether membership disqualifies HSA contributions.Should I put "HSA eligible" on my website? No. Write "We accept HSA cards." Promising eligibility in your marketing or agreement takes on a tax position on your patient's behalf.How do I get under $150 without losing revenue? Enrollment fees are not compensation for care. Blood draws, injections, EKGs, and dispensed medications can price separately.What does the rule exclude? Prescription drugs other than vaccines, and lab services not typically done in an ambulatory primary care setting.If I opt out, can I still order labs and referrals? Yes. Opting out is not disenrollment. You stay credentialed and Medicare pays for labs, imaging, referrals, DME, and prescriptions you order.Where can I still work while opted out? VA, Indian Health Service, corrections, and hospice administrative work. Precepting usually requires participation. TRICARE requires Medicare participation. Medicaid uses ORP/OPR status, prohibited in Kentucky and Colorado.Does opt-out apply to Medicare Advantage? Yes. Opt-out applies to all Medicare programs nationwide. You cannot opt out selectively.MENTIONED DPC Frontier · McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945) · ACA primary care carve-out · bronze and catastrophic plans as HSA-compatible · capacity vs. competency · durable power of attorney · prior authorization escalation strategyHAVE A QUESTION? WE ANSWER THEM ON AIR. Leave a voicemail at mydpcstory.com/contact with your name, state, and question.NEXT EPISODE: ILLINOIS, timed to the Illinois DPC Summit, October 2 and 3, NIU Naperville. Subscribe to the My DPC Story newsletter at mydpcstory.com to know when it drops.Educational only. Not legal or tax advice. Dr. Eskew is not your attorney.Stand With Dr. Nyasha Spears and the Future of Patient-Centered Healthcare. Get the MEDICARE & MEDICARE ADVANTAGE OPEN ENROLLMENT SURVIVAL GUIDE at mydpcstory.com/shop! Get your copy of the Physician Owner's Planner today at mydpcstory.com/library Start using the done-for-you patient emails, scripts etc. in our 2027 Edition of the MEDICARE & MEDICARE ADVANTAGE OPEN ENROLLMENT SURVIVAL GUIDE at mydpcstory.com/shop!Support the showGET your FREE MONTHLY BUSINESS TOOL DOWNLOADBecome A My DPC Story PATREON MEMBER! SPONSOR THE PODMy DPC Story VOICEMAIL! DPC SWAG!FACEBOOK * INSTAGRAM * LinkedIn * TWITTER * TIKTOK * YouTube

The probable cause affidavit filed after Bryan Kohberger's arrest laid out the prosecution's initial theory connecting him to the November 2022 murders of University of Idaho students Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Investigators described surveillance footage showing a white Hyundai Elantra repeatedly circling the King Road residence before the killings and then leaving the area at high speed. Police later connected a similar vehicle to Kohberger, who was a doctoral student at Washington State University in nearby Pullman. The affidavit also relied heavily on cellphone records, which investigators said placed Kohberger's phone near the victims' neighborhood on numerous occasions before the murders and showed the phone going offline during the critical period surrounding the killings. Investigators further alleged that his phone later reconnected to the network south of Moscow and traveled back toward Pullman, while surveillance cameras captured a vehicle consistent with his Elantra moving along a similar route.The most significant piece of evidence described in the affidavit was a tan leather knife sheath found on the bed next to Madison Mogen's body. Investigators said DNA recovered from the sheath's button snap was later compared with DNA obtained from trash collected outside Kohberger's family home in Pennsylvania, producing a familial match that strongly pointed toward Kohberger's father and, by extension, Kohberger. The affidavit also included the account of surviving roommate Dylan Mortensen, who told investigators that she had awakened during the night, heard noises inside the house, and eventually saw a masked man dressed in black walking past her toward the rear sliding door. She described the man as approximately 5-foot-10 or taller, not very muscular, with bushy eyebrows, a description investigators believed was consistent with Kohberger. Taken together, the vehicle evidence, cellphone data, eyewitness account, and DNA from the knife sheath were presented as establishing probable cause to arrest Kohberger and charge him with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Two house fires just 10 miles apart in Colts Neck and Ocean Township, New Jersey, seemed impossible to explain. But as investigators uncovered a web of lies, missing money, and meticulous planning, they realized the truth was even more disturbing than anyone imagined.How to support:For extra perks including exclusive content, early release, and ad-free episodes -Go to - PatreonHow to connect:WebsiteInstagramFacebookTwitterTheme and Closing Track:Original compositions created for The Minds of MadnessPlease check out our sponsors and help support the podcast:Shopify - Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period at shopify.com/madnessQuince - Upgrade your wardrobe with pieces made to last with Quince. Go to Quince.com/madness for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns.Raycon - The Essential Open Earbuds are perfect for refreshing your routine this spring. Go to buyraycon.com/mindsofmadnessOPEN to get 20% off!HERS - Feel like your best self again, Visit forhers.com/MADNESS to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you.LEAN - They're having a Huge Memorial Day Sale and Lean is 25% off!!  Visit takelean.com and enter THANK YOU 25 for 25% OFF.Granola - If meetings are eating up your day, Granola is a no-brainer. You can try it totally free for three months - just head to granola.ai/MADNESSRula - Rula patients typically pay $15 per session when using insurance. Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at rula.com/madnessGhostBed - Take advantage of Spring Sale pricing, go to GhostBed.com/madness, code MADNESS for an extra 10% off sitewide. Some exclusions apply; see site for details.Research & Writing:Ryan DeiningerSources:Jennifer Caneiro ObituaryKeith Caneiro Obituary Jesse Caneiro Obituary Sophia Caneiro ObituaryAccused mansion killer was 'usual self' the day before: employeeN.J. Man Gets Life for Family Massacre Girl, 8, suffered most in Colts Neck family's greed-fueled killingAll over moneyCourt TV RecapCourt TV Trial PlaylistJustice Is A Process20 Stunning New Allegations In Colts Neck Caneiro Murder CaseColts Neck murders: This is how cops say the Caneiro family met their brutal endBullets, money trouble and a bloody glove: Affidavit lays out Colts Neck quadruple homicideColts Neck murders 911 tape: 'My god, there's blood here ... it's a corpse'NJ Man Found Guilty of Killing the Members of Greek-American Karydis-Caneiro FamilyColts Neck murders: Paul Caneiro was 'never the same' after 2012 car crash, friend saysHeartbreaking details emerge about family slaughtered in Colts Neck mansion$90K theft preceded Colts Neck mansion massacre, lawsuit saysDefense attorneys for man accused of killing his brother's family speak to the media

The probable cause affidavit filed after Bryan Kohberger's arrest laid out the prosecution's initial theory connecting him to the November 2022 murders of University of Idaho students Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Investigators described surveillance footage showing a white Hyundai Elantra repeatedly circling the King Road residence before the killings and then leaving the area at high speed. Police later connected a similar vehicle to Kohberger, who was a doctoral student at Washington State University in nearby Pullman. The affidavit also relied heavily on cellphone records, which investigators said placed Kohberger's phone near the victims' neighborhood on numerous occasions before the murders and showed the phone going offline during the critical period surrounding the killings. Investigators further alleged that his phone later reconnected to the network south of Moscow and traveled back toward Pullman, while surveillance cameras captured a vehicle consistent with his Elantra moving along a similar route.The most significant piece of evidence described in the affidavit was a tan leather knife sheath found on the bed next to Madison Mogen's body. Investigators said DNA recovered from the sheath's button snap was later compared with DNA obtained from trash collected outside Kohberger's family home in Pennsylvania, producing a familial match that strongly pointed toward Kohberger's father and, by extension, Kohberger. The affidavit also included the account of surviving roommate Dylan Mortensen, who told investigators that she had awakened during the night, heard noises inside the house, and eventually saw a masked man dressed in black walking past her toward the rear sliding door. She described the man as approximately 5-foot-10 or taller, not very muscular, with bushy eyebrows, a description investigators believed was consistent with Kohberger. Taken together, the vehicle evidence, cellphone data, eyewitness account, and DNA from the knife sheath were presented as establishing probable cause to arrest Kohberger and charge him with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdf

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Bryan Edelman, a trial consultant retained by Bryan Kohberger's defense, argued that the enormous volume of pretrial publicity surrounding the University of Idaho murders had made it extraordinarily difficult to find an impartial jury in Latah County. Edelman conducted telephone surveys of hundreds of prospective jurors and found widespread familiarity with the case, substantial exposure to inflammatory or disputed media claims and a strong tendency among respondents to believe Kohberger was guilty before hearing the evidence. He maintained that repeated reporting about the knife-sheath DNA, Kohberger's vehicle, cellphone data, alleged stalking and other incriminating details had created fixed impressions in the community, even though some of those claims remained contested or potentially inadmissible. In Edelman's view, Kohberger would have entered a Latah County courtroom already burdened with disproving conclusions that prospective jurors had formed from months of publicity.Edelman also defended the defense team's controversial public-opinion survey, explaining that its purpose had been to measure what residents had already heard and how that information affected their attitudes, not to persuade or contaminate them. He argued that ordinary jury questioning would not necessarily uncover the full extent of bias because prospective jurors might forget, minimize or fail to disclose the information they had absorbed. His declaration concluded that expanding the jury pool or relying on voir dire would not adequately cure the problem in a small community so closely connected to the victims, the university and the investigation. Edelman therefore supported moving the trial to Ada County, where a much larger population and broader jury pool offered Kohberger a better chance of receiving a trial before jurors who had not already decided the case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:072224-Memorandum-Support-MCoV.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-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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Top 10 immigration updates practitioners need right now: a USCIS Policy Manual change targeting attorneys, I-751 receipt delays, naturalization slowdowns, a proposed visa-ban bill, the upcoming I-864 overhaul, and the end of Duration of Status for F-1/J-1 students. TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 Opening 00:33 Intro 01:18 Sponsor: e-Immigration by Cerenade 02:35 Courses & one-on-one training seminars 03:20 Disclaimer + show start 03:45 #1 — USCIS Policy Manual update targets attorneys 05:16 #2 — Attorneys can now file B-2/F-1 cases via myUSCIS.gov 06:17 #3 — I-751 receipt delays 07:05 #4 — Biometrics required before expedite requests 07:59 #5 — Naturalization oath ceremony delays 09:13 #6 — Nancy Mace bill to ban immigrant visas 09:52 #7 — Case return delays now 3–4 weeks 10:46 #8 — I-864 Affidavit of Support policy update (Sept 2026) 12:05 Sponsor: Constellation Marketing 13:33 #9 — N-470 alternative + I-751/N-400 timing correction 15:19 #10 — F-1/J-1/I visa overhaul (end of Duration of Status) 19:00 Private community page & wrap-up Spotify | iTunes | YouTube Music | YouTube   Follow eimmigration by Cerenade: Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Start your Business Immigration Practice! (US LAWYERS ONLY - SCREENING REQUIRED): E-2 Course EB-1A Course Get the Toolbox Magazine!  Join our community (Lawyers Only) Get Started in Immigration Law! The Marriage/Family-Based Green Card course is for you Our Website: ImmigrationLawyersToolbox.com Not legal advice. Consult with an Attorney. Attorney Advertisement. #podcaster #Lawyer #ImmigrationLawyer #Interview #Immigration #ImmigrationAttorney #USImmigration #ImmigrationLaw #ImmigrationLawyersToolbox

The probable-cause affidavit alleges that Tyler Robinson carried out the September 10, 2025 shooting of Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University. Investigators said campus surveillance tracked a dark-clothed suspect carrying a backpack as he moved toward the Losee Center, climbed onto its roof and took a prone position overlooking the courtyard shortly before Kirk was shot in the neck. The suspect then sprinted across the roof, climbed down and fled toward a wooded area, where investigators recovered a scoped Mauser Model 98 .30-06 bolt-action rifle wrapped in a towel. Engraved ammunition was found with the weapon, and a shoe impression near the rooftop escape point was described as consistent with Converse-style shoes worn by the suspect.The affidavit says the investigation shifted toward Robinson after a family member reported that he had confessed or implied responsibility. Police also placed Robinson's gray Dodge Challenger at the university earlier that morning and said his family confirmed that he had recently discussed Kirk's visit, criticized his views and become increasingly political. Robinson's roommate then showed investigators messages attributed to “Tyler” discussing a rifle left at a drop point, the towel wrapped around it, engraved bullets, the weapon's scope and a change of clothing. Based on the surveillance, recovered rifle, family information and digital messages, the officer concluded there was probable cause to arrest Robinson for aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm and obstruction of justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:23c7187b-5c27-490e-b52d-3f2640f43091.pdf

The probable-cause affidavit alleges that Tyler Robinson carried out the September 10, 2025 shooting of Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University. Investigators said campus surveillance tracked a dark-clothed suspect carrying a backpack as he moved toward the Losee Center, climbed onto its roof and took a prone position overlooking the courtyard shortly before Kirk was shot in the neck. The suspect then sprinted across the roof, climbed down and fled toward a wooded area, where investigators recovered a scoped Mauser Model 98 .30-06 bolt-action rifle wrapped in a towel. Engraved ammunition was found with the weapon, and a shoe impression near the rooftop escape point was described as consistent with Converse-style shoes worn by the suspect.The affidavit says the investigation shifted toward Robinson after a family member reported that he had confessed or implied responsibility. Police also placed Robinson's gray Dodge Challenger at the university earlier that morning and said his family confirmed that he had recently discussed Kirk's visit, criticized his views and become increasingly political. Robinson's roommate then showed investigators messages attributed to “Tyler” discussing a rifle left at a drop point, the towel wrapped around it, engraved bullets, the weapon's scope and a change of clothing. Based on the surveillance, recovered rifle, family information and digital messages, the officer concluded there was probable cause to arrest Robinson for aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm and obstruction of justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:23c7187b-5c27-490e-b52d-3f2640f43091.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The probable-cause affidavit alleges that Tyler Robinson carried out the September 10, 2025 shooting of Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University. Investigators said campus surveillance tracked a dark-clothed suspect carrying a backpack as he moved toward the Losee Center, climbed onto its roof and took a prone position overlooking the courtyard shortly before Kirk was shot in the neck. The suspect then sprinted across the roof, climbed down and fled toward a wooded area, where investigators recovered a scoped Mauser Model 98 .30-06 bolt-action rifle wrapped in a towel. Engraved ammunition was found with the weapon, and a shoe impression near the rooftop escape point was described as consistent with Converse-style shoes worn by the suspect.The affidavit says the investigation shifted toward Robinson after a family member reported that he had confessed or implied responsibility. Police also placed Robinson's gray Dodge Challenger at the university earlier that morning and said his family confirmed that he had recently discussed Kirk's visit, criticized his views and become increasingly political. Robinson's roommate then showed investigators messages attributed to “Tyler” discussing a rifle left at a drop point, the towel wrapped around it, engraved bullets, the weapon's scope and a change of clothing. Based on the surveillance, recovered rifle, family information and digital messages, the officer concluded there was probable cause to arrest Robinson for aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm and obstruction of justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:23c7187b-5c27-490e-b52d-3f2640f43091.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The probable-cause affidavit alleges that Tyler Robinson carried out the September 10, 2025 shooting of Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University. Investigators said campus surveillance tracked a dark-clothed suspect carrying a backpack as he moved toward the Losee Center, climbed onto its roof and took a prone position overlooking the courtyard shortly before Kirk was shot in the neck. The suspect then sprinted across the roof, climbed down and fled toward a wooded area, where investigators recovered a scoped Mauser Model 98 .30-06 bolt-action rifle wrapped in a towel. Engraved ammunition was found with the weapon, and a shoe impression near the rooftop escape point was described as consistent with Converse-style shoes worn by the suspect.The affidavit says the investigation shifted toward Robinson after a family member reported that he had confessed or implied responsibility. Police also placed Robinson's gray Dodge Challenger at the university earlier that morning and said his family confirmed that he had recently discussed Kirk's visit, criticized his views and become increasingly political. Robinson's roommate then showed investigators messages attributed to “Tyler” discussing a rifle left at a drop point, the towel wrapped around it, engraved bullets, the weapon's scope and a change of clothing. Based on the surveillance, recovered rifle, family information and digital messages, the officer concluded there was probable cause to arrest Robinson for aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm and obstruction of justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:23c7187b-5c27-490e-b52d-3f2640f43091.pdf

The probable-cause affidavit alleges that Tyler Robinson carried out the September 10, 2025 shooting of Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University. Investigators said campus surveillance tracked a dark-clothed suspect carrying a backpack as he moved toward the Losee Center, climbed onto its roof and took a prone position overlooking the courtyard shortly before Kirk was shot in the neck. The suspect then sprinted across the roof, climbed down and fled toward a wooded area, where investigators recovered a scoped Mauser Model 98 .30-06 bolt-action rifle wrapped in a towel. Engraved ammunition was found with the weapon, and a shoe impression near the rooftop escape point was described as consistent with Converse-style shoes worn by the suspect.The affidavit says the investigation shifted toward Robinson after a family member reported that he had confessed or implied responsibility. Police also placed Robinson's gray Dodge Challenger at the university earlier that morning and said his family confirmed that he had recently discussed Kirk's visit, criticized his views and become increasingly political. Robinson's roommate then showed investigators messages attributed to “Tyler” discussing a rifle left at a drop point, the towel wrapped around it, engraved bullets, the weapon's scope and a change of clothing. Based on the surveillance, recovered rifle, family information and digital messages, the officer concluded there was probable cause to arrest Robinson for aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm and obstruction of justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:23c7187b-5c27-490e-b52d-3f2640f43091.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The probable-cause affidavit alleges that Tyler Robinson carried out the September 10, 2025 shooting of Charlie Kirk during an event at Utah Valley University. Investigators said campus surveillance tracked a dark-clothed suspect carrying a backpack as he moved toward the Losee Center, climbed onto its roof and took a prone position overlooking the courtyard shortly before Kirk was shot in the neck. The suspect then sprinted across the roof, climbed down and fled toward a wooded area, where investigators recovered a scoped Mauser Model 98 .30-06 bolt-action rifle wrapped in a towel. Engraved ammunition was found with the weapon, and a shoe impression near the rooftop escape point was described as consistent with Converse-style shoes worn by the suspect.The affidavit says the investigation shifted toward Robinson after a family member reported that he had confessed or implied responsibility. Police also placed Robinson's gray Dodge Challenger at the university earlier that morning and said his family confirmed that he had recently discussed Kirk's visit, criticized his views and become increasingly political. Robinson's roommate then showed investigators messages attributed to “Tyler” discussing a rifle left at a drop point, the towel wrapped around it, engraved bullets, the weapon's scope and a change of clothing. Based on the surveillance, recovered rifle, family information and digital messages, the officer concluded there was probable cause to arrest Robinson for aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm and obstruction of justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:23c7187b-5c27-490e-b52d-3f2640f43091.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

ohn Maytham is joined by Sam Sole, managing partner at amaBhungane and one of the journalists behind the investigation. We'll unpack what Fazel's affidavit reveals about the battle over Crime Intelligence, the role allegedly played by former Police Minister Senzo Mchunu's office, and why the case could have far-reaching implications for the oversight of South Africa's intelligence services and the constitutional safeguards designed to keep them accountable. Presenter John Maytham is an actor and author-turned-talk radio veteran and seasoned journalist. His show serves a round-up of local and international news coupled with the latest in business, sport, traffic and weather. The host’s eclectic interests mean the program often surprises the audience with intriguing book reviews and inspiring interviews profiling artists. A daily highlight is Rapid Fire, just after 5:30pm. CapeTalk fans call in, to stump the presenter with their general knowledge questions. Another firm favourite is the humorous Thursday crossing with award-winning journalist Rebecca Davis, called “Plan B”. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Afternoon Drive with John Maytham Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 15:00 and 18:00 (SA Time) to Afternoon Drive with John Maytham broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/BSFy4Cn or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/n8nWt4x Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Clement Manyathela speaks to Orrin Singh, an Investigative Journalist with AmaBhungane about their revelation that shows how police minister Senzo Mchunu drew suspended Inspector General of Intelligence, Imtiaz Fazel into Crime Intelligence wars. The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station, weekdays from 09:00 to 12:00 (SA Time). Clement Manyathela starts his show each weekday on 702 at 9 am taking your calls and voice notes on his Open Line. In the second hour of his show, he unpacks, explains, and makes sense of the news of the day. Clement has several features in his third hour from 11 am that provide you with information to help and guide you through your daily life. As your morning friend, he tackles the serious as well as the light-hearted, on your behalf. Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Clement Manyathela Show. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to The Clement Manyathela Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/XijPLtJ or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/p0gWuPE Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Part Two of the Sasquatch Unleashed picks the historical trail right back up, and the encounters only get stranger. I take you to a cabin near Mount St. Helens in nineteen twenty-four, where five miners spent a night under a hail of stones from what they swore were apemen, the story that gave Ape Canyon its name.I walk through Albert Ostman's claim that a family of these creatures carried him off in the British Columbia backcountry and held him for six days. I read you William Roe's sworn affidavit, word for word, about the day he watched a creature strip leaves from a branch with its teeth and couldn't bring himself to pull the trigger.And I share the Ruby Creek incident, where a family came home to a fifty-five-gallon barrel of salted fish torn open and flung across the yard, told through Ivan Sanderson's own account of sitting down with them years later. From there I turn the lens away from the deep woods and onto our living rooms. I trace how Bigfoot went from a figure of dread to a household name, from Leonard Nimoy and In Search Of, to the robot Bigfoot on The Six Million Dollar Man, to the gentle giant of Harry and the Hendersons, and on to Finding Bigfoot and a parade of beer commercials and mattress ads. Then I ask a harder question that I've wrestled with for years. Has all that pop-culture saturation actually driven the number of reported sightings up?I get honest about the power of suggestion, the way memory bends, and how the very shows that spread the word can also shape what people think they saw.And then we get into the ugly side of this whole thing. The hoaxes. I lay out the Ray Wallace wooden-stomper story and why it doesn't hold up as the explanation for everything, and the spectacular collapse of the Rick Dyer Georgia hoax, the freezer, the rubber suit, and the whole circus around it. I dig into why people fake this stuff in the first place, from attention and pranks to money, belonging, the thrill of the con, and the darker pull of narcissism.Because if we're ever going to find the truth out there, we have to be willing to name the fakes for what they areEmail BrianJoin Our FREE NewsletterGet Brian's Books Leave Us A VoicemailVisit Our WebsiteBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/sasquatch-odyssey--4839697/support.Have you had a Bigfoot encounter, Sasquatch sighting, Dogman experience, or other cryptid or paranormal encounter? We'd love to hear your story. Email brian@paranormalworldproductions.com to be featured on a future episode of Sasquatch Odyssey.Sasquatch Odyssey is a leading Bigfoot and cryptid podcast exploring real encounters, field research, and scientific analysis of the Sasquatch phenomenon.Follow the show and turn on automatic downloads so you never miss an episode.

Coercive Control While Separated Under One Roof: How to Survive It | The Divorce Course Podcast (Part 2)

Did you know you can take action against tax preparer fraud? Yup! Fill out Form 14157-A! Here is a video on how to do just that!If you owe the IRS at least $10,000 in back taxes or have multiple years of unfiled returns you need filed, book a free consultation here: https://choicetaxrelief.com/free-tax-...Mentioned Video Link:-How to Complete Form 14157 Return Preparer Complaint and Where to Send It -    • How to Complete Form 14157 Return Preparer...  #TaxPreparerFraud #Form14157A #14157A

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.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

Episode 141: Updates in Parent Versus Non-Parent Custody LitigationWhen sweeping changes to Texas family law took effect on September 1, 2025, family law practitioners across the state began encountering real-world consequences that no statute could fully anticipate. In this solo episode, Holly Draper shares what Texas family lawyers are actually seeing in courtrooms — and what those on-the-ground experiences reveal about the gaps, ambiguities, and unintended consequences embedded in the new parent versus non-parent custody framework.From sua sponte dismissals before respondents are even served, to courts treating the new affidavit requirement as a threshold jurisdictional gate, to grandparents facing near-impossible burdens in modification proceedings — Holly breaks down what practitioners are seeing and offers her own clear-eyed analysis of where the legislation got it right, where it fell short, and what advocates should do in the meantime.Whether you represent parents or non-parents, this episode is packed with urgent, practical guidance you cannot afford to miss. Holly also issues a call to action: if you're seeing these issues play out in court, she wants to hear from you — because the feedback loop between practitioners and lawmakers may be what ultimately fixes this legislation.In this episode you'll discover:•       Why courts are dismissing non-parent suits sua sponte — and why the new affidavit requirement under §102.0031 is being treated as a jurisdictional threshold that can be triggered without any motion, hearing, or respondent appearance•       What the affidavit actually has to say to survive — including the Fort Worth Court of Appeals' ruling in In re SH, which found a conclusory affidavit insufficient and applied the requirement retroactively to all pending cases•       Holly's strong stance on agreed orders — why she firmly believes parents and non-parents can still enter agreed custody arrangements without requiring an affidavit or statutory findings of significant impairment in the order, and why requiring them would harm families•       The modification trap facing long-term non-parent caregivers — how the new statutory framework flips the burden in modification cases, potentially requiring a grandparent who has raised a child for a decade to prove a now-fit parent is unfit just to maintain custody•       The unresolved res judicata problem — what happens to evidence of a parent's prior conduct when the last order was agreed, and why this gap in the legislation could produce deeply unjust outcomes for children•       Practical takeaways for both sides of the docket — from filing affidavits immediately and challenging insufficiency specifically, to pulling existing non-parent orders, preserving appellate issues, and knowing when to call Holly about a potential mandamus or appeal

**Sponsored by EasyDNS* Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: **notonrecord** In Episode 215 of *Not On Record*, Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison examine a troubling trial issue: what happens when a complainant appears to tailor their testimony after reading the defence affidavit in a pre-trial application? The discussion focuses on Section 276 and 278 applications, reverse disclosure concerns, R v JJ, credibility, reliability, and whether cross-examination is enough to protect trial fairness when key details appear for the first time in examination-in-chief. This episode explores the growing tension between complainant participation rights and an accused person's right to make full answer and defence.

If you have an approved I-140 and are pursuing your employment-based green card (EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3) through consular processing at a U.S. embassy, there are critical steps and pitfalls you need to know before moving forward. Immigration Attorney John Khosravi of JQK Law breaks down the National Visa Center process, why the Affidavit of Support is NOT required for most employment-based cases, how to properly complete the DS-260, why mailing documents is still required as of April 2026, how to protect aging-out children under CSPA, and what to expect after your embassy interview including administrative processing, the DS-5535, and current travel ban risks. Prepare smarter and avoid costly delays. 

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.

This weekend's 1 in 31: Autism Today guest is Chip Vincie. Chip's brother has been in the care of Anderson Center for Autism's for over 40 years. Chip joins us to discuss his journey to become his brother's legal guardian in 1999. Chip is an advocate for autonomy, but still helps to make decisions  regarding and advocates for his brother when needed! Tune in to learn more, or see Chip's list of resources/helpful documents below. Chip's Guardianship Resources: https://www.nycourts.gov/CourtHelp/Guardianship/17A.shtml - this is a not-bad guide to how the process works and what you need to get together. Includes instructions on the forms and links to downloadable PDFs. Todd Fischlin is great and was my attorney. https://fishlinlaw.com/attorney-profile/ The New York Bar Association Referral Service will give you up to 3 referrals, based on what area of the law you need help with. You can consult with each of them for free for up to 15 minutes to figure out who's the right one for you. There's a suggested donation (the referral service is a nonprofit) but it's low. https://nysba.org/new-york-state-bar-association-lawyer-referral-service/ FORMS: * 17A Guardianship petition - this is the form where you ask to petition to be guardian (or move from standby to main guardian), including the contact info for you, your loved one, and the contact info for anyone who *could* have a competing claim * Combined Oath/Designation - this is a one page form where you swear you'll be a responsible guardian, and also which county surrogates court can accept processes if you're not around * Affidavit of Proposed Guardian - this is where you provide information about yourself - your address, education (where you went to school and what years), why you would be a good guardian Standby Guardianship Forms: The standby guardian will also have to submit these forms: * Combined Oath/Designation * Affidavit of Proposed Guardian  * Affidavit of Examining Psychiatrist or Physician - this is what the doctor will have to fill out with the appropriate code for the disability * Waiver of Process Consent - anyone who *could* also become a guardian should fill this out, basically saying "I'm not going to pursue this claim".  Ideally, you'd get the person to fill this out ahead of time. In my case, my ex-wife was originally the standby guardian, but we'd divorced and I'd remarried by the time my mother had married. I asked my ex if she would fill out this waiver ahead of time, and she agreed and filled it out, had it notarized, and got it back to me. * Notice of Petition - a one-or-two page form informing the court that you're making this petition for guardianship, and listing the standby guardian(s) (you can have several), and who else should get a notice of petition (if someone could contest your claim) * Affidavit of Mailing of Petition - this basically states that you in fact mailed all the people who should get a notice (like someone who has a potentially competing guardianship claim) - I didn't have to fill this out. * Form 3909 - this is where you have to list all the addresses that you and the standby guardians have lived at for the last 28 years, as well as any aliases you've used, like your maiden name. In my case, I changed my last name to my stepfather's. * To be on the safe side, I included my change of name documentation (I think nowadays they just issue a new birth certificate) * If you're moving from standby to main guardian, you will want to include:     -- A copy of the original "Notice of Guardianship" that the state sent the guardian     -- the death certificate of the guardian.      -- Just as an aside, when someone dies, whoever is stuck with the arrangements should request at least 10 death certificates. The funeral home will give you a certain amount as part of their costs, but will charge you above that. It's not expensive and every bank, insurance company, and other institution will want an original FILING OUT THE FORMS: The good news is that these forms are now available as PDFS that can be filled out on your computer, and some counties have electronic filing. NOTE that these forms change sometimes and so does the number of forms required, so please hit up the website above for the latest info. I would recommend filling out the forms yourself and then letting the lawyer look at them before filing. Filling them out yourself will save you legal fees but getting them to check your work will ensure you're not missing anything.

Seth and Sean continue to discuss last night's exciting Astros win, then dive into the most interesting points from the police affidavit on Tiger Woods's most recent incident.

Seth and Sean talk about the Rockets' 111-94 revenge win over the Knicks, the Astros 9-2 win over the Red Sox, sift through the police affidavit from Tiger Woods' recent incident, and go through the day's Headlines.

In the 946th episode of the PokerNews Podcast, Chad Holloway, Mike Holtz, and Ben Ludlow shoot a show devoted to examining the recently-released affidavit against The Lodge in Texas, which was raided by authorities last Tuesday. What were the details of the warrant? Find out here. Plus, Doug Polk recently issued a new statement and is committed to making sure players are taken care of. But what do the details of the affidavit mean for the future of The Lodge and Texas poker in general? Well, unfortunately, it doesn't look good. Find out why in the latest episode. A new PokerNews Podcast drops every Thursday at 8a PT / 11a ET / 4p UK time. Remember to subscribe to our YouTube channel so you do not miss an episode! Time Stamps *Time    Topic* 00:00 Welcome to the show00:37 Initial reactions to the warrant04:40 Statement from Doug Polk06:20 What does the affidavit say?12:00 What should players do?13:50 What state laws were violated?14:40 Who are the owners?16:30 Is the loophole being closed?17:00 What about the $1.35M?19:25 What's likely to happen next?21:45 Will Doug Polk fight?23:50 Is this the end of poker rooms in Texas?27:13 Final thoughts

OA1244 - More election news updates. What the heck happened in Dallas? How is hunting for fraud in Georgia still a thing? Why is the DOJ trying to get non-public voter data from the states? There's smoke. There's fire. But it might not be coming from the places everyone is looking. Jenessa helps us focus our concerns in the right direction, and maybe calms our nerves just a bit. Georgia court documents Affidavit: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.355087/gov.uscourts.gand.355087.22.2_3.pdf Search warrant: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.355087/gov.uscourts.gand.355087.1.5_1.pdf Order to unseal documents: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.355087/gov.uscourts.gand.355087.9.0.pdf Cline, S., Swenson, A., & Riccardi, N. (Mar. 3, 2026). Change in primary voting rules leads to confusion in 2 Texas counties as voters are turned away. ABC 13. Democracy Docket (Mar. 3, 2026). Texas Dallas County polling hours extension request. Rose, S. (Feb. 3, 2026). Thousands of ballots seized in GA. Here's how it will affect voter info, how you can protect yours. Ledger-Enquirer. Fowler. S. (Feb. 11, 2026). The FBI seizure of Georgia 2020 election ballots relies on debunked claims. NPR. Duster, C. (Oct. 5, 2024). Can someone find out who you voted for? No. Here is what you should know. NPR. Sherman, A. (Feb. 1, 2022). A claim about serial numbers on ballots is misguided. Politifact. Dawsey, J., Volz, D., & Gurman, S. (Jan. 29, 2026). Spy chief Tulsi Gabbard is hunting for 2020 election fraud. Wall Street Journal. Kaplan. A. (Jan. 16, 2026). LindellTV host Emerald Robinson claims Patrick Byrne “got called in to the white house”. Media Matters for America. Clark. D.B. (Feb. 9, 2026). The conservative researcher being linked to the FBI's seizure of election records in Georgia. ProPublica. ACLU New Jersey (Mar. 4, 2026). Civil rights groups, New Jersey voters file motion to protect voters' privacy. Biryukov, N. (Feb. 27, 2026). Trump administration sues New Jersey for voters' private information. New Jersey Monitor. Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!  

Today we have a special episode of Mea Culpa with our old friend Frank Figliuzzi. Frank is a former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, where he served for 25 years as a special agent and directed all espionage investigations across the entire government. Frank is a regular contributor for NBC News and MSNBC, and also the author of the national bestseller “The FBI Way: Inside the Bureau's Code of Excellence.” And check out his most recent OP-Ed on the MSNBC opinion page, entitled “There's a Reason Why Hoarding Classified Documents is a Crime." Frank breaks down for us the redacted version of the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit and what it possibly means for the Mandarin Mussolini.

Mea Cupla is honored to welcome back our friend, Norm Eisen. There's pretty much nothing going on in politics today that he doesn't have an opinion about. His latest book, "Overcoming Trumpery” is a great read, especially as we gear up for the midterms and watch Republican candidates try to mimic Trumpian tactics to get elected. Eisen is a CNN Legal Analyst.  And the founder and executive chair of “States United Democracy Center”, a nonpartisan organization advancing free, fair, and secure elections. Eisen served as special counsel to President Barack Obama on ethics and government reform. In that role, he was dubbed “Mr. No” and the “Ethics Czar” because he's well known for his tough anti-corruption approach to governance. Eisen is also active with the Brookings Institute and other groups working to expose the myriad of ways Trump and his cronies broke the law and attempted to overturn the 2020 election. From exposing Trump's potential crimes in Georgia — to suing the Proud Boys an...

Does The FBI Fulton Raid Affidavit Reveal Election Crimes? w/Garland Favorito Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(00:00:00) Welcome (00:00:36) Kouri Richins (00:08:50) Michael McKee Kouri Richins Defense Filings - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vddTk82bnA Michael McKee booking video - https://youtu.be/l_E_H86QM3A?si=FaKfvcbaZLO_y10Z Michael McKee arraignment - https://youtu.be/_A5H7_V7L5o?si=qVBhUKQYImzjDlveThe episode opens with brief housekeeping notes before shifting into new developments in the Kouri Richins case. Jury selection is approaching, and defense attorneys have renewed their push to move the trial out of Summit County after survey data showed that more than 85% of respondents recognized the case, with about 60% following it closely.The state has filed a response, arguing it satisfied its Giglio disclosure obligations and accusing the defense of mischaracterizing witness-communication issues and creating unnecessary publicity shortly before trial.Michael McKee, is charged with multiple counts of aggravated murder and burglary in the killings of Spencer and Monique Tepe. We read through the probable-cause affidavit, including welfare-check discoveries, prior abuse allegations, surveillance footage linking a distinctive vehicle to the scene, and phone-location data showing long gaps in activity during the time of the homicidesAdditional details include alleged stalking weeks earlier, license-plate swaps, and the seizure of an SUV at McKee's workplace.Links: Kouri Richins Defense FilingMichael McKee booking videoMichael McKee arraignmentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.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)