Podcasts about Attorney

Heads were turning over the weekend after Chad Mizelle, a former Justice Department official, put out a recruitment call for Trump-loyal Assistant U.S. Attorneys to hit him up on X. Mary and Andrew begin by highlighting the atypical nature of this outreach, while noting how slim the pool of applicants must be for what have long-been highly coveted and competitive positions. This piled on another DOJ fumble after a huge tranche ofEpstein files was released that unintentionally exposed the personal information of numerous victims. The co-hosts then turn to Minnesota, where a decision came in allowing Operation Metro Surge to continue, while another judge admonished DHS for ignoring over 90court orders. Mary and Andrew also call out the arrests of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort during an anti-ICE protest in the state. Plus: a beat on a controversial federal search warrant targeting 2020 ballots in Fulton County, with more to come on that issue.Further reading:Here is the Epstein victims' letter: Emergency Request for Immediate Judicial Intervention—Epstein Transparency ActHere is the New York Times guest essay that Andrew mentioned: We Were Top Homeland Security Lawyers. You Can't Wish Away the Fourth Amendment. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Federal prosecutors have reportedly issued subpoenas to multiple Philadelphia agencies in the Ellen Greenberg case—and they're not looking at whether Ellen was murdered. They're looking at whether the officials who handled her case broke federal law.Ellen Greenberg died in 2011 with twenty stab wounds, including ten to the back of her neck. The medical examiner ruled it homicide. Police pushed back. The ruling changed to suicide. For fifteen years, her parents have fought every agency in Pennsylvania to get answers. Every agency told them the same thing: their daughter killed herself by stabbing herself in the back of the neck ten times.Now the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is asking questions. Sources say the investigation centers on the Philadelphia Police Department, the Medical Examiner's Office, and the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office—which was run by current Governor Josh Shapiro when the case sat there for four years.The timeline is damning. The crime scene was cleaned before detectives processed it. James Schwartzman, the fiancé's uncle and a prominent judicial official, removed electronic devices before police secured a warrant. Those devices later became key evidence—despite the original report saying no suicidal content was found. Shapiro's office cited those searches as proof of suicide. Then discovered an "appearance of conflict" with the Goldberg and Schwartzman families. Four years after taking the case.If federal investigators find corruption, the statutes carry serious time. Deprivation of rights. Evidence tampering. Obstruction. Up to life in prison if the conduct contributed to a death.Someone outside Philadelphia is finally asking the questions this case has demanded for fifteen years.#EllenGreenberg #FederalProbe #JoshShapiro #PhiladelphiaCorruption #TrueCrimeToday #JamesSchwartzman #SamuelGoldberg #Subpoenas #CoverUp #JusticeForEllenJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

This is the episode we've been waiting fifteen years to make. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has reportedly issued subpoenas to the Philadelphia Police Department, the Medical Examiner's Office, and other agencies—including the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office that Josh Shapiro ran when the case sat on his desk for four years.Sources tell the Philadelphia Inquirer this isn't about how Ellen Greenberg died. It's about whether the people who handled her case committed federal crimes.Ellen was found with twenty stab wounds, ten to the back of her neck, a knife lodged four inches into her chest. The medical examiner ruled it homicide. Then police objected. Then the ruling changed to suicide. Then the crime scene was cleaned—with police permission—before detectives could process it. Then James Schwartzman, Samuel Goldberg's uncle and Chairman of the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, removed laptops and phones from the apartment. Those devices later became the basis for the official suicide narrative—even though the original report said no suicidal searches were found.Now federal prosecutors want to know what happened. The statutes they're working with carry penalties up to life in prison. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Evidence tampering. Obstruction. Conspiracy.Governor Shapiro has presidential ambitions. His former spokesperson now works for Philadelphia's mayor. Schwartzman sits on the bench as a Pennsylvania judge. None of them have been charged—but all of them may have to answer uncomfortable questions to people who can compel the truth.The Greenbergs waited fifteen years for someone outside Philadelphia to take this seriously. Someone finally is.#EllenGreenberg #FederalInvestigation #JoshShapiro #JamesSchwartzman #PhiladelphiaCorruption #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #CoverUp #ObstructionOfJustice #JusticeForEllenJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

EARLY AND AD FREE ACCESS: for as little as $1.69 a week!Apple + HEREPatreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Federal prosecutors in New York confirmed that an active grand jury investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell and other potential Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirators is still underway, despite Maxwell's 2021 conviction. In court filings, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York revealed that the probe remains sealed, describing it as part of a broader effort to hold accountable anyone who participated in or enabled Epstein's trafficking network. The disclosure was made during legal arguments over unsealing additional materials from Maxwell's criminal case, with prosecutors warning that premature disclosure could interfere with “ongoing law-enforcement activity.”The revelation reignited public scrutiny over why, years after Epstein's death, no additional high-profile figures have been charged. It also underscored the enduring sensitivity of the case, as prosecutors continue to pursue evidence tied to Epstein's finances, logistics network, and associates. Legal experts noted that such a statement from federal authorities is rare, suggesting that investigators may still be gathering testimony or preparing potential indictments against individuals whose names surfaced during Maxwell's trial and related lawsuits.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Dr. Laura Pettler, renowned forensic criminologist, author, and inventor recognized for her work in homicide investigation, crime scene staging, and reconstructionTopic: Alleged abduction of Savannah Guthrie's mother Dr. Tom Jones, PhD planetary scientist, pilot, veteran NASA astronaut who flew four space shuttle missions, and the author of "Space Shuttle Stories"Topic: "The race to the moon is back — NASA needs to get serious to beat the Chinese" (Fox News op ed) Congressman Mike Haridopolos, Republican representing Florida's 8th Congressional DistrictTopic: End of the Partial Government Shutdown Stephen Moore, "Joe Piscopo Show" Resident Scholar of Economics, Chairman of FreedomWorks Task Force on Economic Revival, former Trump economic adviser and the author of "The Trump Economic Miracle: And the Plan to Unleash Prosperity Again"Topic: "Trump’s Fed pick Kevin Warsh means strong dollar, fewer bureaucrats, lower inflation" (Washington Times op ed) Joseph diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District of ColumbiaTopic: Alleged Charlie Kirk killer back in court; Other legal news of the day Matthew "Whiz" Buckley, decorated former U.S. Navy F/A-18 Hornet pilot, TOP GUN graduate, and now the founder of the No Fallen Heroes FoundationTopic: U.S. military shoots down Iranian drone approaching USS Abraham Lincoln; Peace negotiations with IranSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former US Attorney Joyce Vance joins Dr Resa Lewiss to discuss her New York Times bestseller Giving Up is Unforgivable A Manual for Keeping a Democracy and why civic health matters now more than ever. As the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017, nominated by President Barack Obama and unanimously confirmed by the Senate, Joyce brought together communities to solve problems.  In 2017, she received the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health's Lou Wooster Public Health Hero Award for her leadership in creating a community-engaged initiative that brought together law enforcement, the medical and business communities, and educators to address the heroin and opioid epidemic in northern Alabama. Today, she's a professor at the University of Alabama  and a legal analyst for MSNow  She's also a podcaster, co-hosting #SistersInLaw the new Sisters Sidebar, and the CAFE Insider podcast with Preet Bharara. Three MicroSkills Joyce offers to listeners: 1. register to vote, 2. stay registered by checking your status 60 days before elections, and 3. make a voting plan with the goal of bringing others with you. Book Giving Up is Unforgivable Podcast Sisters in LawPodcast CAFE Insider Podcast Newsletter Civil Discourse If you enjoy the show, please leave ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ on Apple, subscribe

Hugh Hallman, Attorney, Educator, and former Mayor of Tempe, joins Seth in studio for the full hour to talk about the Minneapolis riots over ICE, and the Left’s destructive strategy over the illegal immigration crisis. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Heads were turning over the weekend after Chad Mizelle, a former Justice Department official, put out a recruitment call for Trump-loyal Assistant U.S. Attorneys to hit him up on X. Mary and Andrew begin by highlighting the atypical nature of this outreach, while noting how slim the pool of applicants must be for what have long-been highly coveted and competitive positions. This piled on another DOJ fumble after a huge tranche of Epstein files was released that unintentionally exposed the personal information of numerous victims. The co-hosts then turn to Minnesota, where a decision came in allowing Operation Metro Surge to continue, while another judge admonished DHS for ignoring over 90 court orders. Mary and Andrew also call out the arrests of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort during an anti-ICE protest in the state. Plus: a beat on a controversial federal search warrant targeting 2020 ballots in Fulton County, with more to come on that issue.Further reading:Here is the Epstein victims' letter: Emergency Request for Immediate Judicial Intervention—Epstein Transparency Act Here is the New York Times guest essay that Andrew mentioned: We Were Top Homeland Security Lawyers. You Can't Wish Away the Fourth Amendment. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Join Jim and Greg for the Tuesday 3 Martini Lunch as they break down Washington, D.C.'s sharply declining crime numbers, troubling Trump administration rhetoric on guns, and House Democrats refusing to expel a colleague facing serious corruption charges.First, they welcome new data showing January crime rates in the nation's capital are significantly lower than a year ago across most major categories. Jim and Greg dig into how much credit belongs to the temporary federalization of the D.C. police force and deployment of the National Guard, and how much may be due to other factors.Next, they push back on comments from U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, who warned that anyone bringing a gun into D.C. is going to jail. While Pirro later clarified that firearms must be registered with the city. Jim and Greg still find that problematic and the wrong focus of efforts to curb crime.Finally, they react as House Democrats refuse to expel Florida Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, who is charged with stealing federal disaster relief funds to finance her campaign. Even after a blistering House Ethics Committee report, Democrats insist they won't act unless she's convicted. Is that the right standard? Please visit our great sponsors:Skip the hassle and book a top-rated doctor in seconds with Zocdoc. Visit https://www.Zocdoc.com/3ML today!Visit https://CoastPay.com/3ML to get free gas for a whole day. Terms apply.Unlock your healthiest skin by targeting visible aging signs at https://Oneskin.co/3ML with code 3ML for 15% off.New episodes every weekday. 

U.S. Attorney for the District Of Massachusetts Leah Foley came out and announced a bust in a snap fraud scandal, Gov. Healey made a claim that her admin. reported it. Leah Foley joined the show and shot that down.  Visit the Howie Carr Radio Network website to access columns, podcasts, and other exclusive content.

Subpoenas are going out. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is reportedly investigating whether people who handled Ellen Greenberg's case committed crimes — not whether she was murdered, but whether the investigation itself was corrupted. Robin Dreeke, former FBI special agent and behavioral analysis expert, explains the federal playbook: what simultaneous subpoenas to multiple agencies signal, how investigators identify who's likely to flip first, and what behavioral patterns emerge when institutions are hiding something. The crime scene was cleaned before detectives could execute a warrant. A politically connected family member removed electronic devices. The medical examiner changed his ruling from homicide to suicide after police pressure — then recanted that ruling under oath fourteen years later. Josh Shapiro's Attorney General office held the case for four years before discovering an "appearance of conflict" with connected families. Robin breaks down what that language actually means, why institutional silence from every agency is telling, and what the Greenberg family's attorney calling this "a dream come true" reveals about where the investigation is headed.#EllenGreenberg #FederalInvestigation #RobinDreeke #FBI #Philadelphia #SamGoldberg #TrueCrime #CoverUp #JusticeForEllen #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking network and their lawyers have blasted the U.S. Department of Justice over its release of around 3 million documents related to the case, calling the handling shoddy and harmful. Attorneys like Sigrid McCawley and Jennifer Freeman described “ham-fisted redactions” that repeatedly revealed victims' identities, re-traumatized survivors, and obscured the roles of alleged abusers and enablers. They argue that instead of transparency, the release exposed survivors while shielding powerful individuals mentioned in the files, contravening both the spirit of the Epstein Files Transparency Act and the congressional deadline to publish the records. Lawyers and survivor groups insisted that the document dump was more performative than accountable, and some bipartisan lawmakers demanded access to unredacted files to properly assess the Justice Department's compliance.The survivors' representatives also accused the government of one of the largest law enforcement failures in U.S. history, saying the release failed to protect those harmed while leaving alleged facilitators unnamed and unprosecuted. They pointed out that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's strategy of providing girls to elite figures for leverage over them was confirmed in the documents, reinforcing long-standing survivor claims. Bipartisan pressure is building in Congress to review unredacted files and ensure oversight, while DOJ officials have pledged to correct redaction mistakes and defend their process, insisting victims' identifying information was intended to be withheld.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Handling of Epstein files is ‘outrageous', say attorneys of his sex trafficking survivors | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

The latest release of more than 3 million Justice Department documents related to Jeffrey Epstein suggests that his sex-trafficking operation may have been broader than previously acknowledged, potentially involving third parties despite earlier official claims that there wasn't enough evidence to investigate others. Among the newly disclosed materials are victim testimonies and FBI memos indicating that Epstein may have directed girls and young women to other powerful men, including allegations linked to figures such as movie producer Harvey Weinstein and financier Leon Black, although neither has been charged in connection with Epstein's crimes. The files also contain internal government materials and references to explicit content, prompting renewed scrutiny of how law enforcement handled information about other individuals' involvement and raising questions about prior assertions that no evidence existed to pursue such inquiries.Attorneys for Epstein's survivors have criticized authorities for failing to fully investigate or disclose the involvement of third parties and for protecting powerful individuals while exposing victim details. The documents reinforce long-standing suspicions that Epstein and his close associate Ghislaine Maxwell used sex trafficking not only to exploit minors but also to foster influence over prominent figures. The release is part of an ongoing disclosure process under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but it has already reignited debate over accountability, transparency, and whether all relevant records — including potential evidence about other participants — have been adequately disclosed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New Epstein files reveal he may have trafficked girls to others despite official denials | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

Kevin A. Gregg, Esq. returns for a Federal Court Update, breaking down recent immigration decisions from the federal courts. This episode cuts through the noise to highlight litigation trends and practical takeaways immigration lawyers can apply right now. Spotify | iTunes | YouTube Music | YouTube 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 feds are involved. Sources say the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued subpoenas to police, medical examiners, and the state attorney general's office in connection with Ellen Greenberg's death — and they're not investigating the murder. They're investigating the cover-up. Robin Dreeke, former FBI special agent and head of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, breaks down how federal corruption cases get built, who flips first in institutional investigations, and what the current silence from every official agency tells us. The crime scene was cleaned before detectives could return. Devices were removed by a politically connected family member. The medical examiner flip-flopped on his ruling and has now recanted it entirely. The Attorney General's office held the case for four years before suddenly discovering a "conflict of interest." Robin explains what all of this behavior signals to a federal investigator — and what happens next when the feds start pulling threads that powerful people don't want pulled.#EllenGreenberg #FederalInvestigation #RobinDreeke #FBI #Philadelphia #TrueCrime #CoverUp #JusticeForEllen #HiddenKillersLive #SamGoldbergJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode, B.R. is joined by Miss Buckles, a victim advocate and emergency trauma counseling expert, as well as being a former co-host with B.R on The eMilitia Podcast. The two discuss mental health, what trauma really is in a time when the word is overused more than ever, psyops, workplace manipulation, the chronic stress industrial complex perpetuated by mainstream media and Big Pharma, the male suicide epidemic, and rising above the stress of modern living. All of that and much more!Check out our guest here:https://www.instagram.com/miss_bucklesRAADS Autism Test:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://embrace-autism.com/raads-r/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out PP.TF here:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://pptaskforce.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.instagram.com/pptaskforce.est23/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our Patreon here to support what we do and get insider perks! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠                             ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/CBRNArt⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our sponsors:  Cloud Defensive / Chad Defensive Rifle / EDC Lights:For 10% off site wide, that stacks with any Cloud Defensive sales, use Code: ARTANDWAR10⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://clouddefensive.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Attorneys for Freedom - Attorneys on Retainer Program, sign up via this link to support the show:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://attorneysonretainer.us/artandwar⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠             ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠         ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Use code: ARTANDWAR10 for $10 off an SMU Belt at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AWSin.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our link tree for the rest of our stuff:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://link.space/@CBRNart⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow the lads on IG:     ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nathan / Main Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/cbrnart/?hl=en⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠B.R: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/br.the.anarch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Lucas: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/heartl1ne/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Phil: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/philmxengland/⁠⁠⁠⁠

WMAL GUEST: JOE DIGENOVA (Legal Analyst and Former U.S. Attorney) on the escalating battle against federal immigration agents in Minnesota and a $2 million malpractice win for a detransitioner against New York doctors. READ: Detransitioner Wins $2 Million Against New York Docs Who Pushed Double Mastectomy Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Monday, February 2, 2026 / 7 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John Solomon, award-winning investigative journalist, founder of "Just The News," and the host of “Just the News, No Noise” on the Real America’s Voice networkTopic: Partial Government shutdown; News of the day Benny Boscio Jr., President of the New York City Correction Officers' Benevolent AssociationTopic: Mamdani names ex-convict as the new corrections commissioner Col. Kurt Schlichter, Attorney, Retired Army Infantry Colonel with a Masters in Strategic Studies from the United States Army War College, Senior Columnist at Town Hall, and the author of the new book "Panama Red" Topic: Legalities of Don Lemon's arrest, Mike Connors, Attorney at Law at Connors & Sullivan and host of "Ask the Lawyer," airing Saturdays at 6 p.m. and Sundays at 11 a.m. on AM 970 The AnswerTopic: Estate Planning Gone Wrong Gianno Caldwell, Fox News Political Analyst, founder of the Caldwell Institute for Public Safety and the host of the "Outloud with Gianno Caldwell" podcastTopic: Latest in Minnesota Dr. Nicole Saphier, board-certified radiologist, medical contributor for Fox News, and author of “Love, Mom: Inspiring Stories Celebrating Motherhood”Topic: President Trump plan to combat drug addiction Col. Jack Jacobs, a retired colonel in the United States Army and a Medal of Honor recipient for his actions during the Vietnam WarTopic: Trump says Iran is "seriously talking" withSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Entertainment attorney and professor at Loyola University in New Orleans Tim Kapel just won a very important landmark case which allows songwriters to reclaim their rights worldwide centering around "termination rights." About Tim Kapel Tim Kappel is a founding partner of the law firm Wells & Kappel, LLP. Mr. Kappel represents a diverse group of creators, professionals, businesses, and organizations in the music industry. Mr. Kappel's practice encompasses both transactional matters and complex civil dispute resolution, providing him with a unique perspective and ability to advise clients in multiple aspects of their careers. Mr. Kappel is an assistant professor at Loyola University New Orleans. He teaches courses on law, revenue streams, and public policy in the music industry. Mr. Kappel is also heavily involved in industry organizations and policy-making. He is the current President of the Board of Governors for the Memphis Chapter of the Recording Academy and serves on the boards of several other nonprofit organizations, including Louisiana Music Partners, Wolf Moon Entertainment, and the Partnership for Creative Louisiana. Loyola University www.loyno.edu Law Practice www.wellskappel.com bout Music Matters with Darrell Craig Harris The Music Matters Podcast is hosted by Darrell Craig Harris, a globally published music journalist, professional musician, and Getty Images photographer. Music Matters is now available on Spotify, iTunes, Podbean, and more. Each week, Darrell interviews renowned artists, musicians, music journalists, and insiders from the music industry. Visit us at: www.MusicMattersPodcast.comFollow us on Twitter: www.Twitter.com/musicmattersdh For inquiries, contact: musicmatterspodcastshow@gmail.com Support our mission via PayPal: www.paypal.me/payDarrell  voice over intro by Nigel J. Farmer          

Episode 275-Pretti’s Law  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode 275 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment, Minnesota protest, Firearm Policy Coalition, natural rights, government officials, political opportunity, federal law, carry rights, red flag laws, gun rights, law enforcement, public carry, constitutional rights, gun policy, political reaction. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Speaker 1, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, we’ve been following the events in Minnesota, and I’m sure you have as well. And, you know, this is troubling. It’s created quite an interesting political situation, and it’s kind of strange to see sides shifting. Yet, it appears that this may, in fact, be a political opportunity to help the Second Amendment get strengthened. Let me tell you where I’m going with this. Take a look here at the Firearm Policy Coalition’s recent statement. (https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-statement-rights-are-not-privileges) I don’t know if you’re familiar with the FPC, but they do a lot of great work in litigating through the court system, Second Amendment challenges. As a national group, they do good work, and they put out a statement that I thought was very interesting. It’ll lay the groundwork as we get a little bit more into depth about where I see some potential here that should be taken, frankly, advantage of in this interesting moment in time. Evan Nappen 01:50 So, what the FPC wrote in their statement is this. “Recent events in Minnesota underscore a recurring and deeply troubling theme: Government officials and commentators treating natural rights as privileges.” Now that’s an important statement right there about treating rights as privileges. As they mentioned in the article, the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth, is merely codification of pre-existing rights. They don’t create the rights. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. The Constitution simply is a guarantee of those rights and puts limits on Government, not the people. That’s why, if someone ever asked you, what rights are you given by the Constitution? The answer is none! Because those rights pre-exist the Constitution. The Constitution is there as a guarantor, guaranteeing those rights against the Government. And it puts limits on the Government to ensure that our rights stay respected. It doesn’t grant us rights. Only God granted us our rights, or natural law has granted those rights. Fundamental, fundamental natural laws. That’s what we’re talking about when it comes to actual rights. Page – 2 – of 9 Evan Nappen 03:18 So, this gets distorted politically by politicians who apparently seem to forget that. And here we end up in Minnesota, where this individual, (Alex) Pretti, came to this protest with a gun. The FPC points out that the mere presence of a firearm does not erase a person’s rights. It doesn’t turn lawful conduct into wrongdoing. It does not make someone fair game to be arrested or killed for the Government’s convenience. The Government does not get to flip the legal or moral burden. The fact that one is armed is not a license for the Government to shoot you! Nor is a right to bear arms a license for any person to use unjust force. And that is very strong and very true. This is where this situation now where Pretti ended up getting shot and killed by ICE for essentially bringing his gun to the protest. There’s a lot of dispute now over whether he used it, drew it, or whether he’s being disarmed, whether there was, I mean, there. All that’s out there. Evan Nappen 04:43 But my point isn’t whether Pretti, as a matter of fact, I don’t even support Pretti’s political view here. I’m all for ICE. I’m not. I don’t want to see our country with illegal immigrants but that’s my view. That’s my opinion. Okay, that’s fine. And Pretti had his opinion. He has a First Amendment right, and he has a Second Amendment right. The problem is reaction to the exercise of his Second Amendment right. When you take a look at what happened here, it’s somewhat disturbing that those folks that are supposed to be understanding what the Second Amendment means take an anti-Second Amendment group’s view. So, Politico had an article. It’s “Gun Rights groups blast Trump over Minnesota response”. (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/27/gun-rights-groups-blast-trump-over-minnesota-response-00748217) And in fact, they did. Evan Nappen 05:47 Let me show you what has happened, where the tables and the issue has turned here. It’s very interesting, because I think it presents an opportunity that we’ll get to in a moment. So, for example, this is right from the Politico article. “FBI Director Kash Patel said Sunday on Fox News. ‘You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple. You don’t have a right to break the law.’ DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said Saturday that she didn’t ‘know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.’ White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that ‘any gun owner knows’ that carrying a gun raises ‘the assumption of risk and the risk of force being used against you,’ during interactions with law enforcement.” I mean, come on. What the hell is with these people there? They are feeding into the Second Amendment oppressionists with this, with this stuff. Evan Nappen 07:05 So, gun rights groups pushed back, and a number of them were particularly enraged by Bill Essayli. He’s the acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, who posted, “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.” What the “f” is he saying? Are you kidding me? If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there’s a high likelihood that they’ll be “legally justified in shooting you”. The NRA, okay? The NRA said that Essayli’s remarks were “dangerous and wrong” and called for a full investigation, instead of “making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens”. That’s the NRA folks saying that now to this Page – 3 – of 9 character. Aidan Johnston, the Director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, called Essayli’s remarks, “absolutely unacceptable”. That’s GOA. I mean, listen this quote from Johnston. “Federal prosecutors should know better than to comment on a situation when he didn’t know all the facts, to make a judgment in a case like this, and then also, just to make a blanket statement, threatening gun owners in that way.” And Johnston is absolutely right. It’s outrageous. And yet, yeah, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 08:48 I will say, just taking a step back and looking at what they’ve kind of just put out of their reaction. You brought a gun and all the other and there’s stupid comments. What they could have said, which would have been a very easy play, is the Second Amendment isn’t your right to attack law enforcement officers. All right.? It has nothing to do with the carry. It had to do with the fact that it is agitators obstructing and attacking ICE. That would have been the very easy statement, but no. Evan Nappen 09:21 They focused just on the action and not the carry. But instead they focus on, oh, you come up to a law officer with a gun, they’re legally justified at shooting you. No, they’re not. They’re not. Unless you’re going to use it wrongly. Okay, we can all. And then the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus chair Bryan Strawser, he said, “We can all see what is on the video” what happened, and he’s not on the side of what the Trump administration is putting out. As a matter of fact, it says, an analysis done by the Washington Post that federal agents appear to have secured Pretti’s gun moments before an agent shot him. Teddy Nappen 10:18 So, just to break it down, a little more from that which they’re ignoring. I love the mainstream media loves to ignore. They take away the first 30 seconds where it’s him getting into it with the officers, where they’re blocking traffic, where he’d been doing that all day, and the woman was also blocking traffic. The officer shoves her out of the way because they’re blocking traffic, obstruction, you know, a crime. And then he tries to be the white knight and gets in it with the officer. They’re trying to pin him down to arrest him. He’s still fighting. He’s still fighting. One of the guys sees a gun and yells, gun. He pulls the gun away. And during it’s like, I didn’t know the timing of that. It’s like only a second or so split, and you hear them shout, gun. And the guy draws his pistol and he fires, because it’s a split second. I think there is a Supreme Court case where you have to look at it from the officer’s perspective, from there. Evan Nappen 11:13 And I can understand that. But what is disturbing is the key administration officials focusing on guns and gun owners and carry, instead of on the behavior of this person, which, arguably, is the real issue, and is what is the problem. Not having the gun. And then you combine that with, for example, Gavin Newsom, who, let’s face it, you know, he’s a Second Amendment oppressionist, right? I mean, he is. But what does he say? He says, “The Trump administration does not believe in the 2nd Amendment. Good to know.” So, okay, granted, he’s an opportunist here. But he’s actually seeing, even though we don’t believe he’s sincere, of course, but who knows? He’s seeing what’s wrong with what they’re saying. Even Newsom sees what’s wrong with their saying and then takes advantage of it in that way. Look, Representative Dave Min and Rep. Mary Peltola, one is a Democrat from California and the other Page – 4 – of 9 is a Democrat from Alaska. This is from the Politico article. They also used the moment to highlight the right to carry. Here’s their quote. “Joining the gun lobby to condemn Bill Essayli was not on my bingo card but here we are, Min said on X. “Lawfully carrying a firearm is not grounds for being killed.” So, there, look at that. A Democrat, Democrat, saying that, and Newsome even pointing out the hypocrisy of it. And here we have them really taking a terrible view of gun owners and carry. Evan Nappen 13:27 If you step back from all this, I see political opportunity, and I’ll tell you why. Because what I think would be very, very good would be to propose what we would call Pretti’s law. It’d be Pretti’s law. And what Pretti’s law would do would be to create a federal, pre-emptive right to carry in public. Going directly at the legal issue, by the way, in the Woolford case, the so-called vampire rule and other forms of public carry. We need a federal law that preempts, preempts, any state from putting forward so-called “sensitive place” laws that interfere with the right to carry that the Left has acknowledged, the Left is acknowledging in their defense of Pretti. This presents an opportunity to tie in with that national reciprocity so that you have your right to keep and bear arms respected, and we push this with the Pretti situation. Evan Nappen 14:52 In other words, why is it the Left always gets to take the situation and turn it to their advantage? Well, this is an opportunity for us to use this situation to our advantage, because you can see from what we just discussed that the Left is putting out that message. The Left is putting out the pro-Second Amendment message. The Left is seeing that carry was a right, that carry was fine for this, believe it or not, white male to be carrying. I mean, we should all be in shock that the Left is defending armed white males. Wow. But here they are. So, instead of letting this moment pass, let’s grab onto it. Let’s get a federal law that can go at and preempt, wiping out, sensitive place restrictions and getting through national reciprocity. We can do both of those things in this bill, because that is a solid focus federally on carry. That’s what we’re talking about here, and that’s what this situation highlights. Now is a chance to do federal protection of our carry rights, and it’s also a chance for the Trump administration to make clear their position in support of it as well. Here’s the common ground, folks. Here’s the common ground that this demonstrated, and I hope that someone takes advantage of it. Teddy Nappen 16:40 Also, just taking a step back on the whole situation here. The one good thing about this administration that everyone can agree on is that they listen. The one thing that they, anyone can just stop and say, like you can have disagreements on different things, but they listen. They hear what the issue is. And I get the sense that Kristi Noem and Kash Patel are not 2A. They never had the 2A mindset. They never had that. You know, people always say, oh, I’m for the Second Amendment. What does that mean? What do they actually believe and stand for, for that? And I think this is a moment for them to realize and learn what that actually stands for, for the people, for us, for what that means for us. The ability to carry and defend ourselves. Where we don’t have security teams. We don’t have, you know, the full backing of the U.S. Government to protect us every single day. So, I think this is a chance for the administration to learn, and heck, they should appoint like a gun czar, a 2A Czar. Someone to advise them on these issues. If they don’t know, don’t just go to X or Truth and post it. Ask and learn, and then you can have be more informed on the issue. Page – 5 – of 9 Evan Nappen 17:55 That’s a great idea, Teddy. It would be really good for them to do it, and I’d be happy to have that role. Speaker 1 18:01 Ha, ha, ha. Wow, yeah, man. Evan Nappen 18:07 Yep, that’s good. Well. Teddy Nappen 18:09 Yeah, he’s saying, like, all right. And then also legalize all machine guns. We’re closing down the ATF. Here’s a lot of recommendations. Evan Nappen 18:17 I’ve got them, but here is one where politically, we are seeing the other side, actually seeing it our way. And that’s an opportunity that we shouldn’t lose. That’s the point of this. Well, let me tell you about our friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood. An indoor range where both Teddy and I shoot, and we love it there. WeShoot is conveniently located right off the Parkway, and they have some cool specials I want to tell you about. They have a Smith M&P 9 M2.0 Compact ready to roll. They have that. They’re also offering the M&P 9 2.0 in Metal. So, you can have your choice in metal or polymer. They have the Vortex Triumph, which is an all new optic, right? It’s pretty cool. Vortex makes some good stuff. I have some Vortex on my guns. They also have the Rost Martin RM1C, which is a striker-fired compact pistol that is really taking the gun world by storm. You should check out the Rost Martin. It’s a really good gun. Evan Nappen 19:37 And, of course, you want to check out the WeShoot girls there. They’re featuring a number of folks, including Kristina Fernicola. Go to their website. Go to weshootusa.com. You can see all these wonderful guns, and the models posing with wonderful guns. And you will be glad that you went to look at all of that. I’m sure of it. Then make sure you check out the range at WeShoot. Go down to the range there. You can get some fantastic training. They have a great pro shop right there in Lakewood, New Jersey. weshootusa.com Evan Nappen 20:26 Also, I want to mention our friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. They’ve been quite busy fighting in the courts and in the legislature in Trenton. Murphy’s gone, and we did get some new laws, of course. This is a very tough environment, but they also were able to get some changes that are critical. And I was glad to see modifications, although completely stopping when the folks have all the power, is tough, but they made a big difference. We are thankful. Because without the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, we would have no unified voice of umbrella organization of our clubs and organizations. You need to be a member of the Association. Go to ANJRPC.org and join today. You’ll get the newsletters that are the best newsletter in the state on guns. Page – 6 – of 9 You’ll see the email alerts. You’ll know everything that’s going on when it comes to our gun rights in New Jersey. anjrpc.org Evan Nappen 21:45 This is also when I shamelessly promote my book, which is New Jersey Gun Law, the Bible of New Jersey gun law. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer. It’s your guidebook to not becoming a GOFU in New Jersey. And man, let me tell you, so many times people call me and it’s after the fact. I’m like if they had only read my book, oy vey. We’ll still fight and defend you, but it would have been a lot better if you never had the problem to begin with. And most of my clients would agree with that, I’m afraid. So, get your copy of my book today. Go to EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com, and get your copy of New Jersey Gun Law. At this moment, we have Teddy who’s going to tell us about Press Checks. What have you got for us Teddy? Teddy Nappen 22:45 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. One of the things I always, I am always astounded by on the Left, because they try to act like they have knowledge and understanding of guns. We know, of course, the closeted hoplosexuals like (Josh) Sugarmann, who actually does know guns, but the vast majority of them do not know guns. I always think back, Dad, to your what was the quote, unquote “firearms expert” on fixed ammunition. Evan Nappen 23:23 Oh, gosh, yeah. Experts testifying under oath that are just flat out lying. Flat out lying. Teddy Nappen 23:32 So, yeah. And here is their new term that they’re trying to push. As I always believe in going to the, going to the gun right suppressors and see what’s their latest message? What are they pushing for? The new term that they have invented is “safeguarding”. That’s their new push. This comes out of The Trace, everyone’s favorite gun rights suppressor organization, written by Fairriona Magee. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/01/safeguard-gun-barber-red-flag-law-suicide/) Safeguarding. “Violence prevention groups and researchers have spent years working on initiatives to get firearms out of the hands of people who may pose a danger to themselves or others.” Hmm, through the risk, through extremist protection laws, known as Red Flag. Oh, yes. So, they’ve been getting so much flack about the legalized swatting that they have created. That they’ve been pushing through these insane Red Flag laws. So, I love this. While these laws have bipartisan support, oh, from a bunch of RINOs that are anti-gun and don’t believe in Second Amendment rights, but now the Second Amendment groups have launched a concerted attack on Red Flag laws in the court system. Gee, I wonder why. Evan Nappen 24:52 No due process. Teddy Nappen 24:53 Yeah, no due process. You get put in, you get locked up, you get labeled and all. Robbed. Firearms stolen and your rights and your life destroyed. Other than that. Page – 7 – of 9 Evan Nappen 25:03 Yeah. Teddy Nappen 25:04 So, in this supercharged political climate, what are the other options? Well, we have it for you. Safeguarding. The process of taking, temporarily taking, control of someone else’s guns, if they have risk of suicide or harming someone else without involving the criminal justice system. So, what does that mean? That means, okay, if you think your friend may want to hurt themselves or hurt others, just simply say, hey, man, why don’t I take your guns? Let me just keep them in my house. I think you’re going through a rough patch. I’m going to take your guns. These ideas are somewhat analogous with laws that allow people to temporarily ban themselves from buying guns. So, Dad, I’m pretty sure they just advocated for someone to commit a crime in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 25:59 In New Jersey that would be absolutely unlawful because of the other anti-gun laws that they helped push, such as Universal Background Check. So, how do you temporarily give guns to somebody when there’s no transfer of guns allowed unless you go through a dealer and go through the permitting system and go through the entire process? You can’t just say to your buddy in New Jersey, hey, let me just take your guns. No, you can’t do it. It’s got to go through a dealer. You’ve got to do all the paperwork, the NICS check, the whole bit. So, good luck with that. Good luck with that. Because if you listen to what they are telling you to do, you will be committing a felony level offense, multiple felony level offenses, in New Jersey. There is no temporary transfer. This is, in fact, officially, this week’s GOFU, Teddy. Evan Nappen 27:03 As far as I’m concerned, that’s the GOFU. Do not ever temporarily give your guns to somebody else in New Jersey, except under two very narrow circumstances. If you’re at the range, there is a law in New Jersey that allows you, only while the person’s in your presence, to let them try your gun at the range. Or if you’re hunting, and everybody’s legal and licensed and they’re there in your presence while hunting. That’s it. But that’s it. That’s the only temporary transfers allowed to adults legally. There is no provision in New Jersey that allows you to temporarily transfer your firearms or to take somebody else’s firearms temporarily because somebody might want to harm themselves, or you perceive that they’re thinking about harming themselves, or they tell you, hey, I’m thinking about harming myself. Or I would just feel better if you had my gun. Again, none of that flies in New Jersey. None of it. It is completely a violation of New Jersey gun laws. A violation of many of the laws that the gun rights oppressors have pushed to put in place in New Jersey. The reason you cannot do what they’re suggesting in New Jersey is because of their anti-Second Amendment gun laws themselves. So they pass and force the passage of these laws through their fellow comrades in the legislature and then give advice on how to violate the very laws, because they’re so clueless as to what they are doing in terms of the actual effect, the actual effect, it has on real people and the real situation. Teddy Nappen 28:59 So, I love how they end this article too. They get this expert, because they always have to. They always lean on the logical fallacy of, oh, I’m an expert, so trust me on this. Catherine Barber out of the Harvard Page – 8 – of 9 Injury Control Research Center, gee, that doesn’t sound biased. She makes this long winded argument, making it so this sounds like if you’re a gun owner, oh, you’re mentally ill, even though gun owners are more than twice at the risk of non gun owners from taking their own lives. And they equated where we should treat Red Flag like suicide prevention. Just this long winded expression, trying to make it seem like, oh, that’s right, if you own a gun, you probably have mental illness. That is the level of disgusting nature that these people are. And they try to argue that. Evan Nappen 29:56 Right. So they, so that. So, this person’s saying, if you own a gun, you’re mentally ill, and we have these administration folks and this U.S. attorney saying, essentially, if you have a gun, you’re a threat immediately to law enforcement. I mean, they’re just making these assumptions on both sides that are just strictly out of bounds when we’re talking about a Constitutional right, a Constitutional right. I mean, just make believe it’s the First Amendment instead of the Second Amendment. Anyone that freely speaks their mind is mentally ill. Anybody who freely talks to police is justified in being shot, and that doesn’t. Neither those statements make any sense, right? Evan Nappen 30:44 Well, we’re talking the Second Amendment. That’s a Constitutional right. It’s not a second class right, either. Just like the First Amendment is a right, and this right is supposed to be guaranteed by the Government. Guaranteed by the Government. Not given by the Government. It needs to get respected and put in the proper perspective of being treated as a right. It’s not a mental illness. It’s not a threat to law enforcement, intrinsically a threat. This all is based on the individual’s behavior. That’s the point, and that’s what the focus has to be on. But yet it’s so easy to just look at it as a symbol, the symbol. Americans always had this thing about going after the symbols. I mean, why were switchblades banned in the ’50s? Well, they were the symbol of juvenile delinquency, right? I mean, what? Why were machine guns banned, oh, the symbol. It was symbolism. It’s just this constant moral crusade by picking an item, an item to go after. We need to look at actions of people. What is not malum prohibitums, where a legislative body just decides this should be banned or that should be banned. But instead, we focus on the malum and say things that are wrong within themselves, and those things are the actions and wrongdoings by people. That’s where laws have to focus. Teddy Nappen 32:41 I think it definitely needs to be a wake up call. Because, look, I understand, and hopefully we do get common ground. And you know what, if Pretti’s law comes into play and we get enough the Democrats to jump on because they want to, you know, look like they’re 2A affiliates or whatever, which, by the way, anytime you hear the news, the CNN, MSNBC, use the words 2A or democracy. You look at the little end, it’ll say, TM, trademark. It’s their version of the Second Amendment, their version of democracy. That is what they always argue. It’s rules for thee, not from rules for thee, not for me. That is how the Left operate. So, just remember that every time they’re trying to coax the Left, the right against the administration. Evan Nappen 33:30 Well, Pretti’s law will have an interesting effect, because it’ll put the Left on the spot, on the vote. Do you support being able to carry a firearm in public the way he did, where you’re claiming to? Well now Page – 9 – of 9 you’re going to have to put your money where your mouth is. So, to speak, you have to vote. You better vote, I think. And within the same question, wait gets made to the other side. Do you support the Second Amendment or not? So, this is why, politically, it’s an opportunity. Teddy Nappen 34:05 I think we joked that Trump should come out against carry, which would force the Left. Like, I think we joked about that exact thing there. You’re right. He should come out against machine guns. Evan Nappen 34:19 Yeah, absolutely. Okay, because actually, the next thing you know, you’ve got Newsom putting out and Democrat Congresspersons putting out, pro-gun statements, pro-Second Amendment statements. I mean, it’s well, that’s why it’s opportunity time, and hopefully someone will take advantage of it. Evan Nappen 34:48 Well, this is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 35:01 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E275_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

In solidarity with the National General Strike, the release of this episode was changed to 1/31/26. Stop funding Ice. Resources to donate your time/energy to: https://www.waimmigranthealth.org/immigration-action-center/red-card/- Print red cards to share / know your rights! Democracy.io - Allows you to look up your representatives & write emails to them all at once  5calls.org - Find your legislators, click the issues that are important to you, push send  Immigrantjustice.org - Attorneys can partner with the NIJC to provide probono services, Bilingual or multilingual folks can volunteer to interpret or translate in an immigration case, Everyone can donate time and money (202) 224-3121: Call the congressional switchboard and ask for your representative or senators.  -Attend a town hall and school board meetings to voice your support for immigrants To access AD FREE versions of our episodes, as well as bonus episodes and uncut audio and video,⁠ subscribe to our Patreon!⁠  If today's episode makes you laugh or scream, please do us a favor and rate our show 5 STARS on⁠ Apple⁠ or⁠ Spotify⁠ This is the easiest way for us to grow our community! Get your Cutie ⁠MERCH!⁠ We're on YOUTUBE! Be sure to⁠ subscribe⁠ so you don't miss a second of our hijinx - now on video! Follow Us on Social Media! TikTok: ⁠cuteonepodcast⁠ Chelsea:⁠ @ohnochels⁠ Donny:⁠ @realdonnywood Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Abbe Lowell, attorney for journalist Don Lemon, talks with Jen Psaki about Donald Trump's escalating war on the news media, and the pattern he sees among his clients who have been targeted by Donald Trump's Justice Department, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.Rep. Robert Garcia talks about the Justice Department's release of a new batch of Jeffrey Epstein files.Annie Farmer, Jeffrey Epstein accuser, shares the perspective of survivors of abuse by Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and their associates as Pam Bondi's Justice Department botches (or maybe sabotages) the job of redacting names as it releases files from the investigations of Epstein.Terry Moran, former senior national correspondent for ABC News, and Eugene Daniels, co-host of The Weekend on MS NOW, talk with Jen Psaki about the dubious accusations in the Trump Justice Department's indictments of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for reporting on a protest at a church, and what is really motivating the Trump administration to use such heavy-handed tactic against the news media.  To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)This episode includes AI-generated content.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Could Blake Lively and her legal team be facing criminal charges or disbarment with how they obtained and released Justin Baldoni's text messages with his team? Attorney Daniel Forouzan explains the risks her team is facing.   Follow Daniel: https://www.instagram.com/forouzanlaw/?hl=en    Become a Member of No Filter: ALL ACCESS: ⁠https://allaccess.supercast.com/⁠   Shop New Merch now: ⁠https://merchlabs.com/collections/zack-peter?srsltid=AfmBOoqqnV3kfsOYPubFFxCQdpCuGjVgssGIXZRXHcLPH9t4GjiKoaio⁠   Watch Disaster Daters: ⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/3L4GLnKwz9Uy5dT8Ey1VPi⁠   Book a personalized message on Cameo: ⁠https://v.cameo.com/e/QxWQhpd1TIbare⁠ 

Rush Hour Podcast — Morning Episode Follow Our guest at: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden?lang=en We sit down with a lawyer breaking down the latest twists in the Justin Baldoni vs. Blake Lively case What the legal strategy looks like, what matters, and what's just internet noise How our guest lawyer unexpectedly found a massive audience on TikTok The pros, cons, and risks of lawyers weighing in on viral celebrity cases Why this case won't stop dominating headlines anytime soon Justin Baldoni, Blake Lively, celebrity lawsuits, TikTok lawyers, viral legal analysis, entertainment news

Join me for an inspiring conversation with Shelly Garg, the founder of Wave Kids and a seasoned FDA attorney, as she shares her journey of creating the first kids' lifestyle and beverage brand focused on building better hydration habits. Shelly's passion for children's health shines through as she discusses her mission to provide a fun, trustworthy alternative to the sugary, artificial drinks that dominate the market. She offers profound insights into the "wave of change" she is spearheading, moving away from high-fructose corn syrup and hidden caffeine toward products that parents can feel good about and kids genuinely enjoy. Shelly explains how her background in food and drug law, combined with the raw reality of motherhood, fueled her desire to flip the traditional industry model on its head. Explore how Shelly is bringing magic to hydration through innovative, temperature-activated color-changing cans and playful artwork created by children themselves. She outlines the challenges of scaling a small business while remaining committed to accessibility, ensuring that healthy options aren't restricted by a family's socioeconomic status. Listen in as she discusses the future of Wave Kids, including plans to expand into national retail and introduce organic, fruit-flavored waters with natural electrolytes. The episode concludes with a poignant reflection on empowerment, where Shelly emphasizes the importance of living in alignment with one's values and the transformative power of choosing a bigger "why" for the sake of the next generation. Connect with Shelly:Website: www.wave-kids.com Instagram: @hellowavekids Let's keep the conversation going!Website: www.martaspirk.com Instagram: @martaspirk Facebook: Marta Spirk Want to be my next guest on The Empowered Woman Podcast?Apply here: www.martaspirk.com/podcastguest  Watch my TEDx talk: www.martaspirk.com/keynoteconcerts      There's a reason Pitch Worthy is on every power founder's radar. It's the definitive PR book for women done with being overlooked. If you're ready for press, premium clients, and undeniable authority, this is your playbook. Buy your copy now at hearsayPR.com.  

Jenna Sands, Chief Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney for Fairfax County, presented closing arguments in the murder trial of Brendan Banfield, the former IRS agent charged with four counts of aggravated murder in the deaths of his wife Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan. Prosecutors allege Banfield and the family's au pair, Juliana Peres Magalhães, lured Ryan to their Herndon home through a fetish website and staged the killings as a home invasion.The defense argues digital forensics contradict the catfishing theory and that investigators who disagreed were reassigned. Banfield faces life without parole if convicted. The four-week trial continues in Fairfax County.#TrueCrimeToday #BrendanBanfield #AuPairAffair #MurderTrial #ChristineBanfield #JosephRyan #FairfaxCounty #JulianaMagalhaes #Justice #BreakingJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Jenna Sands, Chief Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney for Fairfax County, presented closing arguments in the Brendan Banfield murder trial. Banfield, a former IRS agent, is charged with four counts of aggravated murder in the February 2023 deaths of his wife Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan at their Herndon, Virginia home.Prosecutors allege Banfield plotted the killings with the family's Brazilian au pair, Juliana Peres Magalhães, with whom he was having an affair. Magalhães has pleaded guilty to manslaughter and is expected to testify against Banfield. The defense maintains digital evidence does not support the state's catfishing theory.#BrendanBanfield #AuPairAffair #MurderTrial #TrueCrime #Testimony #ChristineBanfield #JosephRyan #FairfaxCounty #HiddenKillers #BreakingJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

In this sixth installment, James shares a collection of clips focused on using whole life insurance for equipment financing. He highlights real-world examples of acquiring assets with policy loans, emphasizing control, access to capital, and long-term flexibility over traditional financing. As always, we hope you enjoy the episode and thank you for listening!Make sure to like and subscribe to join us weekly on the Banking With Life Podcast!━━━Become a client!➫ https://www.bankingwithlife.com/how-to-fast-track-becoming-your-own-bankerBuy Nelson Nash's 6.5 hour Seminar on DVD here:➫ https://www.bankingwithlife.com/product/the-5-part-6.5-hour-video-series-nelson-nash-recorded-live/(Call us at (817) 790-0405 or email us at myteam@bankingwithlife.com for a DISCOUNT CODE)Register for our free webinar to learn more about Infinite Banking...➫ https://www.bankingwithlife.com/getting-started-webinar━━━Implement the Infinite Banking Concept® with the Infinite Banking Starter Kit...The Starter Kit includes Becoming Your Own Banker by R. Nelson Nash and the Banking With Life DVD by James Neathery.It's the perfect primer for everyone interested in becoming their own banker.Buy your starter kit here:➫ https://www.bankingwithlife.com/product/becoming-your-own-banker-infinite-banking-concept-starter-kit-special-offer/━━━Learn more about James Neathery here:➫ https://bankingwithlife.com━━━Listen on your iPhone with Apple Podcasts:➫ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/banking-with-life-podcast/id1451730017Listen on your Android through Stitcher:➫ https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/bank...Listen on Soundcloud:➫ https://soundcloud.com/banking-with-life-podcast━━━Follow us on Facebook:➳ https://www.facebook.com/jamescneathery/━━━Disclaimer:All content on this site is for informational purposes only. The content shared is not intended to be a substitute for consultation with the appropriate professional. Opinions expressed herein are solely those of James C. Neathery & Associates, Inc., unless otherwise specifically cited. The data that is presented is believed to be from reliable sources and no representations are made by James C. Neathery & Associates, Inc. as to another party's informational accuracy or completeness. All information or ideas provided should be discussed in detail with your Adviser, Financial Planner, Tax Consultant, Attorney, Investment Adviser or the appropriate professional prior to taking any action.

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Photo: The Wind River Family and Community Health Care clinic in Riverton, Wyo. would have been impacted by the proposed cuts in tribal Medicaid funding. (Hannah Habermann / Wyoming Public Media) State lawmakers in Wyoming backtracked this week on what many – including some lawmakers – believed was a big proposed cut to tribal Medicaid funding. Wyoming Public Radio's Hannah Habermann reports. Earlier this month, the Joint Appropriations Committee voted to deny a $58 million request from the Wyoming Department of Health for federal funding for tribal Medicaid reimbursements. The move was met with pushback and protest, but this week, State Rep. John Bear (R-WY) told the Tribal Relations Committee those funds will come through. “ I just wanna make it really clear that the funding was never, ever in jeopardy. These are accounting issues that we’re trying to work through.” Bear is the co-chair of the Joint Appropriations Committee. He originally voted for the cut, but this week said there was a workaround with what's called a B-11, which he hadn't mentioned in the original meeting. “Then they get the reimbursement after the activity is taken care of for the tribal member.” Now, Bear says the committee will authorize the funding for the Department of Health before the session starts, but at current reimbursement rates, that will be more like $41 million, rather than $58 million. Nick Tilsen. (Photo: Brooke Anderson @movementphotographer) The trial of Native advocate Nick Tilsen ended in a hung jury this week in Rapid City, S.D. Tilsen is still indicted and the state has the option to drop the charges or press forward, as South Dakota Public Broadcasting's C.J. Keene reports. Tilsen is the president and CEO of NDN Collective, a Rapid City-based Indigenous advocacy nonprofit. It is known for projects which advance Native living conditions and its protests of President Donald Trump's attendance at Mount Rushmore. For this case, he is charged with alternative charges of aggravated assault or simple assault against law enforcement. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, leading to a mistrial. Both charges are felonies and Tilsen also faced a misdemeanor obstruction charge. The next steps are in the hands of the state. The Pennington County State's Attorneys office could drop the charges or push for a new trial. The incident in question dates to June 11, 2022. On that day, footage shows Tilsen pulling into a parking space where an officer was standing. In the video, the truck pulls into the parking space, stops short, and moves forward again. The officer was interacting with an unhoused community member. According to reporting by the Rapid City Journal, he was stopped for jaywalking. Nobody was struck by the vehicle, but the state contends this was an effort to intimidate the officer and put him in fear of bodily harm. Tilsen's defense hinged on his organization’s effort to do “community care.” In other words, watching police – ensuring officers are operating in line with laws and community members know their rights during police interactions. For this, Tilsen faced over 25 years in prison for what he contends was a human mistake. In a press release following the mistrial, Tilsen writes, “I'm grateful for everyone who stood with me through the latest iteration of this lengthy legal battle – the support of my family, lawyers, spiritual leaders, medicine people, and community means everything to me. The fight is not over.” At this time, it is unclear if the state will seek another trial against Tilsen. Screenshot Oglala Sioux Tribal President Frank Star Comes Out has issued a proclamation banning U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and associated border patrol agents from entering the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. It is in response to ICE activities and recent shootings in Minneapolis, Minn. The proclamation states U.S. Border Patrol is assisting ICE in “unlawful conduct” against Native people in Minneapolis. Meanwhile, Minnesota tribes, including the Red Lake Nation and Mille Lacs Band, are closing tribal government operations Friday, as part of a nationwide strike. “ICE Out – no work, no school, no shopping” is in protest of the ICE presence in Minneapolis. C.J. Keene contributed to this story. Get National Native News delivered to your inbox daily. Sign up for our daily newsletter today. Download our NV1 Android or iOs App for breaking news alerts. Check out the latest episode of Native America Calling

Who really runs Britain: the government, foreign courts or international lawyers? This question is at the heart of Michael Gove's cover piece for the Spectator this week, analysing the role of those at the centre of Labour's foreign policy. Attorney general Lord Hermer, national security adviser Jonathan Powell and internationally renowned barrister Philippe Sands may seek to uphold international law but is this approach outdated as we enter an era of hard power? For Gove, they are the three ‘guilty men' who are undermining Britain's national interest at the expense of a liberal international law that never really existed. For this week's Edition, host Lara Prendergast is joined by deputy editor Freddy Gray, columnist Douglas Murray and editor of the Spectator's Life section Arabella Byrne. The also discuss: whether Labour's reset can really work ahead of next month's by-election; how taking in so many disaffected Tories could backfire for Reform; why people care more about ICE in America than Iran – and if this proof that society has become conditioned; whether we should bemoan the demise of the landline; and finally, how parents should approach the issue of their children drinking.Produced by Patrick Gibbons. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Federal prosecutors in New York confirmed that an active grand jury investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell and other potential Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirators is still underway, despite Maxwell's 2021 conviction. In court filings, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York revealed that the probe remains sealed, describing it as part of a broader effort to hold accountable anyone who participated in or enabled Epstein's trafficking network. The disclosure was made during legal arguments over unsealing additional materials from Maxwell's criminal case, with prosecutors warning that premature disclosure could interfere with “ongoing law-enforcement activity.”The revelation reignited public scrutiny over why, years after Epstein's death, no additional high-profile figures have been charged. It also underscored the enduring sensitivity of the case, as prosecutors continue to pursue evidence tied to Epstein's finances, logistics network, and associates. Legal experts noted that such a statement from federal authorities is rare, suggesting that investigators may still be gathering testimony or preparing potential indictments against individuals whose names surfaced during Maxwell's trial and related lawsuits.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A serious car crash involving a Tucson attorney has slowed progress in a federal civil rights lawsuit against two Cochise County deputies, leaving the case in a holding pattern as a judge considers whether to extend critical deadlines.Support the show: https://www.myheraldreview.com/site/forms/subscription_services/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Attorney, author and podcaster Dean Obeidallah joins the program to explain why Greg Bovino, Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem need to be prosecuted. Firing is meaningless—at least if you want to stop the reign of terror being waged by ICE, CBP and DHS agents. The only way to do that is to charge Bovino, Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem with crimes for violating Minnesota state law. Plus, of course, the agents who murdered Renee Good earlier in January and Alex Pretti must be prosecuted as well.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Brendan Banfield is expected to testify in his defense today as he faces life in prison if convicted in the deaths of his wife, Christine Banfield and Joseph Ryan. Attorneys battle over Antonio Brown's 'stand your ground' defense.#CourtTV - What do YOU think?  Binge all episodes of #OpeningStatements here: https://www.courttv.com/trials/opening-statements-with-julie-grant/Watch the full video episode here: https://youtu.be/VvPAvk4f7KQWatch 24/7 Court TV LIVE Stream Today [https://www.courttv.com/]Join the Investigation Newsletter [https://www.courttv.com/email/]Court TV Podcast [https://www.courttv.com/podcast/]Join the Court TV Community to get access to perks:  [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCo5E9pEhK_9kWG7-5HHcyRg/join]FOLLOW THE CASE:  Facebook [https://www.facebook.com/courttv]Twitter/X [https://twitter.com/CourtTV]Instagram [https://www.instagram.com/courttvnetwork/]TikTok [https://www.tiktok.com/@courttvlive]YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/c/COURTTV]WATCH +140 FREE TRIALS IN THE COURT TV ARCHIVE  [https://www.courttv.com/trials/] HOW TO FIND COURT TV  [https://www.courttv.com/where-to-watch/] This episode of the Opening Statements Podcast is hosted by Julie Grant, produced by Eric Goldson, and edited by Autumn Sewell. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Dr. Michael McKee is facing four counts of aggravated murder for allegedly killing his ex-wife Monique Tepe and her husband Spencer in their Columbus home on December 30th. The prosecution has ballistics. Vehicle tracking. Video footage. A suppressed weapon. No forced entry.And McKee just hired Diane Menashe.If that name doesn't mean anything to you, it should. In 2022, Menashe co-counseled the defense of Dr. William Husel — the Mount Carmel physician charged with murdering 14 patients with fentanyl overdoses. The prosecution called 53 witnesses over six weeks. Menashe called one. Husel walked on every count.She also kept Reagan Tokes' killer Brian Golsby off death row when eight jurors wanted him executed. She saved cop-killer Quentin Smith from lethal injection.Diane Menashe doesn't do hopeless cases. She does cases everyone else thinks are hopeless — and finds the fractures in the prosecution's fortress.Today we analyze her potential defense strategy: attacking the NIBIN ballistics match that isn't as ironclad as it sounds, questioning the shadowy Ring camera identification, exploiting the missing motive, and potentially presenting McKee's documented spiral — malpractice suits, disappearing from colleagues, expired licenses — as evidence of psychological deterioration rather than cold premeditation.McKee isn't walking free. The evidence is too damning. But the difference between life with parole eligibility and life without parole? That's what Menashe fights for. That's what money buys.Two orphaned children. A thousand mourners. And the best defense attorney in Columbus.#HiddenKillers #MichaelMcKee #MoniquTepe #SpencerTepe #DianeMenashe #TrueCrime #MurderDefense #WilliamHusel #OhioMurder #DomesticViolenceJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

While many of us think about what we want to do before we die, rarely do we think about planning for what happens with our assets, mementos, leftover whiskey, and dogs after we go. In this episode, we talk with attorney Katie Eaves who specializes in just such things. Do you need a will or a trust? Does it matter if you don't have much to leave? Can you torment people from beyond the grave? Find out the answers to these questions and more. Give it a listen, it's a good one.#Attorneys #estateplanning #wills #trusts #scavengerhunts 

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In this segment we're going back to the Office of Inspector General's report on Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, but this time with a perspective that simply didn't exist when most people first read it — the full, unfiltered interview Alex Acosta gave to the Inspector General after the scandal finally exploded. Because once you've seen how Acosta explains himself, how he hedges, how he minimizes, how he quietly rewrites his own role in real time, that OIG report stops reading like a neutral internal review and starts reading like a document built around what Acosta was willing to admit, not what actually happened. Passages that once sounded procedural now look evasive, timelines that once seemed complete suddenly feel selectively curated, and key conclusions begin to rest on a version of events that Acosta himself later contradicted under questioning. What we're really doing here is stress-testing the government's own narrative — comparing what the OIG said happened with what the chief architect of the deal later admitted, denied, and carefully avoided — and in the process, exposing just how much of the official record may have been shaped not by truth, but by damage control.The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

On this special LIVE episode of Native Land Pod, hosts Angela Rye, Andrew Gillum, and Bakari Sellers host a town hall in Minneapolis with local and national leaders to discuss the crisis brought by ICE and CBP agents flooding their streets. Donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund: https://mnfreedomfund.org/ Our show is partnering with State of the People to provide tangible support to Minneapolis residents–free legal support, grocery giveaway, and fundraising on the ActBlue Platform. Guests Include: Derrick Johnson, President, NAACP Juan Proaño, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), LULAC Georgia Fort, Independent Journalist Elizabeth Booker Houston, Attorney and Viral Influencer Peggy Flanagan, Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota Cedrick Frazier, Minnesota State Representative Zaynab Mohamed, Minnesota State Senate Melvin Carter, SERVED as 46th Mayor of Saint Paul, MN Gutu Chinksso, President University of Minnesota Black Student Union Elizer (Eli) Darris, ED, MN Freedom Fund Leslie E Redmond, Esq, Past President of the Minneapolis NAACP; Executive Director of Win Back Nonprofit Rev. Dr. Karen McKinney, Professor & Community Liaison at Bethel University Minister JaNaé Imari Bates, Co-Executive Director of Faith in Minnesota and ISAIAH Wintana Melekin, Executive Director, Groundwork Action Resmaa Menakem, NYT Best Selling Author My Grandmother’s Hands Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General If you’d like to submit a question, check out our tutorial video: http://www.instagram.com/reel/C5j_oBXLIg0/ and send to @nativelandpod. Welcome home y’all! —--------- We want to hear from you! Send us a video @nativelandpod and we may feature you on the podcast. Instagram X/Twitter Facebook NativeLandPod.com Watch full episodes of Native Land Pod here on YouTube. Native Land Pod is brought to you by Reasoned Choice Media. Thank you to the Native Land Pod team: Angela Rye as host, executive producer, and cofounder of Reasoned Choice Media; Andrew Gillum as host and producer, Bakari Sellers as host and producer, and Lauren Hansen as executive producer; LoLo Mychael is our research producer, and Nikolas Harter is our editor and producer. Special thanks to Chris Morrow and Lenard McKelvey, co-founders of Reasoned Choice Media. Theme music created by Daniel Laurent.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.