Podcasts about broward county

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

Ralph welcomes political consultant and pollster, Celinda Lake, to outline a ten-point Progressive Contract for America that she and Ralph believe – if adopted by Democratic candidates— will ensure they landslide the Republicans in the midterms. Then, Ben Cohen stops by to fill us in on his “Free Ben & Jerry!” campaign to take back the brand from the conglomerate that no longer retains the social justice values of their original company. Plus, Marine Corp veteran, Matthew Hoh, tells us about the provocative speech he made on Veterans Day entitled “Armistice Day and the Empire.”Celinda Lake is a political strategist and president of Lake Research Partners. She and her firm are known for cutting-edge research on issues including the economy, health care, the environment and education, and have worked for a number of institutions including the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Governor's Association, AFL-CIO, SEIU, CWA, Sierra Club, NARAL, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, VoteVets Action Fund, and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Her international work has included work in Liberia, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus Ukraine, South Africa, and Central America.I think [a Compact for America] is a really, really, really important idea, and it's absolutely essential to winning…And it should include concrete economic proposals. And it is noticeable that the two people who won governorships in 2025—Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill—both had contracts with their voters.Celinda LakeDemocrats need to lay out ten concrete proposals and run on them. We have the critique of what's going on. We understand what's happening in real people's lives. The third leg of the stool is offering our alternative—and a concrete alternative that people can pass on to their friends and family, that people can hold us accountable for. And the last of the ten proposals in the contract needs to be something about campaign finance reform. We have to get corporate money out of politics, or our system will continue to be rigged against us and rotting from the middle.Celinda LakeBen Cohen is an entrepreneur, philanthropist, and longtime anti-war activist. He is a co-founder of the ice cream company Ben & Jerry's and a prominent supporter of progressive causes. He is co-founder of Up In Arms, a public education and advocacy campaign pushing for a common-sense approach to military budgeting.What's happened is that the company recently got owned by the Magnum Corporation, and the Magnum Corporation has disbanded that independent board of directors. I mean, it's kind of a crazy, stupid move because it's under that independent board (which has legal authority over the social mission and the quality of the product and the use of the trademark) it's under that independent board that the company has grown and done so well. But they've gotten rid of the independent board.Ben CohenWhen Ben & Jerry's was in the midst of trying to fend off this acquisition, there were some new laws that were passed in Vermont that allowed a consideration of the benefit of the community with regard to a potential sale. And after the sale happened, B Corporation started. And I've talked with the founder of B Corp, and he was saying that one of the inspirations for starting B Corporations was what happened to Ben & Jerry's. So B Corporations are a different legal structure for corporations which requires them to take into account the social benefit to the community and legally makes it easier to resist these efforts to have the company taken over.Ben CohenMatthew Hoh is a disabled Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq War and former Afghan War State Department Officer. In 2009, after being appointed to the Foreign Service, Hoh resigned his post in Afghanistan over the Obama administration's escalation of the Afghan War. He is now an analyst and commentator on foreign and military policy issues as a senior fellow with the Eisenhower Media Network. He serves on the advisory boards of many peace organizations, including Veterans for Peace and World Beyond War, and is an associate member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.The United States recognized Armistice Day as a holiday until after the Second World War. And then in the height of the Cold War in the early 1950s, this idea of a holiday dedicated to peace, a holiday dedicated to the abrogation of warfare, a holiday that exposed just how false the motives for war are—oh that was incredibly troublesome. That was very problematic for the American empire (again, at the height of the Cold War). So there was this campaign to rename Armistice Day to Veterans Day. And this way, it became not a remembrance of the horrors of war, of what war entailed, of who profited from war. But rather a celebration of American veterans, that they have won freedoms, they have protected us from overseas enemies—and utilizing veterans, then, as a tool to crush dissent, to silence opposition.Matthew HohClick here to sign up to get a copy of Matthew Hoh's "Armistice Day and the Empire”News 6/19/26* Our top stories this week are about major local progressive victories. Here in Washington, DC Ward 4 Councilmember Janeese Lewis George – endorsed by a broad coalition of groups including the Metro DC DSA, the AFL-CIO, the Sierra Club and many more – has triumphed in the Mayoral primary. Lewis George trounced her centrist opponent, Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, who was backed both by major local corporate interests, such as the realtor lobby and even the Washington Parking Association, but also Democratic Party power brokers, including two former DNC Chairs. Lewis George, hailed as DC's answer to Zohran Mamdani, won over 50% of the vote in the first round, meaning that while this is DC's first mayoral election under ranked-choice voting, this race will not trigger this mechanism. McDuffie, for his part, won around 36% of the vote, coming ahead of Lewis George only in Ward 3, the wealthiest in the District. While votes remain to be counted, McDuffie has conceded.* Another DSA-backed candidate is poised to win a seat on the DC council. In Ward 1, Aparna Raj appears to have come up just short of 50% but while this means the race will go to a second round of ranked-choice reallocation, given that Raj is more than 25 points ahead of her nearest opponent, her victory is all but guaranteed. This is based upon data from the DC Board of Elections. Raj's impending victory, paired with that of Janeese Lewis George and others like Oye Owolewa demonstrates that the DC DSA is an electoral force to be reckoned with.* In more progressive electoral news, Semafor reports Bernie Sanders has endorsed former Congresswoman Cori Bush in her “comeback” bid for her old seat. Bush, a nurse and Black Lives Matter activist, was a member of the “Squad” in the House before she was defeated by a primary challenge from the right, backed in large part by AIPAC money. With the Republican redistricting in her home state of Missouri, this seat is now the sole remaining safe Democratic seat in the Show-Me State. In a statement, Bush said she was “honored to be endorsed” by Sanders, whom she called a “true leader in our movement to guarantee healthcare, housing, and childcare for all.”* Another much-publicized Bernie endorsement was announced this week: that of Tennessee state Rep. Justin J. Pearson. Pearson was originally running as a primary challenger against longtime incumbent Congressman Steve Cohen in Tennessee's 9th congressional district, but since the state Republicans redrew the districts Cohen has decided to retire, leaving the Democratic nomination to Pearson for the taking. While this district has been drawn in such a way to make it difficult for a Democrat to win, Pearson argues that “You've got a number of disaffected Republican voters, you've got a number of distraught MAGA voters, and you've got fired-up Democrats, which is a perfect recipe for success for us…Because our tent is big enough for everybody who is feeling that this status quo was rigged and broken against working-class folk, and want to see a future that is more just,” per the Intercept.* Elsewhere in the South, the race in Florida's 20th congressional district is descending into chaos. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the powerful centrist Democratic congresswoman who was drawn out of her traditional seat by the recent Republican-led redistricting is now officially running in this district, a move that “disappointed” Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Nikki Fried, according to the Miami Herald. Fried further stated that Wasserman Schultz “[refused] to engage in meaningful dialogue about her decision.” Elijah Manley, the progressive candidate in this race, had harsher words for DWS. In a quote reported by Florida Politics, Manley stated “I'm not surprised that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is carpetbagging to FL-20, a black opportunity district, abandoning her own district and constituents…She is no different than the Republicans that are eviscerating black representation across the South. She is everything that's wrong with the broken unpopular Democratic establishment…I look forward to retiring her from public office permanently.”* Facing down the barrel of this decision, several of the Black candidates running in the 20th convened to discuss a plan to consolidate in order to ensure the district would continue to be represented by a Black member of Congress, as it has been for the past 34 years. However, CBS reports that plan has “fallen apart” as the filing deadline passed with none of the major Black candidates bowing out. This report includes statements from Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, who, the piece notes, resigned from this very seat in disgrace earlier this year amid a congressional ethics investigation, saying she is “excited to campaign in the district I have represented for the last 5 years.” Dale Holness, the former Mayor of Broward County, said, “It has to be about policies that produce prosperity for the people.” Elijah Manley, said “I think it's going to come down to who works the hardest, and I think I'm going to work the hardest.” To this end, Manley has recently racked up major progressive endorsements in Florida, including Armando Grundy-Gomes, President of the Democratic Black Caucus of Florida, the Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida, through President Matthew Grocholske, and Black Voters Matter lead Florida organizer Jamil Davis. According to the most recent polling, Manley lags behind Wasserman Schultz 21% to 39% in initial ballot testing, but blitzes into the lead 36% to 27% after voters receive candidate biographical information, per Florida Politics.* Another major political story from Florida is the comeback bid of former Congressman Alan Grayson. Grayson, who won a House seat in 2008, lost it in the Tea Party wave of 2010, won another seat, ran unsuccessfully for Senate, and then sought a comeback in 2018 is running in Florida's 7th congressional district, AOL reports. Grayson, known during his time in Congress for his “combative style and frequent clashes with Republicans,” is seeking to unseat scandal-plagued incumbent Republican Congressman Cory Mills. As this piece notes, Mills has “faced allegations ranging from sextortion claims made by a former girlfriend to accusations that he embellished aspects of his military record,” as well as what appears to be clear instances of corruption, such as driving government contracts to entities he owned. However, before these two have any chance of facing off against one another, both will have to get through his own party's primary.* Looking to Latin America, the outgoing President of Colombia Gustavo Petro, has published a fascinating op-ed in the Washington Post. In this piece, President Petro emphasizes how his government – considered one of the most opposed to American intervention in the region – has cooperated with the United States on shared objectives including stopping the “deadly flow of drug trafficking and transnational criminal violence.” Throughout the op-ed, Petro goes to great lengths to talk up Trump and how they have collaborated on mutual goals, even ending the piece by writing that “with continued U.S.-Colombia partnership, we can truly make the Americas great again.” This apparent about face from Petro, culminating in an obsequious appeal to Trump's favor, has led many to speculate about Petro's motivations here, including fear for his own safety, possible persecution within the American legal system or intervention in Colombia if his designated successor Ivan Cepeda ultimately wins the Colombian runoff presidential election this month. Whether or not this stratagem will work remains to be seen, but with Trump, flattery can get you everywhere.* In neighboring Peru, votes continue to be counted in the razor's edge race between Keiko Fujimori and Roberto Sánchez. The votes for the election, held on June 7th, are almost completely counted now – the tally stands at 99.38% – and at the moment Fujimori leads by around 39,000 votes. However, around 140,000 votes have been formally challenged, with 60% of those coming from Fujimori strongholds like Lima as well as Peruvians abroad. This from Reuters. Peru's political system has been wracked by instability, with the country going through nine presidents in the last ten years. Another painstakingly close election is unlikely to restore stability no matter who comes out on top.* Finally, we turn to the Middle East, where it seems the numerous parties involved in the latest round of peace talks may have finally reached a deal. According to Al Jazeera, in addition to the US-Iran agreement, rooted in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which includes financial concessions to the Islamic Republic, Israel and Hezbollah are pursuing a ceasefire in Lebanon. However, Israel's notoriously loose interpretation of ceasefire agreements jeopardizes both this deal and MOU. Journalist and expert Rania Khalek states simply that “From Iran's perspective, continued Israeli strikes would be a violation of that understanding.” Vice President JD Vance, who has been intimately involved in these negotiations, expressed a sharp warning to Israel not to jeopardize the deal and risk alienating Trump, their “only ally” left. Trump for his part is already hedging, saying “If it works out, I'm going to take the credit…If it doesn't work out, I'm blaming JD,” per CNN. A report in the Hill indicates that Republican Senators would largely oppose the deal if it were submitted for their approval, but given the increasing concentration of foreign policy powers in the executive branch, it is unlikely the Senate will even be consulted.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Michael Maroone has served as President and Chief Operating Officer of AutoNation, Inc., the world's largest automotive retailer, since 1999. Today, AutoNation represents more than 35 brands, from Porsche to Rolls Royce and Honda to Chevrolet. AutoNation has twice been ranked in Forbes magazine's annual Top 500 Companies in the United States and has received numerous awards such as Time Magazine's Quality Dealer and Fortune's America's Most Admired and and was ranked the Number One Industry Champion five out of the last six years. In 2001, Maroone, along with five other entrepreneurs, purchased the Florida Panthers hockey team from H. Wayne Huizenga, allowing the team to remain in South Florida. Michael is an active member of the community, sitting on the board of organizations such as the Dan Marino Foundation, the Boys and Girls Club of Broward County, Police Athletic League, and the Children's Cancer Caring Center. He is also the chairman of the board for Take Stock in Children, a program that helps low-income children receive assistance for education.Support the show

How Michael Clarke Went From Math Teacher to Building Escrow Tech for Africa | Trust Lock PayHow Michael Clarke Went From Math Teacher to Building Escrow Tech for Africa | TrustLock PayMichael Clarke | Founder, Dada Inc. (subsidiary: ASICS) | Creator of TrustLock PayLinkedIn: Michael Clarke (search Dada Inc. / TrustLock Pay)Email: mclarke@dadainc.comConnect & Inquire: mclarke@dadainc.com"Sending money on blind trust and gambling is not the way to go." — Michael ClarkeWhat happens when a Jamaican-born math teacher in Broward County decides to solve one of the biggest problems in African trade? On this episode of Diversified Game, Kellen Coleman sits down with Michael Clarke, physics graduate, decade-plus math educator, and founder of Dada Inc., builder of TrustLock Pay, an AI and blockchain escrow platform built to let strangers do cross-border business without getting scammed.Michael breaks down his journey from the crypto space in 2021 to buying land in Rwanda, why he pivoted from a "cool app" to solving a real trust gap, and how he uses AI, smart contracts, and stablecoins to hold funds like escrow until both sides deliver. We get into why he chose Kenya over Jamaica, teaching kids to build apps, the future of math in the AI era, and his plan to partner with governments to make this the gold standard.No surface-level hype. Real builders, real problems, real solutions.Learn the mindset and moves that lead to real results. Please visit my website to get more information: http://diversifiedgame.com/

The Story of Chris G. Simmons: Lick City, The Vagues, The Niki Taylors and MoreIn this episode, we're joined by Chris G. Simmons for a deep dive into his journey through the South Florida music scene of the 1980s and early 1990s.Chris reflects on growing up in Hollywood, Florida, and how discovering bands like KISS inspired him to pick up a guitar, write songs, and begin performing at a young age. He discusses the formation of bands such as Nasty which morphed into Lick City, the DIY realities of the local scene, and performing at venues including the Cameo Theatre, Treehouse, Button South, and more.The conversation also explores Chris's creative partnership with Les Wan, better known in the South Florida scene as Lex Looks, the profound impact of Les's passing, and how the band moved forward through lineup changes and an evolving musical direction.Chris shares stories from later projects including The Vague and The Niki Taylors, as well as performances at venues such as Squeeze, Plus Five, The Edge, and Summers. He also discusses the changing South Florida music landscape and recalls the unexpected attention the band received after a cease-and-desist letter connected to its name.Chris is also candid about his struggles with substance use, his eventual decision to leave that lifestyle behind, and the lasting impact those experiences have had on both his life and his music.

Today we discussed: The Karmelo Anthony verdict in Texas, Broward County school bus cams, continuing strikes in Iran, primary election results, talked to Diener about his conference in Washington DC about UFO info being released, Tom Brady- Barron Trump and Matt Damon all releasing new beverages. And MORE! See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Bobby “RJ” Boyle on Deerfield Beach's Ambassador ClubIn this episode, we're joined by Bobby “RJ” Boyle for a deep dive into his experience building and running the Ambassador Club in Deerfield Beach during the early 1990s.RJ shares the origins of the venue, which grew from a small DJ night into a full live music club that became a key part of the South Florida scene. He reflects on growing up in South Florida surrounded by a wide range of musical influences and walks through how the club evolved in a fully DIY environment, hosting everything from hardcore, punk, and industrial acts to reggae shows that helped define its identity.He also shares stories of local bands, touring acts, and the unpredictable energy that shaped nights at the venue, along with the challenges of running the club and the shifting local music landscape that eventually led to its closure.Today, RJ remains active in music and is also widely recognized in the fishing community, where many people know him outside of his earlier work in the South Florida music scene.This conversation captures one of the first in-depth oral histories of a venue that largely lived on through word of mouth.

On this week's edition of The South Florida Roundup, we talk to Tom Hudson, host of The Florida Roundup, about the financial impact of hosting FIFA World Cup games in Miami (1:05). We're also joined by special guest Corey Shearer, President of the Black Democratic Caucus of Broward County, to talk about the history of the 20th Congressional District, Black representation in Congress and the candidates running for office in the district (18:25). Finally, a sit down with Jacqueline Charles of the Miami Herald, for a talk about what's happening in Haiti (35:20).

We discuss the sprawl created by the extension of I-75 beyond Hillsborough County. The road created major sprawl in Southwest Florida leading to the rapid development of gated and exclusive communities in the area that helped tilt Florida toward the GOP.It also created a new western suburban corporate culture in Broward County that shifted jobs away from the core city areas of Fort Lauderdale and Miami toward I-75.The road replaced Alligator Alley across Big Cypress and the Everglades erasing what was an environmental blight and a death trap for Florida Panthers and other animals and created a virtual 70-mile causeway that helped restore proper water flows in the ecosystem.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode, we talk about the different ways NHL players could utilize their personal brands and what the future of that looks like in hockey. We also had legendary artist Benny the Butcher pull up to the shop and draw the Smiley logo. We also discussed our recent merch collab with Florida Panthers forward Sam Bennett and his charity foundation, Benny's Buddies, a program that helps fund adoption fees of pets at the Humane Society of Broward County every time he scores a goal.Thanks for listening!

Joel Kohnert and his wife, Jennifer Kohnert, are accused of locking a 12-year-old girl in a room for two to three years and forcing her to write Bible verses as punishment. Joel is a fire lieutenant in Broward County, Florida. A probable cause affidavit lay out the abuse the girl claimed she endured including being forced to urinate and defecate in the bedroom. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy goes through the allegations in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code CRIMEFIX at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/crimefixHost:Angenette Levy https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Dr. Daniel Bober https://www.instagram.com/drdanielbober/CRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Matthew Fornaro on Navigating Business Partnerships: Lessons in Structure and Trust Fornarolegal.com About the Guest(s): Matthew Fornaro is a seasoned business law attorney based in Coral Springs, Florida, with a law practice established in 2003. He specializes in complex commercial litigation and provides legal services to businesses and individuals throughout the Coral Springs, Parkland, and greater Broward County community. Matthew is recognized for his expertise in handling contract disputes, real estate conflicts, antitrust claims, and other legal issues concerning businesses of various sizes. Licensed in Florida, DC, and New York, he serves clients nationwide, advising them on a range of business law matters. Episode Summary: In this enlightening episode of The Chris Voss Show, Chris Voss engages in a thought-provoking discussion with Matthew Fornaro, a distinguished business law attorney. Having garnered extensive experience in complex commercial litigation, Matthew provides valuable insights into the legal intricacies facing entrepreneurs and businesses today. Listeners will gain practical knowledge on structuring business entities, the significance of legal documents, and methods to avoid common pitfalls in business partnerships. Matthew Fornaro emphasizes the importance of due diligence when starting a business, stressing the need for a strategic foundation and proper legal structure. He discusses the detrimental effect of not having agreements in writing, especially in partnerships. Through anecdotes and expert advice, Matthew warns of the legal, financial, and liability issues that may arise if foundational business practices are overlooked. The conversation also touches on the impact of AI on the legal field, highlighting the need for meticulous oversight in technology utilization by business entities. Key Takeaways: Importance of Due Diligence: Before starting a business, it is crucial to have a strategic plan and the right legal foundation. Business Structure Selection: Selecting the appropriate business entity is fundamental to avoid legal, financial, and tax issues. Value of Written Agreements: Verbal agreements are insufficient; always ensure partnerships and business arrangements are documented. Impact of AI on Business: While AI offers numerous efficiencies, businesses must exercise quality control to prevent potential pitfalls. Partner Assessments: It's vital to vet partners' business acumen and long-term intentions to ensure alignment and avoid potential conflicts. Notable Quotes: “You don’t know who your partner is till the money’s on the table or the money’s missing from the table.” “If you don’t have it in writing, it doesn’t exist.” “AI is great for any business, but you gotta make sure you’re in charge. You have to quality control.” “Everyone goes into business with the best of intentions, but life happens and people are not who you think they are.” “At the end of the day, pretty much everything has an ending, whether it’s harmonious or acrimonious.”

Florida Gators football recruiting surges as elite prospects eye Gainesville—will John Sumrall deliver a top 5 class? Quarterback battles headline the conversation, with Davin Davidson and Pitt commit Kevin Verpaele at the forefront, while blue-chip talents like Reed Ramsier and lightning-fast receiver Easton Royal fuel optimism for a dominant future. Brian Smith explores the Gators' aggressive recruiting strategy, emphasizing key official visit dates, pivotal NIL dynamics, and the critical importance of landing in-state stars like Zayden Gamble from hotbeds like Broward County. With looming head-to-head showdowns against Miami and Texas for top talents, and questions surrounding offensive line depth and defensive recruiting, Florida's path back to national prominence is taking shape. Can Sumrall unseat rivals, establish quarterback stability, and restore Gainesville's pipeline of elite NFL talent? Don't miss this recruiting breakdown packed with insider insights and fan Q&A. Everydayer Club If you never miss an episode, it's time to make it official. Join the Locked On Everydayer Club and get ad-free audio, access to our members-only Discord, and more — all built for our most loyal fans. Click here to learn more and join the community: https://theportal.supercast.com/ Support us by supporting our sponsors! 5-Hour ENERGY Have your cake & drink it too. Birthday cake-flavor is back, no fork needed. Vanilla-y cakey flavor, caffeinated kick, and no sugar. It's party time. Order Now at https://5-hourENERGY.com or Amazon. Coast Right now, Coast Pay is offering our listeners up to $2,000 credit when you get started at https://coastpay.com/LOCKEDONCOLLEGE. Term Apply. The Coast Visa®️ Commercial Credit Card is issued by Celtic Bank. All card accounts are subject to credit approval. Mazda Like our players, we're driven by the details. Because highlights make the reel. What it takes to get there makes it count. There's more to a Mazda. Because there's more to you. TurboTax This year you're getting a major upgrade — Intuit TurboTax now has in-person locations nationwide. Visit http://TurboTax.com/local to book your appointment today. Robinhood You're no longer just a spectator. Play by play. You decide. Trade Every Play with Robinhood. Now available across the U.S. Download the Robinhood app now to begin. Futures and cleared swaps trading involves significant risk and is not appropriate for everyone. Event contracts are offered by Robinhood Derivatives, LLC., a registered futures commission merchant and swap firm. Indeed Listeners of this show get a $75 Sponsored Job Credit to help give your job the premium placement it deserves at http://Indeed.com/podcast Gametime Today's episode is brought to you by Gametime. Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDON for $20 off your first purchase. Terms and conditions apply. FanDuelFanDuel is giving you a way to turn that energy into even bigger potential wins with a College Basketball Parlay Profit Boost. Visit https://FANDUEL.COM to get started — Play Your Game. FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expire in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN) Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Dean's Chat hosts, Drs. Jensen and Richey welcome Madelin C. Ramil, DPM, FACFAS, to the podcast. Dr. Ramil is Dean and Professor at Barry University School of Podiatric Medicine (College of Health Professions & Medical Sciences) and a foot and ankle surgeon. She leads clinical education, accreditation and continuous quality improvement, curriculum and assessment, and student advising, retention, and board readiness, while expanding clinical training partnerships. This episode is spoonsorted by Bako Diagnostics!Dr. Ramil earned her DPM from Barry University. She completed residency training at Florida Medical Center North and Plantation General Hospital and pursued fellowship training at Hospital San Rafael in Barcelona, Spain, and in Rome, Italy, under Dr. Ronconi. She is licensed in Florida and is a Fellow of the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. With more than 25 years in practice, Dr. Ramil has trained residents and externs as an attending physician and served as Assistant Surgical Foot and Ankle Residency Program Director. She directed the Foot and Ankle Clinic at Plantation General Hospital and has held privileges in multiple Broward County hospitals. A wound care expert, she has provided care in hospital-based wound centers across South Florida. A national and international speaker, Dr. Ramil also teaches foot surgery in Spain. She served as Director of Research for the HCA Westside Hospital Podiatric Medicine and Surgery Residency Program, supporting clinically relevant scholarship and educational quality initiatives. A proud Barry alumnus, she participated for over 15 years in the Dr. Charles Southerland Yucatán Crippled Children's Program, BUSPM's sponsored medical mission.

Expanding Bluebird Kids Health: Access, Value-Based Pediatrics, and Payment AdvocacyHost Dr. Her Bravo welcomes Dr. Shannon Fox Levine and talk about her move into Bluebird Kids Health, which is expanding Palm Beach Pediatrics' value-based, technology-forward model to new de novo sites in Florida to address pediatric care deserts for Medicaid populations, including new offices in Jacksonville and Broward County, and the use of a partnered mobile clinic. They discuss keeping Athena Health, hiring and training new clinicians, and interest in ambient AI to reduce documentation burden and improve patient relationships. Levine outlines Florida AAP concerns, including school vaccine mandate changes, Medicaid payment advocacy (including Medicare parity via incentives), and a pilot workflow to diagnose autism in primary care using tools like RITA-T and CARS-2 with appropriate reimbursement. She also describes her national AAP payer advocacy role, addressing issues like downcoding, EOB monitoring, and use of a price transparency tool, emphasizing sustainable payment to reduce burnout and maintain access.00:00 Podcast Intro and CME00:55 Meet Shannon Levine01:46 Bluebird Kids Expansion03:35 Tech and Mobile Clinics06:55 Ambient AI for Notes11:27 Training New Clinicians14:13 Florida Advocacy Updates16:37 Autism Diagnosis Pilot20:11 Medicaid Contracts and Pay22:31 Value Based Care Future23:14 Florida MPIP Basics24:08 Incentives Versus Quality25:39 Risk Models And Proformas28:11 Care Coordinators In Action31:10 Stop Loss And Carve Outs32:54 Metrics And Vaccine Denominators35:35 AAP Payer Advocacy Workflow40:11 Price Transparency Tool42:26 Negotiating With Payers45:11 Burnout And Closing ThoughtsSupport the show

Colby Erskin, 39, is accused of sending naked photos of himself to a student at a high school where he had coached in Florida. Erskin faces two charges: solicitation of a child and transmission of materials harmful to minors. Erskin was taken into custody on February 5 in Seminole County, Florida. The charges he faces were filed in Broward County. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy goes through body-worn camera footage of the arrest and the claims alleged in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.Host:Angenette Levy https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Mark Weaver https://x.com/MarkRWeaverCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, Jared and Mike rewind to Florida's razor-thin 2018 midterms to break down a often-overlooked test run of “Stop the Steal,” years before it became synonymous with the 2021 riot at the United States Capitol. As recounts unfolded in the high-stakes Senate and governor's races, longtime GOP operative Roger Stone and a network of MAGA activists mobilized protests in Broward County, amplifying fraud claims and pressuring officials while influencers pushed the hashtag into the mainstream. Could we see a replay of this playbook in 2026? Will it be worse? Our hosts also dug into the State of the Union — its racism and subtle backpedaling — and, of course, they had to talk about their favorite jet-setting FBI director: Kash Patel. We'll see you in Valhalla, folks — just as soon as the pilot gets the plane ready.Listen to the full episode on Patreon: patreon.com/postingthroughit

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell's deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz's defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors' allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein's secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz's accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz's narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdf

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Major UBI study finds the more cash you give to the poor, it just makes them quit and not want to work. The debt is out of control 24 cents of every dollar goes to interest. The [CB] is collapsing. The [CB] mission is to destroy their old system and bring the people to a new system. Trump is helping them destroy their old system. The [DS] is desperate, Trump is ushering in peace and they know if this happens they will lose even more leverage to start a war. The [DS] is trying to divide the people this country and the movement that elected Trump. The know that arrests are coming and they are trying to break the counterinsurgency so the people are not behind Trump. This is already failing, nothing can stop what is coming, nothing. Economy https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/1993658495468728570?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1993526341665542237?s=20 https://twitter.com/ultrapepemqtter/status/1990938476666048584?s=20 https://twitter.com/JoeLang51440671/status/1993692907115524320?s=20 Political/Rights Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass Takes Victory Lap Over ‘First Rebuilt House' in Pacific Palisades After Fires – There's Just One Little Problem Los Angles Mayor Karen Bass recently did a little victory dance about the ‘first rebuild' of a house in the Pacific Palisades after the wildfires. Hey, it has only been almost a year, right? There is one little problem with the house that Bass is celebrating, however. It was a developer project that was in the works before the fires even happened. That's right, this house wasn't even one of the average homes destroyed by fires and her incompetence. What a surprise. The New York Post reports: https://twitter.com/austinbeutner/status/1992983832640073862?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1992983832640073862%7Ctwgr%5E1948d10752ca8b2e751627587116d657aa7f9737%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F11%2Flos-angeles-mayor-karen-bass-takes-victory-lap%2F. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1993619585392853496?s=20 https://twitter.com/FBISanAntonio/status/1993324194008875091?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993324194008875091%7Ctwgr%5E6ff9acc0b508c58b2c0e326d3b42fe771bbb42d2%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fwardclark%2F2025%2F11%2F25%2Fnew-san-antonio-sweep-nets-51-confirmed-tda-criminals-n2196559 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1993341609824731480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993341609824731480%7Ctwgr%5Ea663c448b933df11eb2c62c9f899610bb785a839%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F11%2Fag-bondi-gives-update-memphis-safe-streets-task%2F https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1993419780108550293?s=20 DOGE https://twitter.com/epaleezeldin/status/1993404838596792723?s=20 ZILCH! If Ed Malarkey wants the EPA to release any more funding to Massachusetts for lead pipe replacement, he will have to tell his state to submit a plan to us ASAP on how it is going to spend what it has received previously and is still sitting on. The Trump EPA isn't messing around when it comes to TOTAL ACCOUNTABILITY of precious U.S. taxpayer dollars. Geopolitical https://twitter.com/AAGDhillon/status/1993535086462152800?s=20 The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is establishing a new office within its Civil Rights Division specifically dedicated to enforcing and protecting Second Amendment rights, which guarantee the right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution. Named the Second Amendment Rights Section, this office is set to open on December 4, 2025, and will focus on investigating and challenging local or state laws, policies, or practices that the DOJ deems as infringing on gun rights.  This move is part of a broader shift in priorities under the Trump administration, reallocating resources to emphasize conservative-leaning civil rights issues, such as gun ownership, over traditional areas like racial discrimination or police misconduct oversight. The initiative stems from a February 2025 executive order by President Donald Trump, which instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to review and address any federal, state, or local infringements on Second Amendment rights.  The office will operate using existing DOJ funding and personnel, without needing new congressional approval, though Congress was notified of the plans.   former DOJ officials, argue that this emphasis on gun rights dilutes the division’s core mission of safeguarding the rights of marginalized groups, especially amid ongoing gun violence issues in the U.S. (with 378 mass shootings reported as of November 25, 2025).  https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1993654295263350864?s=20 SHAME: Brazil Descends Into Tyranny, as Supreme Court Justice Moraes Orders Bolsonaro To Start Serving His Unjust 27-Year Prison Sentence for Fake ‘Coup' Bolsonaro, man of the people. The fakest coup ever. Liberty-loving people in Brazil and around the world are saddened, as a major injustice has taken place. Out-of-control Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, a sanctioned human rights abuser, has ordered that former President Jair Bolsonaro begin serving his 27-year prison sentence for plotting an ‘attempted coup'. Under socialist Lula da Silva, the rogue Judiciary is persecuting right-wingers – and no target was more valuable than Bolsonaro. Sanctioned Justice Moraes is still running the country unopposed. CNN reported:   Source: thegatewaypundit.com War/Peace https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1993435854480539753?s=20   despite Trump's January directive to restore all troops forced out under Biden's Covid shot mandate. Officials blame Stephanie Miller, the DoW undersecretary controlling personnel systems, who designed and enforced the original mandate and previously served as the Pentagon's DEI chief. Her husband's work as a defense and pharmaceutical lobbyist adds further conflict concerns. Hegseth and senior Trump deputies have spent months fighting internal resistance to comply with the order. https://twitter.com/ColonelTowner/status/1993459007978172629?s=20   schools/homes repeatedly Russia decides to protect the Ukrainians in the Donbas and therefore according to the CIA: it’s Putin’s war. Trump Says No Firm Deadline for Ukraine, Russia to Reach Peace Deal Trump, speaking to reporters on board Air Force One as he flew to Florida for the Thanksgiving holiday, said U.S. negotiators were making progress in discussions with Russia and Ukraine, and Moscow had agreed to some concessions. He did not detail them. A U.S.-based framework for ending the war, first reported last week, prompted fresh concerns that the Trump administration might be willing to push Ukraine to sign a peace deal heavily tilted toward Moscow. Trump said his envoy Steve Witkoff would be traveling to Moscow soon to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and that his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who helped negotiate the Gaza deal that brought about an uneasy ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war, was also involved. Trump in recent days had set the Thanksgiving holiday as the day when he wanted to see Ukraine agree to a deal to bring about an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine. But he and his aides have backed away from a firm deadline and now say they would like an agreement as soon as possible. Trump said it appeared that Russia had the upper hand in the war and that it would be in Ukraine’s best interests to reach an agreement. Source: newsmax.com https://twitter.com/kadmitriev/status/1993424275592954337?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/1993448542397251701?s=20   President Putin in Moscow and, at the same time, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll will be meeting with the Ukrainians. I will be briefed on all progress made, along with Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. I look forward to hopefully meeting with President Zelenskyy and President Putin soon, but ONLY when the deal to end this War is FINAL or, in its final stages. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter, and let's all hope that PEACE can be accomplished AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!   DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Medical/False Flags BREAKING: Government Accountability Office Director Reveals Covert Effort Inside GAO to Defy RFK Jr., Preserve Vaccine Data Deleted by HHS (VIDEO)  A Government Accountability Office Director was caught on undercover video revealing a covert effort to defy RFK Jr. and preserve vaccine data deleted by the HHS. The O'Keefe Media Group posted video of GAO director Steven Putansu admitting to possible violations of federal records and theft laws. Per OMG: Putansu admitted on hidden camera GAO staff “stole and backed up” federal data to keep it outside RFK Jr. led HHS control – a potential violation of several federal statutes, including: – Unauthorized Removal or Destruction of Public Records (18 U.S.C. § 2071) – Theft or Conversion of Government Property (18 U.S.C. § 641) – Computer Fraud & Abuse Act – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) for accessing or copying government data without authorization. “We've stolen and backed those things up so that someday they can come back to government,” he said to the undercover OMG journalist. Putansu trashed the ‘vaccine deniers' in the HHS. “I'd watch out for the vaccine denying HHS who's going to ruin health care in this country even more than it already is,” he said. “It limits the amount of permanent damage… research he's trying to delete is stored outside his control,” he said. WATCH: The GAO released a statement in response to OMG's undercover video operation: “Regarding your inquiry, GAO collects & retains data for requested audits & engagements in accordance with GAO's statutes & agency protocols. GAO is committed to meeting the highest level of independence, nonpartisanship, & professional standards while conducting audits, evaluations, & investigations & we take seriously any suggestion otherwise.” Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/AwakenedOutlaw/status/1993477109831119259?s=20  prohibited from removing, copying, or concealing official records without authorization, especially to interfere with executive branch operations or policy implementation.’ ~ Grok All told, because sentencing would run concurrently those involved could easily get a 10-year sentence. However, if the DOJ and judge decide to make an example of him/them, they could get more—along with an 8 to 9 figure for restitution + multi-million-dollars fines, effectively bankrupting them and taking everything they owned. Enjoy, shitbirds!  https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1993372507043242297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993372507043242297%7Ctwgr%5Ea7086b8f00b98d794a84ab5935e8ccda69f80d81%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fkatie-jerkovich%2F2025%2F11%2F25%2Fone-guess-why-worlds-strongest-female-winner-was-stripped-of-title-n2196553 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1993374918315319533?s=20 https://twitter.com/SecScottBessent/status/1993411604520505719?s=20   for contributions to qualifying Scholarship Granting Organizations, marking the first time a federal tax credit directly supports private donations for K-12 education. Treasury is working with states now to ensure readiness for implementation. Education is the first step to financial freedom, and the Trump Administration is committed to providing pathways to support students nationwide. [DS] Agenda Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick Surrenders to Authorities After Allegedly Laundering $5 Million in FEMA Funds — Allegedly Bought 3.14-Carat Yellow Diamond Ring A sitting Democratic member of Congress from Broward County, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, surrendered to federal authorities Tuesday in Miami amid explosive allegations that she orchestrated a scheme to steal and launder $5 million in FEMA COVID-19 disaster relief funds, and used a portion to bankroll her 2021 congressional campaign and purchase a luxury yellow diamond ring. “The indictment alleges that the defendants conspired to steal that $5 million and routed it through multiple accounts to disguise its source. Prosecutors allege that a substantial portion of the misappropriated funds was used as candidate contributions to Cherfilus-McCormick's 2021 congressional campaign and for the personal benefit of the defendants. According to the Miami Herald, the money trail reveals a stunning web of alleged financial abuse and deception: $2.4 million transferred into the bank account of Cherfilus-McCormick's consulting company. $1.2 million routed to relatives. $830,000 moved into an account where the congresswoman was an authorized signer. $334,000 sent to a co-defendant, Nadege Leblanc, to orchestrate straw donor contributions. $190,000 transferred to a company associated with her brother, Edwin Cherfilus. $109,000 allegedly used to purchase the now-infamous 3.14-carat Fancy Yellow Diamond ring. The indictment alleges that more than $1.14 million was then funneled into her campaign account in September and October 2021, just in time for her congressional race, funds prosecutors say were “illegally sourced and misrepresented” on campaign reports and tax returns. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/ZohranKMamdani/status/1993107017100304653?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993107017100304653%7Ctwgr%5E271a9bb4777a48bf3973b6303388944477019e08%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailysignal.com%2F2025%2F11%2F25%2Fmamdani-names-radical-cop-hating-professor-to-community-safety-post%2F https://twitter.com/thestustustudio/status/1993111704629395961?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1993111704629395961%7Ctwgr%5E271a9bb4777a48bf3973b6303388944477019e08%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailysignal.com%2F2025%2F11%2F25%2Fmamdani-names-radical-cop-hating-professor-to-community-safety-post%2F   humanity. This is the worldview Mamdani is bringing into city government. https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1993689427940426054?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1993491221902418137?s=20 https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/1993497362451296263?s=20  context, as people need to understand certain precedents that illustrate the following points: 1. What the Sedition 6 have done is unprecedented since the Civil War. 2. Historic U.S. military success in some cases may never have happened had the Sedition 6 had a say at the time. 3. The exercise of lethal force we are seeing again the invading drug boats is both legal and consistent with past US actions by some of our greatest Presidents, and is consistent with the Monroe Doctrine. 4. The act of undermining a nation's military through perfidious information ops is a classic behavior of fascists and communists. History speaks, and should be our guide. Links: THREAD President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/DataRepublican/status/1993590807002333358?s=20  n Without War to advertise seditious-adjacent behavior on billboards. And Win Without War has multiple Congressional liaisons on their “About” page. National Lawyers Guild is an infamous supporter of antifa per @MrAndyNgo , which of course is now a foreign terrorist organization. cc: @CynicalPublius https://twitter.com/DataRepublican/status/1993668483125576071?s=20   Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG) is a fiscally sponsored project of the Alliance for Global Justice (AfGJ), and the NLG as a whole is widely recommended as the primary legal contact and support provider for participants in pro-Palestine and immigration protests. Win Without War is a fiscally sponsored project of the Center for International Policy (CIP), as disclosed on CIP's 2019 IRS Form 990. The Center for International Policy (CIP) is a progressive think tank advocating for a non-militaristic U.S. foreign policy centered on diplomacy, transparency, human rights, and solutions to war, corruption, inequality, and climate change.  CIP's major funders include Open Society Foundations (George Soros), Carnegie Corporation of New York, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Charles Koch Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation and McKnight Foundation, among others (per Cause IQ and public 990 filings). https://twitter.com/mrddmia/status/1993720894020063590?s=20  presidential election, which is allowed by the Electoral Count Act of 1887 and the First Amendment. That's why Democrats didn't face charges for objecting to Republican presidential wins in 1968, 2000, 2004, and 2016. Fani Willis took our country https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1993418873127805086?s=20   allegations that she had placed the explosive devices outside Democratic and Republican party offices. ODNI officials said the agency received a tip from a person affiliated with a media organization about potential criminal wrongdoing by an individual believed to be working at an intelligence agency and set about documenting it in a memo. A short time after the unfinished memo began to circulate, the conservative news outlet, Blaze News, published details similar to those in the draft, including the woman’s full name. CBS News was not shown the memo, but sources said McNamara had accessed confidential files to obtain details about the woman for the draft memo, including her place of work and Social Security number. The federal security officer cooperated with the FBI, sources close to the matter said. Her lawyer said publicly she had done nothing wrong. Both the woman and her lawyer declined to comment. She returned to work after being placed on a brief leave, one of the sources said.” Another “Seven Ways from Sunday” Effort Against DNI Tulsi Gabbard – The J6 Pipe Bomber Was Wrongly Identified  CBS is writing a narrative through the background story of how the wrong identity was originated, and that tracks back to Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.  In essence, a hit against Tulsi Gabbard emerges, and the details end up showing a transparent intelligence operation for those who have paid close attention. According to CBS an anonymous “whistleblower” originally contacted the ODNI, Tulsi Gabbard's office, with information about who the J6 pipe bomber was.  Subsequently, “a unit overseen by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard drafted a memo identifying the woman and describing allegations.” As the article is written, “Several sources told CBS News that the classified draft memo, which was on ODNI letterhead, was written by Paul McNamara, who is in charge of Gabbard's Director's Initiatives Group, which is tasked with providing “transparency and accountability” and executing President Trump's intelligence-related executive orders.” Shortly thereafter, Steve Baker at Blaze News then wrote an article naming the accused pipe bomber, using information that directly paralleled the report within the DNI's office. The accused woman was cleared during an FBI investigation that stemmed from the memo and The Blaze report.   The woman provided an alibi and recordings of her activity timestamped during the time when she was accused of walking through the streets of Washington DC.  CBS narrative doesn't focus on The Blaze or the reporting of Steve Baker, instead the media hit shifts responsibility to Tulsi Gabbard who is operating outside her intelligence oversight lane and conducting independent investigations which includes information from “outside sources.” Having followed the operations of these embed “intel officials” the motive for this operation against the office of the DNI is clear.  You, me, all of us can see with clear non-pretending eyes, the intent of this op was to change the way Tulsi Gabbard is receiving information and to block the delivery of external sunlight. Source: theconservativetreehosue.com https://twitter.com/SenRonJohnson/status/1993418804794474815?s=20   eliminating political opposition. These records are only the tip of the iceberg. https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1993425046849692155?s=20   totally false. Come on Kash, let's take a picture to show them you're doing a great job!” Do not believe the Fake News! https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1993489608034693365?s=20 TAKE A LISTEN https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1993455727718060348?s=20  (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");