Podcasts about crime victims

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

Courtney Wild, one of Jeffrey Epstein's underage victims, has waged a prolonged legal battle asserting that federal prosecutors violated her statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly crafting a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) shielding Epstein and his co-conspirators without notifying or consulting her—her “right to confer” and be treated fairly were emphatically ignored. After the district court acknowledged the CVRA violation but declined to provide relief on jurisdictional grounds following Epstein's death, Wild pressed her case through the Eleventh Circuit. In a contentious en banc ruling, the court recognized the profound injustice yet held that the CVRA does not allow victims to enforce their rights via standalone legal action absent a formal criminal proceeding. Feeling thwarted by this interpretation, Wild and her attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this critical question of whether the CVRA's protections extend to pre‑charge, behind‑the‑scenes deals that effectively nullify accountability.Wild's Supreme Court petition presents what she and her legal team call a “now-or-never opportunity” for the Court to buttress victim protections and clarify that the government cannot clandestinely dispense with criminal accountability while ignoring victims entirely—especially when the accused wield immense wealth and influence. Without such reckoning, the Justice Department may continue negotiating secret deals that nullify the statutory rights Congress fought to grant crime victims. Despite the urgency and gravity of the case, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal—effectively allowing the Eleventh Circuit's restrictive interpretation to stand and signaling that victims in similar predicaments may remain legally powerless when prosecutors circumvent the formal charging process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victim seeks US Supreme Court review of prosecutors' secret deal - ABC News

Courtney Wild, one of Jeffrey Epstein's underage victims, has waged a prolonged legal battle asserting that federal prosecutors violated her statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly crafting a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) shielding Epstein and his co-conspirators without notifying or consulting her—her “right to confer” and be treated fairly were emphatically ignored. After the district court acknowledged the CVRA violation but declined to provide relief on jurisdictional grounds following Epstein's death, Wild pressed her case through the Eleventh Circuit. In a contentious en banc ruling, the court recognized the profound injustice yet held that the CVRA does not allow victims to enforce their rights via standalone legal action absent a formal criminal proceeding. Feeling thwarted by this interpretation, Wild and her attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this critical question of whether the CVRA's protections extend to pre‑charge, behind‑the‑scenes deals that effectively nullify accountability.Wild's Supreme Court petition presents what she and her legal team call a “now-or-never opportunity” for the Court to buttress victim protections and clarify that the government cannot clandestinely dispense with criminal accountability while ignoring victims entirely—especially when the accused wield immense wealth and influence. Without such reckoning, the Justice Department may continue negotiating secret deals that nullify the statutory rights Congress fought to grant crime victims. Despite the urgency and gravity of the case, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal—effectively allowing the Eleventh Circuit's restrictive interpretation to stand and signaling that victims in similar predicaments may remain legally powerless when prosecutors circumvent the formal charging process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victim seeks US Supreme Court review of prosecutors' secret deal - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is widely regarded as one of the most disgraceful failures in the history of American justice. Structured to shield not just Epstein but a host of unnamed co-conspirators, the NPA granted sweeping immunity, all negotiated in secret and without the knowledge or consent of Epstein's victims—an apparent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Far from being a standard plea deal, the NPA was a calculated firewall built by powerful actors within the Department of Justice to protect a broader network of elite individuals. Its open-ended language, lack of transparency, and immunity clauses served not justice, but systemic protectionism for the well-connected. For over a decade, this deal has prevented real accountability, emboldened Epstein's enablers, and sent the chilling message that influence and wealth can overwrite the rule of law.Yet the NPA is not untouchable. Legal avenues still exist, from challenging its violation of victim rights, to pursuing civil lawsuits, state-level prosecutions, FOIA litigation, and even appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ's misconduct. Public pressure, congressional oversight, and relentless investigative work could still expose the names hidden behind its broad immunity clauses. What's needed now is moral courage, not more institutional silence. The DOJ must either rescind the NPA, investigate those who crafted it, and pursue those it protected—or be remembered not as an agency of justice, but as the architect of the most shameful cover-up in modern legal history. The survivors deserve more than platitudes—they deserve action. Because the NPA may have buried the truth once, but it doesn't get to bury it forever.to contact me: bobbcapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is widely regarded as one of the most disgraceful failures in the history of American justice. Structured to shield not just Epstein but a host of unnamed co-conspirators, the NPA granted sweeping immunity, all negotiated in secret and without the knowledge or consent of Epstein's victims—an apparent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Far from being a standard plea deal, the NPA was a calculated firewall built by powerful actors within the Department of Justice to protect a broader network of elite individuals. Its open-ended language, lack of transparency, and immunity clauses served not justice, but systemic protectionism for the well-connected. For over a decade, this deal has prevented real accountability, emboldened Epstein's enablers, and sent the chilling message that influence and wealth can overwrite the rule of law.Yet the NPA is not untouchable. Legal avenues still exist, from challenging its violation of victim rights, to pursuing civil lawsuits, state-level prosecutions, FOIA litigation, and even appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ's misconduct. Public pressure, congressional oversight, and relentless investigative work could still expose the names hidden behind its broad immunity clauses. What's needed now is moral courage, not more institutional silence. The DOJ must either rescind the NPA, investigate those who crafted it, and pursue those it protected—or be remembered not as an agency of justice, but as the architect of the most shameful cover-up in modern legal history. The survivors deserve more than platitudes—they deserve action. Because the NPA may have buried the truth once, but it doesn't get to bury it forever.to contact me: bobbcapucci@protonmail.com

The Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is widely regarded as one of the most disgraceful failures in the history of American justice. Structured to shield not just Epstein but a host of unnamed co-conspirators, the NPA granted sweeping immunity, all negotiated in secret and without the knowledge or consent of Epstein's victims—an apparent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Far from being a standard plea deal, the NPA was a calculated firewall built by powerful actors within the Department of Justice to protect a broader network of elite individuals. Its open-ended language, lack of transparency, and immunity clauses served not justice, but systemic protectionism for the well-connected. For over a decade, this deal has prevented real accountability, emboldened Epstein's enablers, and sent the chilling message that influence and wealth can overwrite the rule of law.Yet the NPA is not untouchable. Legal avenues still exist, from challenging its violation of victim rights, to pursuing civil lawsuits, state-level prosecutions, FOIA litigation, and even appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ's misconduct. Public pressure, congressional oversight, and relentless investigative work could still expose the names hidden behind its broad immunity clauses. What's needed now is moral courage, not more institutional silence. The DOJ must either rescind the NPA, investigate those who crafted it, and pursue those it protected—or be remembered not as an agency of justice, but as the architect of the most shameful cover-up in modern legal history. The survivors deserve more than platitudes—they deserve action. Because the NPA may have buried the truth once, but it doesn't get to bury it forever.to contact me: bobbcapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

Jeffrey Epstein's so-called “deal of the century” wasn't earned—it was engineered. In 2008, despite facing evidence of molesting and trafficking dozens of underage girls, Epstein walked away with a sweetheart plea deal that saw him serve just 13 months in a private wing of the Palm Beach County jail. He was allowed to leave the facility six days a week for 12 hours a day under “work release,” even though his office visits were unsupervised and often involved young female visitors. The deal—brokered in secret—granted Epstein immunity not only for himself, but also for “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and others from prosecution. Federal prosecutors didn't even notify the victims, a clear violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. This wasn't justice—it was protection, delivered by a system that bent the knee to wealth, influence, and possibly much darker forces.The man who publicly signed off on the deal was then–U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, but he wasn't the architect—he was the middleman. The real decision to cut Epstein loose came from the very top of the Bush-era Justice Department: then–Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip. They quietly pulled the strings behind the scenes, elevating the matter above Acosta's authority and ensuring that Epstein's prosecution would be neutered. This wasn't about a weak local prosecutor making a bad call—it was a deliberate move by the most powerful legal officials in the country to shut down a case that risked exposing too much. Whether it was done to protect intelligence assets, political allies, or institutional reputations, the result was the same: Epstein got a free pass, his victims were betrayed, and the system showed the world that justice is selective, rigged, and for sale when the right names are involved.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's so-called “deal of the century” wasn't earned—it was engineered. In 2008, despite facing evidence of molesting and trafficking dozens of underage girls, Epstein walked away with a sweetheart plea deal that saw him serve just 13 months in a private wing of the Palm Beach County jail. He was allowed to leave the facility six days a week for 12 hours a day under “work release,” even though his office visits were unsupervised and often involved young female visitors. The deal—brokered in secret—granted Epstein immunity not only for himself, but also for “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and others from prosecution. Federal prosecutors didn't even notify the victims, a clear violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. This wasn't justice—it was protection, delivered by a system that bent the knee to wealth, influence, and possibly much darker forces.The man who publicly signed off on the deal was then–U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, but he wasn't the architect—he was the middleman. The real decision to cut Epstein loose came from the very top of the Bush-era Justice Department: then–Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip. They quietly pulled the strings behind the scenes, elevating the matter above Acosta's authority and ensuring that Epstein's prosecution would be neutered. This wasn't about a weak local prosecutor making a bad call—it was a deliberate move by the most powerful legal officials in the country to shut down a case that risked exposing too much. Whether it was done to protect intelligence assets, political allies, or institutional reputations, the result was the same: Epstein got a free pass, his victims were betrayed, and the system showed the world that justice is selective, rigged, and for sale when the right names are involved.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team moved aggressively to block Sarah Ransome from delivering a victim impact statement at the June 28, 2022 sentencing, arguing that Ransome did not qualify as a statutory “crime victim” under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Maxwell's defenders claimed Ransome was an adult at the time of her interactions with Epstein and Maxwell—outside the timeframe of the charges—and thus lacked legal standing to speak in the sentencing phase. The defense specifically argued that Ransome was not part of the indictment or trial record and that her allegations occurred years after the periods under scrutiny, positioning her voice as irrelevant to the court's legal determinationCritics saw this tactic as a cynical effort to silence survivors by exploiting narrow technicalities, rather than addressing the broader harm experienced by individuals Maxwell helped traffic. Ransome, who alleges threats, abuse, and coercion during her adult years with Epstein and Maxwell, had powerful testimony—including descriptions of being treated as a "sex toy" and forced to attempt escape from Epstein's island. Her exclusion from speaking would have denied the court a fuller understanding of Maxwell's pattern of behavior and the real-life consequences of her crimes—even beyond the window covered by the charges. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10941223/Ghislaine-Maxwell-trying-stop-victim-Sarah-Ransome-testifying-against-sentencing.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

About 150 organizations that support Oregon crime victims have lost much of their federal funding. With more than $18 million in cuts and no additional state funds, nonprofits and government programs that serve survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and child abuse are preparing to lay off staff and severely reduce the support they provide to victims — both in and out of court.Melissa Erlbaum is the executive director of Clackamas Women’s Services. Due to funding loss, the non-profit will be forced to reduce the number of survivors it can serve by hundreds. And at Safety Compass — a nonprofit that supports sex trafficking survivors — founder Esther Garrett says the cuts threaten to unravel the vital safety net that advocacy provides crime victims.Erlbaum and Garrett join us alongside Clackamas County District Attorney John Wentworth, to tell us more about the consequences of the funding shortfall.

July 14, 2025 - State Office of Victim Services Director Bea Hanson swings by the studio to explain how the Hochul administration plans on spending record levels of funding for crime victims and discusses the challenges of getting this money to the right people.

When the Trump administration moved in April to cancel about half a billion dollars in Department of Justice grants, it said the programs didn't align with the administration's priorities. But many of the programs targeted for cuts seem to be doing exactly the things the administration says it's focused on. Reporter: Marisa Lagos, KQED Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire after more than a week of exchanging bombs and missile fire. But President Trump lashed out at the two sides Tuesday morning, for possible violations of that agreement. This caps a whirlwind of events including the US bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran and Iran's response, launching more than a dozen missiles at a US airbase in Qatar. Iranians living in LA have mixed feelings about the conflict. Reporter: Benjamin Gottlieb Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Grief is a painful journey that can feel isolating and endless. So what tools can we use to process grief, experience its pain, and ultimately learn how to live fully again? Claudia Coenen, a creative grief counselor and certified thanatologist, joins the podcast to discuss her unique perspective on this sensitive topic. Claudia has a private practice at The Karuna Project and is a consultant and grief specialist at The REACH Center for Crime Victims. She is also the author of Shattered by Grief: Picking Up the Pieces to Become WHOLE Again, a book that helps readers work through their grief via expressive therapies and activities. Tune in now to learn about: How to deal with different types of grief. Factors that help and hinder the process of grief. The most impactful ways to manage grief. The ways that journaling can help people externalize their pain. By encouraging others to explore their pain through storytelling, self-care and ritual, and honest reflection, Claudia has achieved remarkable results. This creative approach to grief counseling was inspired by her own experience of loss – and she's eager to share it with the world… You can learn more about Claudia by clicking here! Episode also available on Apple Podcasts: http://apple.co/30PvU9

In court there is the defense and the prosecution.  The defense attorney is representing the defendant while the Prosecutor is representing the State.  So, who is looking out for our best interest?  No one.  Until now.  Rachel Robinson is a part of a small but growing number of attorneys specializing in Crime Victims Rights Law to ensure all the rights afforded us are being honored. Listen in to better understand our day in court.

In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

In this episode of 'Just Ask the Press', host Brian Karem, along with John T. Bennett and Mark Zaid, discuss the significant news events of the week, focusing on the Supreme Court's ruling against President Trump's immigration policies, the implications of his defiance of the court, and the controversial use of crime victims in political narratives. The conversation highlights the ongoing tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, as well as the ethical considerations surrounding the exploitation of personal tragedies for political gain. In this conversation, the speakers discuss the media's portrayal of political figures, particularly Donald Trump, and how it shapes public perception. They explore the overwhelming nature of news coverage, the strategic distractions employed by the Trump administration, and the implications for press relations. The conversation also delves into the legal aspects of press access and the president's engagement with executive orders, highlighting the differences between Trump's approach and that of previous administrations. Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JATQPodcastFollow us on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/jatqpodcast.bsky.socialIntragram: https://www.instagram.com/jatqpodcastYoutube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCET7k2_Y9P9Fz0MZRARGqVwThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon supporters here:https://www.patreon.com/justaskthequestionpodcastPurchase Brian's book "Free The Press"   

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Today Nancy Grace and Sheryl McCollum discuss the recent mass shooting at Florida State University, digging into the motive, the method, and the impact. They dissect the systemic failures, the overlooked warning signs, and the questions you should be asking. Show Notes: (0:00) Welcome! Nancy and Sheryl introduce this week’s crime roundup (0:10) Sherly and Nancy dedicate CRU to the recent FSU shooting (1:00) Two people dead, six injured (1:30) When the unthinkable repeats (4:30) Shooter used sheriff deputy mom’s weapon (4:45) “Had to be a swipe at his mom” -Nancy Grace (6:30) Ripple effect mass shootings have (10:00) Intentionality around the time of shooting (17:00) “I don't know the answer, but asking why and trying to figure out what was going on in his mind is like going in your crazy aunt's attic and trying to make sense of it.” -Nancy Grace (20:00) Support goes out to victims families (20:30) The power of prayer --- Nancy Grace is an outspoken, tireless advocate for victims’ rights and one of television's most respected legal analysts. Nancy Grace had a perfect conviction record during her decade as a prosecutor. She is the founder and publisher of CrimeOnline.com, a crime- fighting digital platform that investigates breaking crime news, spreads awareness of missing people and shines a light on cold cases. In addition, Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, a daily show hosted by Grace, airs on SIRIUS XM’s Triumph Channel 111 and is downloadable as a podcast on all audio platforms - https://www.crimeonline.com/ Connect with Nancy: X: @nancygrace Instagram: @thenancygrace Facebook: @nancygrace Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnLine, Forensic and Crime Scene Expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and a CSI for a metro Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook., Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. Connect with Sheryl: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com X: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollumSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.