Podcasts about critically

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

Florida federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida, led by then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, were fully aware of damning allegations into Jeffrey Epstein's predatory sexual behavior—including testimony that he exploited teenage girls as young as 14 in New York—as early as 2006. Despite this, in 2008 the Feds struck a secretive non-prosecution agreement that allowed Epstein to plead to minor state prostitution charges. The deal granted him immunity from federal prosecution and shielded not only him but also unnamed co-conspirators—including possibly powerful individuals—from federal scrutiny. Grand jury transcripts from 2006 and 2007 confirm that investigators had solid frontline narratives and evidence of abuse, yet chose to sideline them in favor of a lenient plea that allowed Epstein to serve just over a year with generous work-release privileges. Acosta, for his part, has since claimed that he was pressured by higher-ups in the Justice Department to back off—a troubling detail that suggests this wasn't merely prosecutorial discretion, but top-down protection.Critically, this arrangement was not borne out of investigative insufficiency—it reflected a systemic choice. The leniency bestowed on Epstein exposed deep flaws in the justice system, where privilege and influence appear to outweigh victim protection. Prosecutors blatantly sidelined federal charges despite being aware of New York-based victims, while those victims were kept in the dark regarding their rights under federal law. This miscarriage of justice underscores a broader failure: not only did powerful figures in law enforcement choose expediency over accountability, but they also set a chilling precedent that wealth and high-level connections can insulate perpetrators from the full course of the law.(commercial at 11:25)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-florida-feds-knew-york-victim-epstein-indictment/story?id=69088738

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein's high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The DOJ's newly released memo on Jeffrey Epstein is being hailed by federal officials as the final word on one of the most suspicious and heavily scrutinized deaths in modern U.S. history. According to the document, Epstein died by suicide, there is no surveillance footage showing any unauthorized access to his cellblock, and—perhaps most contentiously—there is no so-called “client list,” nor any credible evidence of a blackmail scheme. With those declarations, the DOJ is signaling that the investigation is closed, that no further criminal charges will be pursued, and that any additional public disclosure is, in their words, neither appropriate nor warranted. It is an astonishingly neat conclusion to a case that has haunted the public imagination for years and implicated powerful figures from multiple countries.Critically, this memo appears less like a good-faith investigative closure and more like institutional damage control. Rather than confront the staggering failures that allowed Epstein's death, or acknowledge the overwhelming public mistrust surrounding the case, the DOJ has opted for bureaucratic finality. By framing questions about elite involvement as dangerous conspiracy theory, they effectively sidestep accountability. The timing of the memo—released with minimal media attention and few accompanying documents—only deepens the impression of a government eager to seal the vault rather than open it. If the DOJ hoped this would restore faith in the system, it has badly misread the public mood. The result feels more like a carefully worded obituary for the truth.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ, FBI review finds no Jeffrey Epstein 'client list,' confirms suicide: Memo  - ABC News

The DOJ's newly released memo on Jeffrey Epstein is being hailed by federal officials as the final word on one of the most suspicious and heavily scrutinized deaths in modern U.S. history. According to the document, Epstein died by suicide, there is no surveillance footage showing any unauthorized access to his cellblock, and—perhaps most contentiously—there is no so-called “client list,” nor any credible evidence of a blackmail scheme. With those declarations, the DOJ is signaling that the investigation is closed, that no further criminal charges will be pursued, and that any additional public disclosure is, in their words, neither appropriate nor warranted. It is an astonishingly neat conclusion to a case that has haunted the public imagination for years and implicated powerful figures from multiple countries.Critically, this memo appears less like a good-faith investigative closure and more like institutional damage control. Rather than confront the staggering failures that allowed Epstein's death, or acknowledge the overwhelming public mistrust surrounding the case, the DOJ has opted for bureaucratic finality. By framing questions about elite involvement as dangerous conspiracy theory, they effectively sidestep accountability. The timing of the memo—released with minimal media attention and few accompanying documents—only deepens the impression of a government eager to seal the vault rather than open it. If the DOJ hoped this would restore faith in the system, it has badly misread the public mood. The result feels more like a carefully worded obituary for the truth.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ, FBI review finds no Jeffrey Epstein 'client list,' confirms suicide: Memo  - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Peter Thiel and Palmer Luckey are launching a Tolkien-themed bank to serve crypto and defense startups left behind after SVB's collapse. And a new study warns that AI in fintech and healthcare apps can be tricked into leaking data with just a sneaky prompt.Featured Guests: Jake O'Shea, principal, Antler | Gareth Shepherd, managing director, Voya Investment Management

Critically acclaimed author ASHLEY REAM joins BOOKSTORM Podcast to discuss The Peculiar Gift of July!  In keeping with this feel-good novel of the summer, we talk all about second chances, family, and community ... especially in small towns. We also discussed whether anyone feels ready to be a parent, and why we sometimes need a push to live authentically. Ashley shares that her previous novel Losing Clementine, a Barnes & Noble debut pick and a Sutter Home Book Club pick, is being made into a major motion picture!You can find more of your favorite bestselling authors at BOOKSTORM Podcast! We're also on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and YouTube!

Rob Robinson hosts the "Philosophy from the Frontline" podcast, exploring the intersection of philosophy, entrepreneurship, and veteran transition.In episode 101, he interviews Kijuan Amey, a former military member who transitioned from active duty to the reserves due to burnout and poor treatment. Kijuan Amey shares his background, including his desire to pursue engineering but being rejected by North Carolina A&T. He joined the Air Force, specializing in in-flight refueling, and experienced multiple deployments. A motorcycle accident in 2017 led to his medical discharge, but he transitioned to resilience coaching and motivational speaking, founding Amey Motivation. He also authored a book about his accident.As mentioned in the podcast:  Amey  Motivation - Motivational Speaker - https://ameymotivation.comKijuan's Book - https://a.co/d/5C1dSVrDisclaimer: The content of the "Philosophy From the Front Line" podcast is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The views and opinions expressed by the hosts and guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of any affiliated organizations or sponsors. This podcast does not offer legal, financial, or professional advice. Listeners are encouraged to consult appropriate professionals before making decisions based on the content presented. "Philosophy From the Front Line" assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content or for actions taken based on the information provided during the podcast episodes.​ Fair Use Statement: This podcast may contain copyrighted material not specifically authorized by the copyright owner. "Philosophy From the Front Line" is making such material available to educate, inform, and provide commentary under the "Fair Use" provisions of U.S. copyright law (Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act). We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as it is:​Used for non-commercial, educational, or research purposes.​Critically analyzed, reviewed, or discussed.​Used in a transformative way that adds new meaning or message to the original work.​If you own any content used and believe it infringes on your copyright, please contact us directly, and we will address the matter promptly.​Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/philosophy-from-the-front-line--4319845/support.

ALSO: New Economic Development Board Promises Greater Transparency on Taxpayer Spending... IPS, Charter Schools to Share Resources Under New State-Mandated Alliance... PLUS... Councilor Carlino Apologizes After Controversy; Steps Down From Committees but Stays in CaucusSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

ALSO: Man Found Dead After Meeting Turns Deadly on South Side... Missing Girl Found Hidden in Ceiling of Evansville Hotel... PLUS... Pacers Draft Liberty's Taelon Peter, Eye Trade for Kam JonesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of "Philosophy from the Front Line," hosts discuss the concept of the "En Route Rally Point" and its relevance to veterans transitioning to civilian life. They explore the impact of leadership decisions on morale and credibility, using examples from military experiences. As we continue with the show, we will tie the lessons learned from the uniforms and inform our listening audience on additional skills that are transferable into the corporate workforce. One story involves a battalion commander removing vending machines, which was met with resistance due to a lack of alternative food sources. Another example highlights the positive impact of a leader who implemented a sterile uniform policy and PT competitions to foster discipline and camaraderie. The discussion emphasizes the importance of leader engagement, delegation, and the transferability of military skills to corporate environments.Disclaimer: The content of the "Philosophy From the Front Line" podcast is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The views and opinions expressed by the hosts and guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of any affiliated organizations or sponsors. This podcast does not offer legal, financial, or professional advice. Listeners are encouraged to consult appropriate professionals before making decisions based on the content presented. "Philosophy From the Front Line" assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content or for actions taken based on the information provided during the podcast episodes.​Fair Use Statement: This podcast may contain copyrighted material not specifically authorized by the copyright owner. "Philosophy From the Front Line" is making such material available to educate, inform, and provide commentary under the "Fair Use" provisions of U.S. copyright law (Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act). We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as it is:​Used for non-commercial, educational, or research purposes.​Critically analyzed, reviewed, or discussed.​Used in a transformative way that adds new meaning or message to the original work.​If you own any content used and believe it infringes on your copyright, please contact us directly, and we will address the matter promptly.​Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/philosophy-from-the-front-line--4319845/support.

In this episode, Sharona and Bosley sit down for a conversation with Dr. Sean Michael Morris to talk about Critical Digital Pedagogy. What is it? How can we think critically about our grading practices? How do we think critically about AI and it's impact on our grading choices?LinksPlease note - any books linked here are likely Amazon Associates links. Clicking on them and purchasing through them helps support the show. Thanks for your support!https://www.seanmichaelmorris.com/Critical Digital Pedagogy - What Is It?ResourcesThe Center for Grading Reform - seeking to advance education in the United States by supporting effective grading reform at all levels through conferences, educational workshops, professional development, research and scholarship, influencing public policy, and community building.The Grading Conference - an annual, online conference exploring Alternative Grading in Higher Education & K-12.Some great resources to educate yourself about Alternative Grading:The Grading for Growth BlogThe Grading ConferenceThe Intentional Academia BlogRecommended Books on Alternative Grading:Grading for Growth, by Robert Talbert and David ClarkSpecifications Grading, by Linda NilsenUndoing the Grade, by Jesse StommelFollow us on Bluesky, Facebook and Instagram - @thegradingpod. To leave us a comment, please go to our website: www.thegradingpod.com and leave a comment on this episode's page.If you would like to be considered to be a guest on this show, please reach out using the Contact Us form on our website, www.thegradingpod.com.All content of this podcast and website are solely the opinions of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily represent the views of California State University Los Angeles or the Los Angeles Unified School District.Music

Released in October 1990, Behaviour is the fourth studio album by British synth-pop duo Pet Shop Boys. Often regarded as their most introspective and mature work, the album marked a shift from the high-energy dance-pop of their earlier records to a more subdued, melodic, and reflective sound.Produced in collaboration with Harold Faltermeyer, Behaviour is characterized by warm analog synthesizers and lush orchestration, which complement the melancholic and thoughtful lyrical themes. Tracks like “Being Boring,” a nostalgic meditation on youth and loss, and “This Must Be the Place I Waited Years to Leave,” a tale of regret and disillusionment, exemplify the album's emotional depth. Despite its more restrained tone, the record still features infectious moments of pop brilliance, such as “So Hard” and “Jealousy.”Critically acclaimed for its sophisticated songwriting and emotional resonance, Behaviour has grown in stature over the years and is often cited by fans and critics alike as one of Pet Shop Boys' finest and most enduring works.What did you think of this album? Send us a text! Support the showPatreonWebsitePolyphonic Press Discord ServerFollow us on InstagramContact: polyphonicpressmusic@gmail.comDISCLAIMER: Due to copyright restrictions, we are unable to play pieces of the songs we cover in these episodes. Playing clips of songs are unfortunately prohibitively expensive to obtain the proper licensing. We strongly encourage you to listen to the album along with us on your preferred format to enhance the listening experience.

Sean "Diddy" Combs has strategically framed the federal sex trafficking and racketeering charges against him as racially motivated, asserting that his prosecution is an unjust targeting of a successful Black man. His defense team contends that the government's actions, including the alleged mishandling of confidential materials and purported leaks of sensitive information, exemplify a biased legal pursuit. They argue that these prosecutorial tactics not only infringe upon Combs's constitutional rights but also perpetuate systemic racial disparities within the criminal justice system. This defense narrative aims to shift public perception by highlighting potential prejudices influencing the case.Critically examining this approach reveals potential pitfalls. While raising concerns about racial bias is valid, especially given historical injustices, employing such a defense in this context may be perceived as a diversion from the gravity of the allegations. The charges against Combs are severe, involving multiple accusations of sexual misconduct and exploitation spanning decades. By focusing on claims of racial bias without substantive evidence directly linking prosecutorial actions to discriminatory intent, the defense risks undermining its credibility. Moreover, this strategy could detract from broader efforts to address genuine instances of racial injustice, as it may be viewed as leveraging systemic issues for personal exoneration rather than contributing to meaningful reform.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Diddy claims prosecutors are targeting him with a 'racist' law as he seeks to dismiss prostitution charge | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode, Peter dives into an important development for Cardano governance: the release of a new decentralised voting tool by the Cardano Foundation. This open-source platform, accessible at voting.cardanofoundation.org, enables DReps (Delegated Representatives), SPOs (Stake Pool Operators), and Constitutional Committee members to vote on-chain using a streamlined interface.Critically, the tool supports multisig wallets and stores immutable voting rationales on IPFS via integrations with Endmaker or custom IPFS providers. The release comes at a crucial time, as the existing community-built voting tool, GovTools, is facing funding challenges. GovTools wasn't included in the latest Intersect budget, leaving its continued development uncertain. A 100k ADA maintenance grant will keep the tool functional for now, but future progress depends on renewed community support.Peter walks through how the Cardano Foundation's tool works, outlining the step-by-step process from inputting your DRep ID to signing and submitting your vote. The new interface simplifies rationale submission, removing the need for GitHub uploads and allowing users to use Endmaker API tokens or even custom storage like Iagon.Crucially, the entire voting tool is open source and can be run locally or on private infrastructure, which ensures the resilience and decentralisation of Cardano governance. If hosted tools like GovTools go offline, users can still vote independently. This tool complements other platforms in the governance ecosystem like Tempo Vote, Governance.space, and the Cardano Forum, but it's one of the few to offer full voting capabilities.Peter applauds the Cardano Foundation for their contribution to the ecosystem's decentralisation and encourages the community to explore this new tool to strengthen participation in on-chain governance.

Khalid Sidahmed, a Sudanese anti-war campaigner discusses how to critically evaluate media reporting on the Sudanese War in order to get an accurate account of current events. Report by Lennox Apudo. Some Sudanese grassroots media to check out include: * moatinoon.com * 3ayin.com * menasolidaritynetrowork.com

WBZ NewsRadio's Mike Macklin reports. 

In today's Reddit stories, it comes from r/TrueOffMyChest where a woman found herself in a terrifying medical emergency while alone with her one-year-old daughter. When she called her husband for help, what followed was a series of excuses and lies that would shake the foundation of their marriage. This Reddit user shares her experience of betrayal, fear, and uncertainty about the future of her relationship after a life-threatening situation revealed her husband's true priorities.0:00 Intro0:18 Story 12:55 Story 1 Comments5:03 Story 1 Update7:24 Story 1 Comment / OP's Reply13:27 Story 2 Update17:27 Story 320:03 Story 3 Update#RedditStories #RelationshipStories #TrueOffMyChest Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this RCVS Knowledge Award overview, Tighearnan Mooney from Animal Trust, Dewsbury, explains how the team approached reducing the unnecessary use of highest-priority, critically important antibiotics (HPCIAs) and ensuring that any use followed the principles of good antimicrobial stewardship.  The team at Animal Trust, Dewsbury, received a Champion Award in the 2025 RCVS Knowledge Antimicrobial Stewardship Awards.  Read the transcript.

//The Wire//2300Z June 14, 2025////PRIORITY////BLUF: CONGRESSWOMAN ASSASSINATED, SENATOR WOUNDED IN MINNESOTA. ASSAILANT REMAINS AT LARGE. NATIONWIDE 'NO KINGS' PROTESTS REMAIN LARGELY LOW-INTENSITY DURING DAYLIGHT, THOUGH SEVERAL INCIDENTS REPORTED. NATIONWIDE COUNTER-ICE PROTESTS REMAIN MORE KINETIC.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE------International Events-Middle East: The Israeli/Iranian War continues as before, with both nations continuing to trade missiles overnight. Israeli forces have conducted more strikes targeting Iranian Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant (POL) production facilities, and Iranian forces have responded by striking the POL refinery in Haifa.-HomeFront-USA: Most of the "No Kings" protests did go ahead as planned, though as expected turnout was comparatively low throughout the morning in most areas. During the daytime protest events, most of the participants at most of the "No Kings" protests have been elderly, which resulted in most of the No Kings events remaining relatively low-impact.However, many Counter-ICE protests were conducted separately around the nation, many of which became kinetic. Standard cases of vandalism, civil unrest, and violence were reported in Los Angles, Chicago, NYC, Seattle, and several other major cities.Minnesota: Overnight, an individual posing as a police officer conducted multiple assassination attempts at the homes of two local politicians in Minneapolis. State Senator John Hoffman and his wife were ambushed at their home in Champlin by a gunman who posed as a police officer. Both were wounded during the attack. Later that same night, State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark were ambushed in their home in Brooklyn Park. Both Hortman and her husband were killed in the attack.Due to the similarities in their names, and these incidents taking place in close proximity to each other, the full casualty count regarding these attacks is as follows:Senator John Hoffman - Wounded at the scene in Champlin, expected to surviveYvette Hoffman (his wife) - Wounded at the scene in Champlin, expected to surviveRepresentative Melissa Hortman - Killed at the scene in Brooklyn ParkMark Hortman (her husband) - Critically wounded at scene in Brooklyn Park, later died at the hospital.The assailant remains at large, and a manhunt is underway in the Brooklyn Park area to locate the suspect. The suspect's vehicle (which was camouflaged to appear as a police cruiser) was recovered at the scene of the second series of murders. Inside the vehicle, were stacks of handwritten leaflets marked "No Kings", referencing today's planned protest events. Also found inside the vehicle was a hit list referencing targeting efforts of other politicians, however the details of this document have not yet been released.Texas: This morning a fire was reported at the Marathon Refinery in Texas City. In Austin, the State Capitol was evacuated this afternoon, after an unidentified threat was presented to lawmakers. As of this afternoon, no amplifying information has been released regarding this incident.Virginia: A vehicle ramming attack was attempted in Culpeper, as an individual drove his vehicle into one of the "No Kings" protests that was dispersing. Local authorities state that Joseph Checklick Jr. intentionally accelerated into the crowd, striking one person in the process. The assailant was arrested at the scene.-----END TEARLINE-----Analyst Comments: At the moment, the assassinations (and attempts) in Minnesota are highly controversial topics and speculation does not often make the situation any better. However, in this case some speculation is needed to convey the potential future threats that may be ongoing due to the fugitive remaining at large. When time is of the essence, speculation that aids in the success of an investigation is doctrinal

What if the most dangerous predators aren't lurking in dark alleys, but hiding in plain sight, charming their way into your life?Dr. David Snyder's webinar exposes the psychological tactics of manipulators who:Exploit emotional vulnerabilitiesCreate false connectionsPrey on your deepest insecuritiesLearn how social predators:Use the "Halo Effect" to appear trustworthyIdentify and target emotional weak pointsManipulate through validation and charmThe critical question: Are you truly safe from those who want to use you?Quotes:"People like people who are like themselves. We instinctively, inherently like people who make us feel good about ourselves." - Dr. David Snyder"The more attractive somebody is, physically or emotionally, the more we want to believe they're everything good." - Dr. David Snyder"Lack of action comes down to two basic things: either you don't know what to do, which is a skill set issue, or you're not willing to do it, which is a mindset issue." - Dr. David SnyderActionable Takeaways:Conduct a "Social Circle Audit": Critically examine your relationships and look for red flags. Ask yourself: Does anyone consistently make you feel emotionally drained, manipulated, or consistently shifts blame onto others?Develop a Personal Verification Protocol: Before deeply investing in a new relationship (personal or professional), create a systematic approach to verify someone's background. This includes checking social media, asking mutual connections, and looking for inconsistencies in their stories.Practice the "Emotional Detachment Technique": When meeting someone new, train yourself to step back emotionally and objectively assess their behavior, motivations, and consistency. Don't let initial charm or attractiveness cloud your judgment.Create Personal Boundary Statements: Develop clear, concise statements that define your personal boundaries. Practice communicating these boundaries directly and without apology, which helps repel potential manipulators.Monthly "Relationship Health Check": Schedule a quarterly self-reflection where you honestly evaluate your relationships. Ask: Who adds value to my life? Who drains my energy? Who consistently demonstrates trustworthiness and genuine care?Episode Timeline:0:00-5:00: Introduction and Overview of Machiavellian and Dark Triad TraitsDefining psychopathic and manipulative behaviorsDiscussion of books like "48 Laws of Power"Characteristics of social predators5:00-10:00: The Halo Effect and Psychological ManipulationHow attractiveness influences perceptionMechanisms of creating false positive impressionsTruth bias and emotional vulnerability10:00-15:00: Identifying Vulnerability MarkersPsychological traits that make people susceptible to manipulationRecent life challenges that create emotional openingsPredator targeting strategies15:00-20:00: Predator Identification TechniquesProactive methods of social predatorsHow manipulators create instant connectionsIdentification principle and emotional appeal20:00-25:00: Defensive StrategiesDeveloping personal boundariesRecognizing manipulation tacticsImportance of emotional detachment25:00-35:00: Q&A and Practical ApplicationsAudience questions about dealing with manipulatorsPersonal stories and insightsStrategies for protecting oneself35:00-40:00: Closing and Special OfferRecap of key lessonsPromotion of additional training resourcesMotivational conclusion about personal empowermentTo learn more about Dr. David Snyder and everything about NLP, visit:Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.nlppower.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@DavidSnyderNLP⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram:⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/davidsnydernlp

On today's episode the boys boot some horse with their gear as they get ready to review 1996's Trainspotting. Critically acclaimed by some as "The Drug Movie", Trainspotting has garnered itself high praise and cultural relevance since its release almost 30 years ago. But will that be enough to give it a high score?Support the showCatch new episodes of the Where to Stick It Podcast every Tuesday and Thursday. If you like the show, please consider supporting us on Patreon where we upload exclusive content each month for only $3 a month.

Rob Robinson and Lino Miani discuss the Combat Diver Foundation's (CDF) activities and events. Lino highlights the success of the CDF's winter cruise, which featured General Patton's yacht and notable guests like Ray Colon Lopez and Rick Prado. The event aimed to build relationships and preserve combat diver history without fundraising. Lino also mentions the CDF's corporate partnership program, with Ryan LLC as a top-level sponsor. Future plans include the winter cruise, Soft Week, and potential fundraising. The CDF focuses on historical preservation and collaborates with other veteran organizations to support their missions effectively.Combat Diver Foundation Website - https://combatdiver.org/CDF Store - https://store.combatdiver.org/ Ryme Intelligence - https://www.linkedin.com/company/ryme-intelligence/ https://www.rymeintelligence.com/SEAC - https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/2040114/senior-enlisted-advisor-to-the-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-ramn-cz-co/ Disclaimer: The content of the "Philosophy From the Front Line" podcast is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The views and opinions expressed by the hosts and guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of any affiliated organizations or sponsors. This podcast does not offer legal, financial, or professional advice. Listeners are encouraged to consult appropriate professionals before making decisions based on the content presented. "Philosophy From the Front Line" assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content or for actions taken based on the information provided during the podcast episodes.Fair Use Statement: This podcast may contain copyrighted material not specifically authorized by the copyright owner. "Philosophy From the Front Line" is making such material available to educate, inform, and provide commentary under the "Fair Use" provisions of U.S. copyright law (Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act). We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as it is:Used for non-commercial, educational, or research purposes.Critically analyzed, reviewed, or discussed.Used in a transformative way that adds new meaning or message to the original work.If you own any content used and believe it infringes on your copyright, don't hesitate to get in touch with us directly, and we will address the matter promptly.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/philosophy-from-the-front-line--4319845/support.

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdf

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdf

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdf

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdf

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdf

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In episode 98 of "Philosophy from the Frontline," host Rob Robinson interviews Jake Dyal about his transition from military service to entrepreneurship. Jake, a Tampa native, served 13 years in the military, transitioned to a government contractor role, and later co-founded a software company. He discusses the challenges of bureaucracy in both military and civilian roles, the importance of aligning work with company goals, and the value of adaptability in modern warfare. Jake also highlights the role of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu in his transition and the significance of values in building a successful team.As mentioned in the Podcast:  Certus Core - https://www.certuscore.com/ - Jake's CompanyThe Embarc Collective - https://embarccollective.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/milbridge-consulting-llc/ - The new version of Patriot's Path.  Disclaimer: The content of the "Philosophy From the Front Line" podcast is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The views and opinions expressed by the hosts and guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of any affiliated organizations or sponsors. This podcast does not offer legal, financial, or professional advice. Listeners are encouraged to consult appropriate professionals before making decisions based on the content presented. "Philosophy From the Front Line" assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content or for actions taken based on the information provided during the podcast episodes.Fair Use Statement: This podcast may contain copyrighted material not specifically authorized by the copyright owner. "Philosophy From the Front Line" is making such material available to educate, inform, and provide commentary under the "Fair Use" provisions of U.S. copyright law (Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act). We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as it is:Used for non-commercial, educational, or research purposes.Critically analyzed, reviewed, or discussed.Used in a transformative way that adds new meaning or message to the original work.If you own any content used and believe it infringes on your copyright, don't hesitate to get in touch with us directly, and we will address the matter promptly.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/philosophy-from-the-front-line--4319845/support.

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdf

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs' upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On Ascension Sunday, June 1st, 2025, Father Joshua Fons preaches about the reality of the mission that Christ gave to the Apostles, and how, because of their faithfulness to that mission, it has now been passed on to us. Father Joshua found particular inspiration in the final Mission: Impossible Movie that just hit theatres. (Don't worry, no spoilers here!) Critically, as we prepare for Pentecost next weekend, we are invited to call upon the Holy Spirit, so that strengthened like the Apostles, we can live out this mission.

This Day in Legal History: National Defense ActOn June 3, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Defense Act into law, marking a major shift in American military and legal policy. Passed amid growing tensions related to World War I, the Act dramatically expanded the U.S. Army and strengthened the National Guard, officially integrating it as the Army's primary reserve force. It increased the size of the Regular Army to over 175,000 soldiers and provided for a National Guard force of over 400,000 when fully mobilized. The law also created the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), formalizing military education at civilian colleges and universities across the country.Crucially, the Act clarified federal authority over the National Guard, requiring units to conform to federal training standards and granting the president the power to mobilize them for national emergencies. This federalization of a traditionally state-controlled force marked a significant legal development in the balance between state and federal military power. It addressed long-standing constitutional ambiguities surrounding the militia clauses and reflected evolving views of national defense in a modern industrial society.The Act emerged from broader preparedness debates within the U.S. political and legal spheres, balancing isolationist tendencies with the perceived need for greater military readiness. Though the U.S. would not enter World War I until 1917, the National Defense Act of 1916 laid essential legal groundwork for rapid mobilization. It remains a foundational statute for the structure of the modern U.S. military.The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two significant Second Amendment challenges involving bans on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines in Maryland and Rhode Island. By refusing the appeals, the Court left in place lower court rulings upholding the restrictions. Maryland's law, enacted after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, bans certain semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, while Rhode Island's 2022 law prohibits magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Plaintiffs in both cases argued that these weapons and accessories are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens and thus protected by the Constitution.The Court's conservative bloc showed signs of division. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, indicating they would have reviewed the bans. Justice Kavanaugh did not dissent but issued a statement expressing openness to hearing similar cases in the future, suggesting that the Court would eventually need to rule on whether AR-15s are constitutionally protected.Lower courts rejected the challenges based on the weapons' military-style design and their use in mass killings, reasoning that they are not suitable for self-defense and thus fall outside Second Amendment protection. The challengers contended that these laws ignore the Court's prior rulings on weapons in “common use.” Despite recent decisions expanding gun rights, the justices allowed these bans to stand for now.US Supreme Court won't review assault weapon, high-capacity magazine bans | ReutersThree federal lawsuits filed on June 2, 2025, allege that major class action settlement administrators and two banks engaged in a kickback scheme that siphoned funds away from class members. The suits, brought in New York, Florida, and California, accuse Epiq Solutions, Angeion Group, and JND Legal Administration of securing illicit payments from Huntington National Bank and Western Alliance Bank in exchange for directing large volumes of settlement deposits to them. In return, the administrators allegedly received a share of the banks' profits.Plaintiffs claim the scheme dates back years and coincided with rising interest rates in 2021, which increased the potential value of settlement fund deposits. According to the lawsuits, administrators threatened to stop using the banks unless they shared profits. As a result, class members allegedly received lower payouts due to below-market interest rates on their settlement funds.Together, the defendant banks are said to control over 80% of the U.S. settlement fund market, while the administrators manage over 65% of class action services. The plaintiffs argue this arrangement violated U.S. antitrust law by reducing competition and fixing prices. JND and Western Alliance have denied wrongdoing, calling the claims baseless or inaccurate. Huntington declined to comment, and other parties have yet to respond.Class action administrators, banks accused of kickback scheme in new lawsuits | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Spain's proposed 100% tax on non-EU homebuyers, introduced as a bold fix for the country's deepening housing crisis. The government is responding to surging public frustration over exploding rents—up more than 60% in Barcelona in five years—and the sense that local housing is being turned into an asset class for absentee owners. But while the policy grabs attention, I argue it misses the real target. The problem isn't who owns the homes—it's how those homes are being used. A blanket nationality-based tax is a blunt instrument that's economically ineffective, legally risky under EU and international law, and symbolically inflammatory.Instead, I suggest a more focused approach: taxing speculative flipping and underutilization directly. A resale tax on homes sold within a short holding period, calibrated by how quickly they're flipped, would discourage fast-moving speculation without penalizing genuine residents or workers. Similarly, a progressive vacancy tax—getting steeper the longer a property remains empty—would address the roughly four million vacant or underused homes across Spain. These tools would pressure banks and investors to put housing back into circulation while raising revenue for public housing initiatives.Critically, these proposals are neutral as to the owner's nationality. Whether a home is owned by a Spanish bank, a Canadian retiree, or a U.S. fund manager, what matters is whether it's being used as shelter or as a sidelined asset. The column makes the case that Spain's housing crisis won't be solved by turning foreign investors into political scapegoats, but by confronting speculative behaviors that choke supply and inflate prices—regardless of the flag the buyer flies. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week is mainly devoted to listener questions and feedback. First, Ralph answers some of the questions you have submitted over the past few weeks. Then we invite back last week's guest, Erica Payne, of Patriotic Millionaires, to respond to your very thoughtful comments on the interview we did with that group's plan for preserving democracy by taxing the rich. Plus, Ralph highlights the outrages of the Trump/Musk assault on government programs that help ordinary people.Erica Payne is the founder and president of Patriotic Millionaires, an organization of high-net-worth individuals that aims to restructure America's political economy to suit the needs of all Americans. Their work includes advocating for a highly progressive tax system, a livable minimum wage, and equal political representation for all citizens. She is the co-author, with Morris Pearl, of Tax the Rich: How Lies, Loopholes and Lobbyists Make the Rich Even Richer.The real reason for taxation is democracy protection.Erica PayneI think the question is not: do we need to fix the estate tax? The question is: what is the best, most defensible mechanism through which you can tax the transfer of wealth from one generation to the other in order to protect American democracy from dynastic wealth—that is sufficient that you find five generations from now Elon Musk's kid isn't spending as much money on these elections as their great great great great great granddaddy is.Erica PayneAusterity applied at a federal level to a society that is in distress does the exact opposite of what the proponents of austerity are saying it should do. The tightening of the belt actually cuts off the circulation of the society.Erica PayneNews 5/9/251. While the Catholic clergy convene in Rome for the Papal Conclave, Pope Francis graces the world with one final gift. Vatican News reports, “His popemobile, the very vehicle from which he waved and was close to millions of faithful all around the world, is being transformed into a mobile health unit for the children of Gaza.” This article states this was Francis' “final wish,” and quotes his refrain that “Children are not numbers. They are faces. Names. Stories. And each one is sacred.” The vehicle is reportedly being outfitted with equipment for “diagnosis, examination, and treatment – including rapid tests for infections, diagnostic instruments, vaccines, suture kits, and other life-saving supplies,” and it will be staffed by doctors and medics. Yet, given Israel's track record for the destruction of medical facilities in Gaza, it is unclear how long this mobile health unit itself will survive.2. In more distressing news from Gaza, CNN reports that “A Gaza-bound activist aid ship [part of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition] caught fire and issued an SOS, after what its organizers claimed was an Israeli drone attack off the coast of Malta…[on] Friday.” Per CNN, the ship was due to make port in Malta and pick up “a large contingent of activists” there before departing for Gaza. These included environmental activist Greta Thunberg and retired US Army Colonel Mary Ann Wright. Thunberg said this flotilla “is one of many attempts to open up a humanitarian corridor and…[try] to break Israel's illegal siege on Gaza,” adding “for two months now, not a single bottle of water has entered Gaza…it's a systematic starvation of 2 million people.” The United Nations World Food Programme said this week “its warehouses are…empty; soup kitchens that are still running are severely rationing their last stocks; and what little food remains in Gaza's markets is being sold for exorbitant prices that most cannot afford.”3. Pro-Palestine activists scored a major victory in Michigan this week. The Guardian reports, “Michigan's attorney general, Dana Nessel, announced on Monday that she was dropping all charges against seven pro-[Palestine] demonstrators arrested last May at a University of Michigan encampment.” As this report notes, “The announcement came just moments before the judge was to decide on a defense motion to disqualify Nessel's office over alleged bias.” The Guardian itself published a major report “detailing Nessel's extensive personal, financial and political connections to university regents calling for the activists to be prosecuted,” last October. Defense attorney Amir Makled is quoted saying “This was a case of selective prosecution…rooted in bias, not in public safety issues…We're hoping this sends a message to other institutions locally and nationally that protest is not a crime, and dissent is not disorder.”4. In another legal victory, Prem Thakker reported on May 6th that “A federal court has [denied] the Trump administration's attempt to move Mahmoud Khalil's case…out of New Jersey.” The government attempted to move the venue to Louisiana, where they have Khalil detained. A press release by the ACLU, their New York and New Jersey affiliates, and the Center for Constitutional Rights states, “It is the fundamental job of the judiciary to stand up to…government manipulation of our basic rights. We hope the court's order sends a strong message to other courts around the country facing government attempts to shop for favorable jurisdictions by moving people detained on unconstitutional immigration charges around and making it difficult or impossible for their lawyers to know where to seek their immediate release.”5. Trump has released his budget for Fiscal Year 2026. This budget cuts nondefense spending by 23%, per Reuters, while allocating 75% of discretionary spending to military and police, per Stephen Semler of the Cost of War Project. This includes a 13% increase in military spending that tips the Pentagon budget over $1 trillion for the first time. So much for increasing government efficiency.6. At the same time, this country's infrastructure and transportation safety agencies continue to crumble. Just this week, NPR reported “Hundreds of flight delays and cancellations…[hit]… Newark Liberty International Airport at once: [due to] air traffic controller staffing shortages, aging technology, bad weather and the closure of one of the airport's busiest runways.” The air traffic controller staffing shortages, a chronic issue, has been compounded in recent months by the mass layoffs initiated by the Trump administration. NBC News reports that one air traffic controller handling Newark airspace said, “Don't fly into Newark. Avoid Newark at all costs.”7. It might be nice to have competent, energetic leadership among the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee right about now. Unfortunately, the party opted to install 75-year-old, cancer-ridden Gerry Connolly to serve as Ranking Member on that committee instead of AOC. Now, Axios reports Connolly is stepping down from this position after just four months and will not seek reelection to his seat in Congress, citing his declining health. AOC, once-bitten, has opted not to seek the position a second time, the Hill reports. Instead, the top contenders emerging to fill Conolly's seat are Stephen Lynch, a 70-year-old Congressman who won his seat in 2001 and is currently filling Conolly's role on an interim basis, and Eleanor Holmes-Norton, the non-voting delegate representing Washington D.C. Norton is the most senior Democrat on the committee at 87-years-old, having assumed office in 1991.8. Another ghost is coming back to haunt the Democrats: former Senator Bob Menendez. The New Jersey Globe reports, “The New Jersey Attorney General's office will seek a court order to permanently bar…Menendez from ever holding public employment in the state following his conviction on federal corruption charges last year.” Critically if a Superior Court judge approves the action, Menendez could lose his state pension. Menendez still draws over $1,000 per month from his New Jersey public employee pension, even after being sentenced to 11 years in prison for corruption last July. More recently, Menendez has sought to cozy up to Trump in an effort to obtain a pardon. So far, no dice.9. In some positive news, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum continues an unbelievable run. Back in April, KJZZ reported that Mexico will invest nearly $3 billion in “food sovereignty,” to “produce more staples like corn, beans and rice in Mexico over the next five years.” This money will be directed at small and medium sized farms in Mexico and is intended to anchor both the rural economy and the nation's food supply amidst the growing uncertainty of trade with the United States vis a vis Trump's erratic trade policy. Then, after May Day, Labor Minister Marath Bolaños said that “before the end of President Claudia Sheinbaum's term…the government would gradually install a…40-hour workweek,” Mexico News Daily reports. The standard workweek in Mexico currently sits at 48 hours. As this report notes, the 40-hour workweek is Number 60 on Sheinbaum's list of 100 promises. Americans can only dream of having a government that even makes that many promises, let alone keeps them. Perhaps the most impressive of Sheinbaum's recent actions however is her recent rejection of Trump's attempt to strongarm her into allowing American troops to enter Mexico. Democracy Now! reports Sheinbaum told the American president, “The territory is sacrosanct. Sovereignty is sacrosanct. Sovereignty is not for sale.”10. Finally, on the other end of the presidential spectrum, there's Trump furiously posting on Truth Social about the “Movie Industry in America…DYING a very fast death,” deeming that this is “a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat,” and threatening a “100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands.” Obviously, this screed is basically nonsensical and it remains to be seen what will actually come of this threat, but what is notable is the response from organized labor. The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) issued a statement threading the needle between supporting Trump's effort to “return and maintain U.S. film and television jobs, while not…harming the industry overall.” On the other hand, the Teamsters – led by Sean O'Brien who has tied himself to Trump more and more since he spoke at the 2024 RNC – issued a statement “thank[ing] President Trump for boldly supporting good union jobs when others have turned their heads.” Would such a policy truly revitalize the workforce of the American entertainment industry? We'll have to wait for the sequel to find out.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