POPULARITY
20 episodes with defended
8 episodes with defended
10 episodes with defended
25 episodes with defended
11 episodes with defended
2 episodes with defended
5 episodes with defended
5 episodes with defended
3 episodes with defended
6 episodes with defended
4 episodes with defended
3 episodes with defended
2 episodes with defended
3 episodes with defended
3 episodes with defended
3 episodes with defended
3 episodes with defended
4 episodes with defended
3 episodes with defended
6 episodes with defended
4 episodes with defended
3 episodes with defended
2 episodes with defended
2 episodes with defended
4 episodes with defended
3 episodes with defended
3 episodes with defended
Do you overexplain yourself?Do you send the long text, add extra details after saying no, or defend yourself when you didn't do anything wrong?In this episode, Ginny Priem breaks down why high-achieving women overexplain, how anxiety and conditioning drive it, and how to UNSUBSCRIBE™ from the urge to justify yourself. You'll learn how overexplaining drains your energy, weakens your boundaries, and signals insecurity. Plus, how to replace it with calm, clear, confident communication using the UNSUBSCRIBE™ Filter.If you've ever:• Added five extra sentences to soften a boundary• Defended yourself against something you didn't say or do• Felt the need to “cover all your bases”• Over-clarified to avoid conflictThen this episode is for you.Ginny also explores the link between narcissistic dynamics and overexplaining, the psychology behind safety behaviors, and why sometimes less truly is more.You do not owe everyone an explanation. Especially not for becoming who you are.• Why overexplaining is a safety behavior• The connection between anxiety and excessive justification• How narcissistic dynamics condition overexplaining• The hidden cost of defending yourself• How to use BLOCK, MUTE, SWAP, and MANAGE to communicate with clarityUNSUBSCRIBE™: Why Letting Go is the Secret to Getting AheadOrder your copy here:
The latest batch of Epstein Files has caused much debate over how much information has been made public about the victims... Paul Cassell, Law Professor at University of Utah - SJ Quinney College of Law is mentioned in the files as an attorney defending some of these victims. Cassell joins the show to discuss his involvement and the concern around victim information being shared with the public.
Join us as Mike Bongo continues our sermon series on the book of Hebrews with a sermon entitled "Faith: Defined, Defended, and Demonstrated" from Hebrews 11:1-3.
The Soviet Union was one of the most secretive states that ever existed. Defended by a complex apparatus of rules and checks administered by the secret police, the Soviet state had seemingly unprecedented capabilities based on its near monopoly of productive capital, monolithic authority, and secretive decision making. But behind the scenes, Soviet secrecy was double-edged: it raised transaction costs, incentivized indecision, compromised the effectiveness of government officials, eroded citizens' trust in institutions and in each other, and led to a secretive society and an uninformed elite. The result is what Dr. Mark Harrison in Secret Leviathan: Secrecy and State Capacity under Soviet Communism (Stanford University Press, 2023) calls the secrecy/capacity tradeoff: a bargain in which the Soviet state accepted the reduction of state capacity as the cost of ensuring its own survival. This book is the first comprehensive, analytical, multi-faceted history of Soviet secrecy in the English language. Dr. Harrison combines quantitative and qualitative evidence to evaluate the impact of secrecy on Soviet state capacity from the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Based on multiple years of research in once-secret Soviet-era archives, this book addresses two gaps in history and social science: one the core role of secrecy in building and stabilising the communist states of the twentieth century; the other the corrosive effects of secrecy on the capabilities of authoritarian states. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
The Soviet Union was one of the most secretive states that ever existed. Defended by a complex apparatus of rules and checks administered by the secret police, the Soviet state had seemingly unprecedented capabilities based on its near monopoly of productive capital, monolithic authority, and secretive decision making. But behind the scenes, Soviet secrecy was double-edged: it raised transaction costs, incentivized indecision, compromised the effectiveness of government officials, eroded citizens' trust in institutions and in each other, and led to a secretive society and an uninformed elite. The result is what Dr. Mark Harrison in Secret Leviathan: Secrecy and State Capacity under Soviet Communism (Stanford University Press, 2023) calls the secrecy/capacity tradeoff: a bargain in which the Soviet state accepted the reduction of state capacity as the cost of ensuring its own survival. This book is the first comprehensive, analytical, multi-faceted history of Soviet secrecy in the English language. Dr. Harrison combines quantitative and qualitative evidence to evaluate the impact of secrecy on Soviet state capacity from the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Based on multiple years of research in once-secret Soviet-era archives, this book addresses two gaps in history and social science: one the core role of secrecy in building and stabilising the communist states of the twentieth century; the other the corrosive effects of secrecy on the capabilities of authoritarian states. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies
The Soviet Union was one of the most secretive states that ever existed. Defended by a complex apparatus of rules and checks administered by the secret police, the Soviet state had seemingly unprecedented capabilities based on its near monopoly of productive capital, monolithic authority, and secretive decision making. But behind the scenes, Soviet secrecy was double-edged: it raised transaction costs, incentivized indecision, compromised the effectiveness of government officials, eroded citizens' trust in institutions and in each other, and led to a secretive society and an uninformed elite. The result is what Dr. Mark Harrison in Secret Leviathan: Secrecy and State Capacity under Soviet Communism (Stanford University Press, 2023) calls the secrecy/capacity tradeoff: a bargain in which the Soviet state accepted the reduction of state capacity as the cost of ensuring its own survival. This book is the first comprehensive, analytical, multi-faceted history of Soviet secrecy in the English language. Dr. Harrison combines quantitative and qualitative evidence to evaluate the impact of secrecy on Soviet state capacity from the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Based on multiple years of research in once-secret Soviet-era archives, this book addresses two gaps in history and social science: one the core role of secrecy in building and stabilising the communist states of the twentieth century; the other the corrosive effects of secrecy on the capabilities of authoritarian states. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose doctoral work focused on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Romans 3 pt3 - God's Judgment Defended by Ray Jensen
Romans 3 pt2 - God's Judgment Defended by Ray Jensen
Romans 3 pt1 - God's Judgment Defended by Ray Jensen
Matt Spiegel and Anthony Herron listened and reacted to the highlights of Bulls icon Derrick Rose's speech as the organization retired his No. 1 jersey Saturday night at the United Center.
Get your notes for this teaching!What happens when the gospel itself is put on trial?In Galatians 2:1–10, Paul faces pressure to compromise grace and return to the law — and he refuses.False brothers attempt to force circumcision, re-impose the Mosaic Law, and drag Gentile believers back into spiritual bondage. Paul stands firm so that the truth of the gospel would remain.This teaching reveals the real conflict in the early church: freedom in Christ versus religious legalism. You will see why Titus became the test case, how Paul defended the gospel, and why apostolic authority is rooted in divine calling, not human reputation. James, Peter, and John ultimately affirm Paul's mission — proving that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.If you've ever wondered how law and grace fit together, why Paul resisted the Judaizers, or what it truly means to live free in Christ, this study will bring clarity and conviction.Topics in this teaching:Paul vs false teachers, law vs grace, Galatians 2 explained, Christian freedom, justification by faith, apostolic authority, early church controversy, sound doctrine, verse-by-verse Bible studySupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/lets-talk-scripture/donations
Visit: RadioLawTalk.com for information & full episodes! Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/RLTFacebook Follow us on Twitter: bit.ly/RLTTwitter Follow us on Instagram: bit.ly/RLTInstagram Subscribe to our YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Owf1BEB-klmtD_92-uqzg Your Radio Law Talk hosts are exceptional attorneys and love what they do! They take breaks from their day jobs and make time for Radio Law Talk so that the rest of the country can enjoy the law like they do. Follow Radio Law Talk on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter & Instagram!
Travel creators tap into a powerful validation economy in South Asia, Sphere bets on a smaller, scalable venue model near Washington, D.C., and Europe's much-criticized short-haul business class gets a rare defense. On today's Skift Daily Briefing, Sarah Dandashy breaks down how creators are becoming cultural interfaces for massive audiences, why Sphere's next move is about networks, not spectacle, and how “Eurobusiness” class is really about flexibility and friction reduction — not the seat itself. This episode is brought to you by Lodgify! Connect with Skift LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/skift/ WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaAL375LikgIXmNPYQ0L/ Facebook: https://facebook.com/skiftnews Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/skiftnews/ Threads: https://www.threads.net/@skiftnews Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/skiftnews.bsky.social X: https://twitter.com/skift Subscribe to @SkiftNews and never miss an update from the travel industry.
TODAY ON THE ROBERT SCOTT BELL SHOW: Protocol Medicine Replaces Doctors, Statin Heart Damage, Pesticides Sprayed on Organics, Dementia Drug Risks, Teucrium Marum Verum, Public Health Corruption, Amish Faith Defended, HPV Vaccine Guidelines Changed, Exercise Beats Depression, and MORE! https://robertscottbell.com/protocol-medicine-replaces-doctors-statin-heart-damage-pesticides-sprayed-on-organics-dementia-drug-risks-teucrium-marum-verum-public-health-corruption-amish-faith-defended-hpv-vaccine-guidelin/https://boxcast.tv/view/protocol-replaces-doctors-statin-heart-damage-pesticides-sprayed-on-organics-public-health-corruption-amish-faith-defended---the-rsb-show-1-14-26-n7jvwsjiyktgqk4ju2uj Purpose and Character The use of copyrighted material on the website is for non-commercial, educational purposes, and is intended to provide benefit to the public through information, critique, teaching, scholarship, or research. Nature of Copyrighted Material Weensure that the copyrighted material used is for supplementary and illustrative purposes and that it contributes significantly to the user's understanding of the content in a non-detrimental way to the commercial value of the original content. Amount and Substantiality Our website uses only the necessary amount of copyrighted material to achieve the intended purpose and does not substitute for the original market of the copyrighted works. Effect on Market Value The use of copyrighted material on our website does not in any way diminish or affect the market value of the original work. We believe that our use constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you believe that any content on the website violates your copyright, please contact us providing the necessary information, and we will take appropriate action to address your concern.
Support us as we expand our challenge to our broken media here: https://www.patreon.com/owenjones84 or here: https://ko-fi.com/owenjonesSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/the-owen-jones-podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
History's repeating itself …loudly.In this Trawl, Marina and Jemma struggle to keep things light as America spirals deeper into terrifyingly authoritarian territory.They discuss the killing of Renee Good by an ICE agent, the disturbing footage that followed, and the speed with which Trump's administration moved to justify, sanitise and defend her death. From the tripling of ICE's budget to the erosion of judicial oversight, this episode lays bare what happens when a heavily armed force is unleashed with political cover and “absolute immunity”.Along the way, there's Trump's increasingly unhinged behaviour, a media ecosystem willing to dehumanise the dead, and the uncomfortable truth that Renee was not the first person killed in ICE custody - just the first white person caught on tape.It's an angry, upsetting, necessary listen with moments of solidarity, clarity and humanity where the Trawl ladies can still find them.One of the 'Under Rateds' will give you shivers. Thank you for sharing and please do follow us @MarinaPurkiss @jemmaforte @TheTrawlPodcast Patreonhttps://patreon.com/TheTrawlPodcast Youtubehttps://www.youtube.com/@TheTrawl Twitterhttps://twitter.com/TheTrawlPodcastIf you've even mildly enjoyed The Trawl, you'll love the unfiltered, no-holds-barred extras from Jemma & Marina over on Patreon, including:• Exclusive episodes of The Trawl Goss – where Jemma and Marina spill backstage gossip, dive into their personal lives, and often forget the mic is on• Early access to The Trawl Meets…• Glorious ad-free episodesPlus, there's a bell-free community of over 3,300 legends sparking brilliant chat.And it's your way to support the pod which the ladies pour their hearts, souls (and occasional anxiety) into. All for your listening pleasure and reassurance that through this geopolitical s**tstorm… you're not alone.Come join the fun:https://www.patreon.com/TheTrawlPodcast?utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
On this episode of Kirk and Marianne we talk about times we needed a knight in shinning armor. Tune in to hear Kirk and Marianne Live in the Boom Boom Room talk about times someone defended us. What did our capless superheroes do? One way to find out. Hit play!
Adam Crowley and Pat Bostick try to determine if there's any legitimate ways Steelers' head coach Mike Tomlin could be defended following the team's playoff loss to the Houston Texans on Monday.
YouTube link: https://youtube.com/live/C8AquWnovs4Support the show
“Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” – Matt 28:16-20 NIV COMMISSION: • a formal written warrant granting the power to perform various acts or duties • an authorization or command to act in a prescribed manner or to perform prescribed acts • authority to act for, on behalf of, or in place of another • a task or matter entrusted to one as an agent for another Jesus led with his actions, often before ever preaching to people: Fed them (Matthew 14:13-21) Healed them (Matt 9:1-8) Served them (John 2:1-11, John 13:1-17) Spent time and broke bread with them (Matthew 9, Mark 2, Luke 5) Encouraged them (Matthew 11:28 and John 16:33) Defended them (John 8:1-11) Prayed for them (John 17:1-26) “One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” – Matt 22:35-40 NIV Truth and accountability without a genuine relationship is transactional. It can appear critical and can cause defensiveness. Relationship without truth and accountability is superficial and temporal. It lacks real depth and can lead to the degradation of biblical values, having eternal consequences. “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” – 1 Cor 13:1 NIV
THE PROSECUTION OF VERRES Colleague Josiah Osgood. Cicero takes on the corruption trial of Gaius Verres, the governor of Sicily who looted art and money from the province. Although Cicero usually defended clients to earn favors, he prosecuted Verres to align with political shifts demanding reform. Verres was backed by the Senateestablishment and Sulla's followers, making Cicero's move a bold attack by an outsider against a "crooked establishment" to cleanse the government. NUMBER 2 1464 YOUNG CICERO
THE TRIAL OF RUFUS AND CICERO'S MISOGYNY Colleague Douglas Boin. Boin describes a trial where Clodia accused her ex-lover Rufus of poisoning. Cicero defended Rufus by launching misogynistic attacks on Clodia, calling her "cow-eyed" and alleging incest. Boin argues this famous speech unfairly solidified Clodia's negative historical reputation while obscuring the political power she wielded. NUMBER 15
Today, I'm joined with Chinasa, who has been featured on many of the episodes of the Dr. Daf show debating with other women from different religions. We sit down together to talk about how it was like being on the show defending christianity, her faith journey, what drove her into christian apologetics and tips on how to navigate conversations with muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. There are so many gems in this one conversation. I know you will be blessed by it!Just 2 Girls' Youtube: https://youtube.com/@just-two-girls-pod?si=Mpxsy6-9oWufGHzn Instagram: @Just2girlsJ2gConnect with Victoria on Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/vickoadeoye/Podcast YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@thegospelalone
In this episode, Bryan Dawson applies the “Dutton Principle” to immigration and explains why anything worth having must be defended—or it will be lost. Dawson connects faith, history, and current events to argue that immigration is the most urgent political issue facing America today. Building on themes from recent episodes, he explains why immigration without assimilation is not compassion, but invasion, and how it fits into a broader cultural and ideological struggle. Dawson frames America as an inherited garden, built through sacrifice and faith, and warns that stewardship requires the courage to protect what previous generations handed down. From overwhelmed hospitals and public schools to rising housing costs, infrastructure strain, public safety concerns, and compromised elections, he lays out how mass legal and illegal immigration is reshaping the nation's economy, culture, and future. In a viral personal story sparked by a routine trip to buy stamps, Dawson exposes what he calls “toxic empathy”—a mindset that prioritizes the feelings of lawbreakers over responsibility to citizens and future generations. The backlash he received online, filled with accusations of racism and fascism, becomes a case study in how dissent is silenced and resistance discouraged. The episode also addresses a controversial but direct claim: while abortion remains a grave moral evil, a nation must exist in order to outlaw it. Without borders, assimilation, and moral clarity, no long-term political victories are possible. Dawson closes with a call to reject propaganda, embrace courage, and accept that defending something worth having always comes at a cost.
In this episode, Bryan Dawson applies the “Dutton Principle” to immigration and explains why anything worth having must be defended—or it will be lost. Dawson connects faith, history, and current events to argue that immigration is the most urgent political issue facing America today. Building on themes from recent episodes, he explains why immigration without assimilation is not compassion, but invasion, and how it fits into a broader cultural and ideological struggle. Dawson frames America as an inherited garden, built through sacrifice and faith, and warns that stewardship requires the courage to protect what previous generations handed down. From overwhelmed hospitals and public schools to rising housing costs, infrastructure strain, public safety concerns, and compromised elections, he lays out how mass legal and illegal immigration is reshaping the nation's economy, culture, and future. In a viral personal story sparked by a routine trip to buy stamps, Dawson exposes what he calls “toxic empathy”—a mindset that prioritizes the feelings of lawbreakers over responsibility to citizens and future generations. The backlash he received online, filled with accusations of racism and fascism, becomes a case study in how dissent is silenced and resistance discouraged. The episode also addresses a controversial but direct claim: while abortion remains a grave moral evil, a nation must exist in order to outlaw it. Without borders, assimilation, and moral clarity, no long-term political victories are possible. Dawson closes with a call to reject propaganda, embrace courage, and accept that defending something worth having always comes at a cost.
In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
On the latest Morning Tide, we go over San Jose's big win over Utah Monday night at SAP Center
Jubal Early's Near-Capture of Washington and Mosby's Influence — Patrick K. O'Donnell — General Jubal Earlymarched on poorly defended Washington in summer 1864, aiming to capture the capital and liberate prisoners at Point Lookout. Early and Mosby disliked each other, hindering coordination. President Lincoln fearlessly stood on the parapet at Fort Stevens. Mosby's concurrent Calico raid severed B&O rail lines, cutting off Union reinforcements. Mosby conducted disciplined close-range engagements.
Norm Pattis is one of America's most fearless and outspoken trial lawyers — a champion of the marginalized who has built his career defending clients in some of the highest-stakes criminal and civil rights cases in the country. With over 150 jury trials and admissions to federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court, he's earned a reputation as one of the fiercest defenders of the Constitution and free speech. Known for taking on controversial cases and clients that others refuse to touch, Norm has spent over 30 years fighting against government overreach and injustice. In this conversation, he opens up about the realities of the criminal justice system, what it truly means to defend the guilty and the innocent, and the personal toll of standing up for what's right in a system built to break you. #LockedInWithIanBick #TrueCrime #CriminalJustice #DefenseAttorney #LawAndOrder #CourtroomStories #JusticeSystem #realstories Thank you to BLUECHEW & K9S.ORG for sponsoring this episode: BlueChew: Visit https://bluechew.com/ and use promo code LOCKEDIN at checkout to get your first month of BlueChew & pay five bucks for shipping. K9s.org: Donate anytime at https://k9s.org/ Connect with Norm Pattis: https://www.pattispazlaw.com/ Hosted, Executive Produced & Edited By Ian Bick: https://www.instagram.com/ian_bick/?hl=en https://ianbick.com/ Shop Locked In Merch: http://www.ianbick.com/shop Timestamps: 00:00 – Intro: Who Is Norm Pattis? What Makes a Trial Lawyer Great 03:10 – Norm Pattis: Early Life, Background & Career Start 07:11 – College to Law School: How Norm Found His Calling 11:25 – Discovering Criminal Defense & Why It Hooked Him 13:50 – How Trial Lawyers Choose Clients & Case Strategy 17:37 – Social Media, Jury Pools & Modern High-Profile Cases 21:09 – The Media, Public Opinion & How It Impacts Trials 25:01 – Going to Trial: Tough Cases, Strategy & Client Decisions 31:05 – Juries Explained: Psychology, Testimony & Mirroring 36:26 – Federal vs State Court: Public Defenders, CJA & Differences 42:00 – Losing Cases, The Justice System & Prison Sentences 47:00 – The “Trial Tax,” Plea Deals & Sentencing Realities 52:21 – Pro Bono Work, Crowdfunding & Taking the Right Cases 55:55 – AI in Law: Helpful Tools, Risks & Hallucinations 01:00:00 – Sentencing, Pre-Sentence Reports & What Judges Consider 01:05:00 – Norm Pattis: Biggest Lessons After 30 Years in the Courtroom Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Michelle Beadle Takes a Brutal Shot at Josh Giddey Over His Case Involving a Minor, Chauncey Billups Hires the Lawyer Who Defended Donald Trump to Fight FBI Prosecutors, New Report Claims Billups Was the NBA Coach Leaking Inside Information Download the PrizePicks app today and use code CLNS and get $50 instantly when you play $5! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Join us as we study through the Epistle to the Galatians in our sermon series, "The Gospel of Grace."In today's podcast, we will be focusing on Galatians 2:11-16.If you have any questions or would like to leave a comment, please feel free to email us at info@ravenswoodbaptist.org
In today's episode, we dive into some incredible hospitality industry tales. From a bizarre encounter with a DoorDash driver at a hotel restroom to a guest who just can't stand an overzealous bellman, and a night auditor's clash with persistent late-night visitors. Plus, we explore the challenges of outdated tech in the hotel industry and its impact on guest satisfaction. Don't miss these jaw-dropping stories!
The Trinity may be the most challenged doctrine in Christianity, and for good reason. It's unique to the Christian faith and central to what Christians believe about God. If the Trinity falls, Christianity collapses. Join the live debate and bring your best objections to the table. Today's book giveaway is "What's Your Worldview?: An Interactive Approach to Life's Big Questions" by James N. Anderson - https://think-well-shop.fourthwall.com/products/whats-your-worldview-by-james-anderson Register for a Summit Ministries summer conference before March 31st and use the discount code THINKWELL26 to save $500! - https://www.summit.org/promotions/think-well/
Seth and Sean celebrate the anniversary of Jerry Burns defending his OC in a profanity-laden rant after a win, and would it be so bad to hear DeMeco defend Nick Caley in that way?
Seth and Sean discuss the challenges the Jags present this Sunday, the Cowboys' ridiculous national TV schedule, and what if DeMeco defended his OC in the same manner as Jerry Burns did back in the day.
Pastor Steven Henry, Wednesday Evening
Did you know that disease has been used to help people? In this episode we're going to discuss several cases in which disease, or disease research, was utilized to protect people from great harm. All of these cases occurred during World War 2, and were carried out by physicians doing their best to protect those targeted by The Third Reich, also known as the Nazis.
The Yankees are drawing Steelers comparisons—regular season warriors, playoff question marks—as Judge's prime ticks by without a ring. Boomer and Gio stayed optimistic, insisting tonight's lefty-heavy lineup will spark an offensive breakout, though Gio admitted it feels like another “here we go again” October. Jerry's update had Boone defending Weaver, Morash raging against analytics, and elsewhere the Dodgers, Cubs, and Tigers all flexed in Game 1s. Joe Benigno even lit up Goodell for picking Bad Bunny at halftime.
On this episode of Questions with Father, we address one of the most contested documents of the Second Vatican Council: Dignitatis Humanae. Fr. Paul Robinson joins us to ask the hard question: can this declaration on religious liberty be reconciled with the traditional teaching of the Church? We will explore the Society of Saint Pius X's objections to this declaration, the pre-conciliar magisterium, and the post-conciliar attempts to reinterpret this controversial document. From Fr. Bernard Lucien's modern defense to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's 1987 reply to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, this episode critically examines religious liberty, human dignity, and the nature of truth in public life. Abp. Lefebvre's dubia on Religious Liberty: https://angeluspress.org/products/religious-liberty-questioned-dubia Reply of the CDF to the dubia of Abp. Lefebvre: https://laportelatine.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/reponses_dubia.pdf Abp. Lefebvre and the Vatican: https://angeluspress.org/products/lefebvre-vatican Catechism of the Crisis of the Church: https://angeluspress.org/products/catechism-crisis See all the episodes: https://sspxpodcast.com/questions/ We'd love your feedback on this series! podcast@sspx.org – – – – – – View this episode on YouTube: – – – – – – – The Society of Saint Pius X offers this series and all of its content free of charge. If you are able to offer a one time or a small monthly recurring donation, it will assist us greatly in continuing to provide these videos for the good of the Church and Catholic Tradition. Please Support this Apostolate with 1-time or Monthly Donation >> – – – – – – – Explore more: Subscribe to this Podcast to receive this and all our audio episodesSubscribe to the SSPX YouTube channel for video versions of our podcast series and SermonsFSSPX News Website: https://fsspx.newsVisit the US District website: https://sspx.org/ – – – – – What is the SSPX Podcast? The SSPX Podcast is produced by Angelus Press, which has as its mission the fortification of traditional Catholics so that they can defend the Faith, and reaching out to those who have not yet found Tradition. – – – – – – What is the SSPX? The main goal of the Society of Saint Pius X is to preserve the Catholic Faith in its fullness and purity, to teach its truths, and to diffuse its virtues, especially through the Roman Catholic priesthood. Authentic spiritual life, the sacraments, and the traditional liturgy are its primary means of bringing this life of grace to souls. Although the traditional Latin Mass is the most visible and public expression of the work of the Society, we are committed to defending Catholic Tradition in its entirety: all of...
Jimmy Kimmel is back on his late-night stage — and full of emotion. After a nearly week-long suspension, the ABC star taped a new episode on Tuesday evening, and he spoke at length about the controversy that enveloped the show, according to audience members who spoke with CNN afterward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Did you know that disease has been used to help people? In this episode we're going to discuss several cases in which disease, or disease research, was utilized to protect people from great harm. All of these cases occurred during World War 2, and were carried out by physicians doing their best to protect those targeted by The Third Reich, also known as the Nazis.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
