Podcasts about District court

We recently wrote about the August 15th D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the lawsuit brought by the labor unions representing CFPB employees against Acting Director Russell Vought. The unions sought injunctive relief in response to what they described as an attempted “shutdown” of the Bureau. In a 2–1 ruling, the Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction issued by the District Court. That injunction had temporarily blocked the CFPB from carrying out a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) that would have left the Bureau with only about 200 employees to carry out its statutory responsibilities. Today, our Consumer Finance Monitor podcast takes a deep dive into this critical decision and its implications. Alan Kaplinsky (founder and former practice group leader, now Senior Counsel in our Consumer Financial Services Group) joins Joseph Schuster (a partner in the Group) for a wide-ranging conversation covering: The majority opinion by Judge Katsos The dissenting opinion by Judge Pillard The plaintiffs' options for further review — and why the odds may be at least 50–50 that the full D.C. Circuit (with 11 judges, 7 appointed by Democratic presidents) will grant en banc review Why plaintiffs might choose to continue litigating in the District Court as the CFPB implements the RIF and scales back activities to only those that are statutorily mandated How the CFPB's sharply reduced budget (cut nearly in half by the “Big Beautiful Bill”) shapes the Bureau's future functions What the CFPB could look like once litigation ends and “the dust settles” The impact of the just-released semiannual regulatory agenda The current status of the complaint portal What's happening with the CFPB's supervision and enforcement efforts How the DOJ and FTC are approaching consumer financial services issues Whether state attorneys general are stepping up enforcement to fill the gap left by a diminished CFPB This is a must-listen episode for anyone following the future of the CFPB, the role of other federal agencies, and the actions of state AGs in regulating consumer financial services.

It's Wednesday, August 27th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark India threatens life in prison for sharing Christ Christians may face life in prison for simply sharing the Gospel in India. The country's northern state of Uttarakhand amended its anti-conversion law last week. Violations are now punishable by life imprisonment. The law also cracks down on sharing one's faith through social media. Rev. Vijayesh Lal told Morning Star News, “These provisions, with penalties up to life imprisonment, represent some of India's harshest anti-conversion measures and could turn ordinary conversations about belief into criminal acts.” Please pray for the church in India. The country is ranked 11th on the Open Doors' World Watch List of the most difficult places to be a Christian.  Trump imposes 50% tariffs on India over funding Russian war The U.S. imposed new tariffs on exports from India starting today. The tariffs come in response to India's continued purchasing of Russian oil. President Donald Trump's levies on Indian exports are at 50% now. India has become one of the top buyers of Russian oil since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. The Trump administration is accusing India of effectively funding Russia's war through its oil purchases.  5,000 Irish march for Jesus Around 5,000 people joined the March for Jesus in Belfast, Northern Ireland over the weekend. Rev. John Ahern organized the event. He told Christian Daily International, “As the people of God, if we're willing to humble ourselves and pray, as the Bible says in 2 Chronicles 7:14, and turn from our wicked ways, God has promised to hear from Heaven, forgive our sin and heal our land.” The event builds on last year's march in Dublin where about 12,000 Christians participated. Another march in Dublin is scheduled for next month.  2 Chronicles 7:14 says, “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” Minnesota Christian colleges allowed to offer free credit to high schoolers A U.S. District Court ruled in favor of faith-based colleges in Minnesota last Friday. Previously, the state barred such colleges from offering free college credit to high school students. Minnesota parents successfully challenged the decision with the help of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.  Diana Thomson, senior counsel at Becket, said, “Minnesota tried to cut off educational opportunities to thousands of high schoolers simply for their faith. That's not just unlawful—it's shameful. This ruling is a win for families who won't be strong-armed into abandoning their beliefs, and a sharp warning to politicians who target them.” D.C. hospital halts transgender drugs on minors ABC News reports that Children's National Hospital in Washington, D.C. will no longer offer transgender drugs to minors.  It's the latest hospital in the U.S. to stop offering so-called “gender transition” drugs. Other hospitals to make similar decisions include Yale Medicine, Kaiser Permanente, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, and UChicago Medicine.  These decisions follow President Trump's executive order to end federal funding for transgender procedures on minors. U.S. gov't owns 10% of Intel stocks Last Friday, Intel announced an $8.9 billion investment in the company's stock by the U.S. government. This means the government will own about 10% of the computer chip manufacturer. The deal converts government grants into equity share in the company.  On Truth Social, President Trump wrote, “The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL.” 100-year-long German prayer chain And finally, this week is the anniversary of when a Christian community in Herrnhut, Germany began a round-the-clock “prayer chain.” The community started after Count Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf opened his estate to Protestant refugees. On August 27, 1727, dozens in the community committed to pray, in turns, every hour of every day. The prayer chain reportedly lasted over one hundred years. The Moravian community went on to send hundreds of missionaries around the world, becoming the spearhead of Protestant missions.  Colossians 4:2 says, “Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, August 27th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

A lawsuit by the Trump Department of Justice is unprecedented in that it sues all the federal District Court judges in Maryland at once. At stake is a case involving deportation, rights of habeas corpus, and the Constitution's separation of powers. Also: today's stories, including how the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) might spur an international aid response in Gaza, how a Boston neighborhood and a college cope with a housing crisis, and a ballet school showing Kenyans that dance is for everyone. Join the Monitor's Kurt Shillinger for today's news.

Episode 75 In Part 2 of The Flora Four: Between Rumors and Reality, we dig into the tangled web of suspects, motives, and unanswered questions surrounding the fire that claimed the lives of four young sisters in Flora, Indiana. From Gaylin Rose's boyfriend Colten Creasy to the complicated history of Jennifer Dean (a.k.a. Jennifer Barnes, Jennifer Miller), we examine the relationships, rumors, and criminal connections that kept investigators circling. Was this a case of small-town drama spilling into something darker—or did Gaylin's circle of friends pull her into dangerous territory? Then we follow the money. With Josh Ayres and Troy Helderman's Birch Tree LLC carrying nearly $400,000 in insurance on a house valued at just $45,000—and a pattern of past insurance claims—the financial motives are impossible to ignore. Add in rumors of fire tricks and unanswered police reports, and the smoke around this case gets even thicker. Join us as we peel back the layers of romance, drugs, race, and financial gain in search of what really fueled this fire. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  The Crime to Burn Patreon - The Cult of Steve - is LIVE NOW! Go join and get all the unhinged you can handle. Click here to be sanctified.  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources: If you want to go down the rabbit hole on this case, there are lots of theories and discussion on this board, just be warned, you could get lost in there for weeks. r/FloraFour. Reddit community archive. Link For a complete source list, please also see show notes for Episode 64. Additional sources used in Part 2 include the following. Sandra Chapman. Emails Confirm Top Homeland Security Leaders Knew of Concerns over Flora Fire Investigation. 13 Investigates, WTHR. October 6, 2017; updated January 15, 2018. Link Mike Potter. ‘No help' | 4 girls died in the Flora fire. 8 years later, the case remains unsolved. 13WTHR. November 21, 2024; updated November 25, 2024. Link Steven Brown. Mom calls for justice 6 years after Flora fire killed her 4 girls, ‘I pray every day something comes out'. Fox 59. November 21, 2022. Link Aishah Hasnie. Seasoned private investigator in Flora fire says mistakes happen with inexperience. Fox 59. June 26, 2017. Link State of Indiana v. Jennifer L. Dean, Case 08C01-2017-MR-000002 (Case summary/docket filed July 14, 2021). Holly Eitenmiller. Final defendant sentenced in 2019 murder of Lafayette man amid sex trafficking claims. (Originally circulated via Reddit board; Link Sandra Chapman. Owner of Flora house where 4 girls died in fire wants release of police and fire records. 13 Investigates, WTHR. December 12, 2018; updated February 13, 2019. Link Susan Scholl. Flora's sewer issues rise to the top for 2019. Carroll County Comet. December 5, 2018. Link Court & Deposition Records Deposition of Troy Helderman, Landlord, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (Filed 2022). Deposition of Joshua Ayres, Landlord, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (Filed 2022). Deposition of Joshua Ayres (Insurance Coverage), Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (Filed 2022). Deposition of Todd Hetrick, P.E., CFEI, CFI, CVFI, Fire Investigator, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (December 20, 2021). Deposition of Jeffrey Tipton, CFI, CFEI, CVFI, Fire Investigator, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (January 24, 2022). Deposition of Candace Ashby, Ph.D., Fire Investigator, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (December 21, 2021). 103 E. Columbia Street Rental Agreement. (Filed as exhibit in Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM). IC Rental Agreements. (Filed as exhibit in Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al.).

The Friday Five for August 22, 2025: Field Notes on OBBBA, Spotify, and TikTok D. Power Medicare Advantage Member Satisfaction Survey Sonder Health Plans Inc. Termination Short-Term Medical Plan Regulation Update Judge Vacates HHS MA Commissions Lawsuit   Get Connected:

A federal lawsuit against Elon Musk's X Corp has ended with a settlement that requires the company to pay $500 million in severance to thousands of former Twitter employees. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accused X of violating federal labor laws by refusing to provide severance pay after Musk's acquisition of Twitter in October 2022. The company, now known simply as “X,” terminated over half of its workforce in the weeks after Musk completed his $44 billion purchase.How did a deal that was supposed to redefine social media turn into a legal battle over unpaid severance? The question surfaces from the scale and speed of Twitter's layoffs and the way those exits were handled. When Musk took control of Twitter, he slashed roughly 6,000 jobs across the company. Many of those employees said they were promised specific severance packages under the previous ownership. The lawsuit, led by former Twitter employee Courtney McMillian, alleged that Musk and his team chose to ignore those agreements and instead offered significantly reduced exit terms.

Civil Procedure: Are government documents respecting the plans for mass layoff of federal employees protected by the deliberative process privilege? - Argued: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 19:55:10 EDT

This week Steve and Yvonne interview Tom Bosworth of Bosworth Law (https://tombosworthlaw.com/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review   View/Download Trial Documents   Case Details: Attorney Tom Bosworth achieved a historic milestone by becoming the youngest lawyer in Pennsylvania to secure an eight-figure jury verdict as the lead counsel in a medical malpractice case for a living client. The case involved a medical malpractice victim who was awarded a $19.7 million verdict by a Philadelphia jury, due to a failure to diagnose. After years of seeing the same primary care physician, a woman's complaints about back pain and other symptoms were repeatedly dismissed. She sought the help of a neurologist, who discovered a mass on her spine. Unfortunately, the mass had already caused several complications, including incontinence, pain, and difficulty walking. As a result, she was left partially paralyzed and unable to continue working.   Guest Bio: Thomas Bosworth At age 33, Tom Bosworth became the youngest lawyer in the history of Pennsylvania to obtain a jury verdict in excess of $10 million for a living client as lead counsel (the total verdict being over $19 million). Three months prior to that, after two weeks as lead counsel at trial, Bosworth secured a $7 million settlement on behalf of a mother whose mentally disabled adult son wrongfully died in a group home. Bosworth also obtained multiple non-monetary terms in this settlement that were only agreed to by the defendant after two weeks of trial. In the past 5 years, Bosworth has been counsel on various additional jury trials and settlements totaling over $80 million. These cases included ones for medical malpractice, product liability, and wrongful death.   Recently, Bosworth was designated by the independent attorney group Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Pennsylvania, a designation reserved for the top 2.5 percent of attorneys in the state who are 40 or younger or practicing 10 years or less. Bosworth attended Temple University Beasley School of Law from where he graduated in 2016 with magna cum laude and Order of the Coif distinction. During law school, Bosworth participated as a member of Temple's nationally ranked Trial Team and as a Research Editor of the Temple Law Review. Following law school, Bosworth was a law clerk to the Honorable Lawrence Stengel in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Read Full Bio   LISTEN TO PREVIOUS EPISODES & MEET THE TEAM: Great Trials Podcast Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services  Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com Production Team: Dee Daniels Media Podcast Production   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

In June 2022, Maxwell's legal team submitted a 77-page sentencing memorandum to the U.S. District Court in Manhattan requesting a significant downward variance from both the Probation Department's recommendation and the federal Sentencing Guidelines. While the probation office had proposed a 20-year sentence (240 months), Maxwell's attorneys argued she should receive only 51 to 63 months in prison. They maintained that Maxwell should not be punished as a proxy for Jeffrey Epstein, emphasizing he was the principal orchestrator of the crimes and that Maxwell had never before been charged with wrongdoing until her association with him resurfaced. Her defense also cited her difficult and traumatic childhood, abusive father, and the death threats she continues to face as aggravating circumstances warranting leniency.Prosecutors forcefully opposed the request, urging the court instead to impose a prison term within the Guidelines range—between 30 to 55 years—based on Maxwell's “pivotal role” in grooming and recruiting vulnerable young girls for Epstein. They highlighted her lack of remorse, failure to accept responsibility, and the profound and enduring harm caused to numerous victims. The prosecutors made clear that Maxwell's privileged background offered no mitigation given the extreme gravity of her crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/ghislaine-maxwell-sex-trafficking-sentenceBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for Filing

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for Filing

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for FilingBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for FilingBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for FilingBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for FilingBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode, Stephen and Felicity are joined by the Hon. Steven Warmsley, former District Court judge, Senior Counsel, and author. The trio explores the arc of Warmsley's legal career, from solicitor to silk to judge, and unpacks the practicalities and philosophies of fearless advocacy. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Donald Trump's court battles have dominated national headlines this past week, unfolding across multiple jurisdictions and touching on core questions about presidential power and American democracy. I'm here to take you through the whirlwind developments, connecting the dots so you get the full picture.Let's begin with the most high-profile outcome: the historic New York case, The People for the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. After a months-long trial, Donald Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in Manhattan. That guilty verdict was delivered back in May of 2024, but what many found surprising was Justice Juan Merchan's sentencing decision in January. Trump faced the possibility of jail time, but ultimately received an unconditional discharge. That means, despite the felony convictions, no jail, fines, or probation—a legal oddity that analysts say was influenced by both the unprecedented nature of the case and its proximity to the 2024 election.Meanwhile, in the Southern District of Florida, things took a sharp turn regarding Trump's handling of classified documents. Originally, the indictment included 32 counts of retaining national defense information and several other obstruction-related charges. However, on July 15, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the indictment altogether, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Department of Justice did try to appeal, but by early 2025, those efforts had quietly ended, leaving Trump unscathed in that federal case.Georgia's Fulton County has also played host to legal drama. Trump and 18 others were indicted, accused of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results. While this sprawling RICO case has moved slowly, it remains one of the most closely watched state efforts.On a separate legal front, there's been fresh turmoil over Trump's executive actions. This week, Chief Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. ordered the Trump administration to answer tough questions about how they implemented Executive Order 14248, which mandates proof of citizenship for federal voting, restricts mail-in ballots, and ties election funding to compliance. Plaintiffs, which include the Democratic Party and civil rights groups, argue the order threatens to disenfranchise millions. The administration now faces a tight August 15 deadline to provide answers. This is happening as Trump's team also appeals a court order that blocked key provisions of the same order, keeping uncertainty swirling around future voting rules.And it's not just voting rights on the docket. The Trump administration's new policy authorizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest people attending mandatory court hearings has triggered an urgent lawsuit. Groups like the New York Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU are fighting this policy, calling it an unprecedented assault on due process and immigrant rights.It's a dizzying array of legal fights involving not just Donald Trump himself but the very machinery of his administration—the outcomes of which could fundamentally reshape the legal landscape and the 2026 election season.Thank you for tuning in to this court update. Come back next week for more insights and breaking developments. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

The Department of Justice has filed an ethics complaint against the Chief Judge of the District Court in DC, James Boasberg, and we've enlisted Kel McClanahan to help us figure out what (if any) evidence the Trump administration has to support its claims. Plus, Liz and Andrew listened to the Federal Circuit's oral argument over Trump's tariffs. And what does a disgraced former superlawyer have to do to get a pierogi in Martha's Vineyard?? For our subscribers, we chortle with glee at the return of the Super Best Election Lawyer in All the Land!   Links:   Boasberg Judicial Misconduct Complaint via Courthouse News https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FINAL-Misconduct-Complaint-7.28.pdf EXCLUSIVE: Memo Reveals D.C. Judges Are Predisposed Against Trump Administration https://thefederalist.com/2025/07/16/exclusive-memo-reveals-d-c-judges-are-predisposed-against-trump-administration/   Newsom v. Trump [docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70496361/newsom-v-trump/?order_by=desc Biden v. Byrne [docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67990012/robert-hunter-biden-v-patrick-m-byrne/ Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, 18 U.S. Code § 1385 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385 VOS v. Trump (tariffs - US Court of International Trade) [via Court Listener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17080/gov.uscourts.cit.17080.55.0.pdf   VOS v. Trump (tariffs - Federal Circuit) - admin stay [via Court Listener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105.7.0.pdf Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

In this newscast: Juneau residents will see a hike in their utility rates beginning in August; A Juneau man was medevaced to Seattle this week after being slammed into the ground by a Juneau police officer; Monday was the first chance for residents to testify to the Juneau Assembly about whether to implement a ranked choice voting system for local elections; The impending glacial outburst flood in Juneau's Mendenhall Valley is raising tensions; Alaska's U.S. District Court should have three judges to hear cases but for the past year, it's had just one. But Sen. Lisa Murkowski says there's been progress on the process to select new candidates for the court

On this episode of The Callover, we are thrilled to speak with Former Judge Alexander (Sandy) Horneman-Wren SC. A champion of all things regional Queensland – whether that be the development of the legal profession or the arts – he is known for his excellent humour, generosity of spirit and eloquence. Former Judge Horneman-Wren was called to the bar in 1993, took silk in 2009 and was appointed as Judge of the District Court of Queensland in 2012 where he served until December 2024. He has also held appointments in the Children’s Court, the Planning and Environment Court and as Deputy President of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. On this episode, we discuss his journey from articled clerk to the bench, and his reflections from a life in the law. Transcript available soon. To find Georgia: https://www.linkedin.com/in/georgia-athanasellis-21713715a/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdf

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdf

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In June 2022, Maxwell's legal team submitted a 77-page sentencing memorandum to the U.S. District Court in Manhattan requesting a significant downward variance from both the Probation Department's recommendation and the federal Sentencing Guidelines. While the probation office had proposed a 20-year sentence (240 months), Maxwell's attorneys argued she should receive only 51 to 63 months in prison. They maintained that Maxwell should not be punished as a proxy for Jeffrey Epstein, emphasizing he was the principal orchestrator of the crimes and that Maxwell had never before been charged with wrongdoing until her association with him resurfaced. Her defense also cited her difficult and traumatic childhood, abusive father, and the death threats she continues to face as aggravating circumstances warranting leniency.Prosecutors forcefully opposed the request, urging the court instead to impose a prison term within the Guidelines range—between 30 to 55 years—based on Maxwell's “pivotal role” in grooming and recruiting vulnerable young girls for Epstein. They highlighted her lack of remorse, failure to accept responsibility, and the profound and enduring harm caused to numerous victims. The prosecutors made clear that Maxwell's privileged background offered no mitigation given the extreme gravity of her crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/ghislaine-maxwell-sex-trafficking-sentence

A U.S. District Court judge rejected an investment fund's bid to force the Federal Reserve to open to the public a meeting on setting interest rates. Jerome Powell will still have plenty to discuss at the Fed meeting tomorrow.00:00 Intro00:19 Prediction markets01:30 Goldman Sachs: What will Powell say?03:00 Trueflation03:25 Goldman Sachs on Fed cut rates05:10 Paul's prediction06:17 Stock market concentration07:55 CNBC: Are the markets not pricing in Tariffs?11:32 BitMine buyback13:10 SharpLink x Linea14:40 ETH ETFs14:50 Matt Hougan: ETH is creating an alt season16:50 Corporations have acquired 1% of Ether18:10 Outro#Crypto #federalreserve #fedmeeting ~Rate Cut Predictions

Justice Brad Hart earned his undergraduate degree from Baylor University in 1993 and his J.D. from South Texas College of Law in 1997. After law school, he was a trial prosecutor in the Harris County District Attorney's office for 16 years, even being honored as "Prosecutor of the Year" by the Texas Narcotics Officers' Association in 2011. He was appointed Judge of the 230th District Court in 2013 and was recognized as "Judge of the Year" by the Texas Gang Investigators' Association in 2018. Following, he served as the Chief of the General Felony Trial Division at the Fort Bend County District Attorney's office before being elected to the 14th Court of Appeals in 2024. Brad makes his home in Houston, Texas.

Public lands in Utah are back in the spotlight. A 3rd District Court judge just dismissed a lawsuit from an environmental group trying to block the state from suing for control of federal lands. Greg and Holly discuss.

9:05 - 9:20 - 11:05 - A 'sea change' or a storm brewing? Inside President Trump's executive order to address homelessness A new executive order from President Trump aims to move homeless individuals into treatment facilities. One lawmaker is calling this a "sea change" in the right direction, saying it is 'like turning around the titanic'… but critics say this move is uncaring and an 'unfunded mandate'. Greg and Holly unpack the issue with Utah Representative Tyler Clancy and Bill Tibbitts, deputy executive director of the Crossroads Urban Center about whether the plan has real momentum.   9:35 - Fire destroys two Millcreek apartment buildings, dozens displaced A lawnmower left dozens of people without homes after a fire destroyed two apartment buildings in Millcreek. Unified Fire Authority, Captain Tony Barker joins the show to discuss what happened and a new poll that shows Utahns are divided on firework restrictions.   9:50 - The Monroe Canyon Fire Greg drove through smoke from the Monroe Canyon fire this weekend. It doubled in size on Friday and shows no sign of slowing down. The hosts discuss the latest developments and the impact of this fire.    10:05 - The legal battleground of Utah's public lands Public lands in Utah are back in the spotlight. A 3rd District Court judge just dismissed a lawsuit from an environmental group trying to block the state from suing for control of federal lands. Greg and Holly discuss.   10:20 - Funding flip-flop: Summer & after-school dollars restored Utah schools are feeling a little bit of whiplash with on, off and now back on federal funding for after school and summer programs...  Greg and Holly discuss the latest and speak with Ben Trentelman Executive Director of the Utah Afterschool Network about his reaction and the issue as a whole.   10:35 - Signed, sealed and soaring: America's national debt crisis The big budget bill is behind us — but the national debt is still climbing. When will Congress finally get serious about reducing the debt? and Americans care anymore? Greg and Holly dig into the numbers, the politics, and what’s really at stake with Deseret News Opinion Editor Jay Evensen.   10:50 - U.S. and U.K to build food centers in Gaza to address rising starvation Pictures of starving children are focusing the world on what's happening in Gaza right now. Israel says they will pause fighting to allow aid to enter - but is it too little too late? Greg and Holly discuss the issue and the announcement that the U.S. and U.K. will be building food centers in Gaza.   11:20 - Americans Disabilities Act turns 35: What it means for families today It might feel like the US has always had a policy supportive of people with disabilities, but in fact, the Americans with Disabilities Act just turned 35. That's after Holly became a mom to a child with disabilities. Holly shares what the ADA has meant to her family.   11:35 - Caregiving crisis: Over 63 million Americans now care for family member with complex medical needs Over 63 million Americans now care for a family member with complex medical needs. And,  it's getting harder, according to a new report from AARP. Greg and Holly discuss the report and what looming Medicaid cuts could mean for caregivers.   11:50 - Cottage cheese craze: How TikTok broke the dairy aisle Cottage cheese recipes have become so viral on TikTok… producers of the product are struggling to keep up!  Greg and Holly speak with KSL NewsRadio Producer Caitlyn Johnston about what she has seen on the curd craze and some of the popular recipes circulating online.. Holly shares her fun facts of the day.

An update on the victims of the stabbing rampage at a northern Michigan Walmart. Munson Healthcare says they have one patient remaining in serious condition today -- while five more are in fair condition, and two are in good condition. One person has been treated and released. Two others were transferred to another facility. WWJ's Tony Ortiz and Tracey McCaskill have the afternoon's top news stories. (Photo credit: 86th District Court)

In this civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 31, 2010, the plaintiff—identified by the initials C.L.—accuses Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse and related misconduct. C.L., a resident of Palm Beach County at the time of the alleged incidents, brings this complaint based on events that occurred when she was underage and in vulnerable circumstances. The complaint outlines Epstein's pattern of grooming and exploiting young girls in the Palm Beach area, suggesting that C.L. was one of his many victims targeted during a period when Epstein operated a network designed to recruit and abuse minors under the guise of offering financial help or mentorship.The suit claims Epstein engaged in a deliberate and manipulative scheme to solicit C.L. for sexually exploitative acts and that these acts resulted in significant emotional and psychological trauma. The complaint seeks damages for the abuse endured and accuses Epstein of violating both civil and statutory obligations designed to protect minors. Although this is just the first page, the document is consistent with the broader pattern of civil actions filed against Epstein in the wake of his non-prosecution agreement and subsequent revelations about his long-running sex trafficking operation.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 31, 2010, the plaintiff—identified by the initials C.L.—accuses Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse and related misconduct. C.L., a resident of Palm Beach County at the time of the alleged incidents, brings this complaint based on events that occurred when she was underage and in vulnerable circumstances. The complaint outlines Epstein's pattern of grooming and exploiting young girls in the Palm Beach area, suggesting that C.L. was one of his many victims targeted during a period when Epstein operated a network designed to recruit and abuse minors under the guise of offering financial help or mentorship.The suit claims Epstein engaged in a deliberate and manipulative scheme to solicit C.L. for sexually exploitative acts and that these acts resulted in significant emotional and psychological trauma. The complaint seeks damages for the abuse endured and accuses Epstein of violating both civil and statutory obligations designed to protect minors. Although this is just the first page, the document is consistent with the broader pattern of civil actions filed against Epstein in the wake of his non-prosecution agreement and subsequent revelations about his long-running sex trafficking operation.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a lawsuit pitting former Creighton Prep football player Jack Hasz against the NCAA, the U.S. District Court in Omaha ruled against Hasz's motion for preliminary injunction. Senior District Judge Joseph Battaillon submitted the ruling Thursday.

The outcome of FTC v. Meta could reshape the social media landscape as well as U.S. merger policy. For the first time, the government is seeking to unwind two acquisitions more than a decade old, Facebook's purchase of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. In its complaint, the Federal Trade Commission alleges that Facebook sought to eliminate threats to its social networking monopoly and ultimately harmed consumers through increased user ad loads and decreased quality and user privacy. Meta argues that the social media market is flush with competitors, including X, Snapchat, and TikTok, and that its investments helped both Instagram and WhatsApp expand rapidly. The trial concluded on May 27, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and a decision is expected anytime. Join this FedSoc Forum as we discuss the case and its potential impact.Featuring:Slade Bond, Chair, Public Policy and Legislative Affairs Practice, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLPJennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato InstituteProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce--To register, click the link above.

Clark County is seeking applicants to fill two upcoming District Court vacancies. Judges Sonya Langsdorf and Kelli E. Osler are set to retire later this year. Applications are due by Aug. 8. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/county-seeks-applicants-to-fill-two-open-district-court-seats/ #ClarkCounty #DistrictCourt #JudicialVacancy #LegalAppointments #JudgeRetirement #CountyCouncil #WashingtonLaw

Jack Hasz wants one more year. The former Creighton Prep offensive lineman is suing the NCAA, in hopes of playing one more season of college football.

Dodo Sheahan, chair of Killorglin Vintners, spoke to Jerry about their legal victory. Publicans were successful in their challenge to a decision in the District Court earlier this month which refused to allow pubs stay open until 3am during Puck Fair. Puck Fair takes place from August 10th to 12th.

In a letter dated July 11, 2019, defense attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein wrote to Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to formally request pretrial release for Epstein. They referenced the criminal case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 19-490, and sought to justify bail by presenting a proposed package of conditions they argued would mitigate both flight risk and any potential danger Epstein was alleged to pose to the public.The letter asserted that the proposed terms of release would be stringent and comprehensive, designed specifically to ensure Epstein's full compliance with court orders. While the details of those conditions were to follow in the broader bail application, this initial correspondence served to lay the foundation for Epstein's legal team to argue that incarceration prior to trial was unnecessary, and that he could safely remain in the community under strict supervision.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-bail.pdf

In a letter dated July 11, 2019, defense attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein wrote to Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to formally request pretrial release for Epstein. They referenced the criminal case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 19-490, and sought to justify bail by presenting a proposed package of conditions they argued would mitigate both flight risk and any potential danger Epstein was alleged to pose to the public.The letter asserted that the proposed terms of release would be stringent and comprehensive, designed specifically to ensure Epstein's full compliance with court orders. While the details of those conditions were to follow in the broader bail application, this initial correspondence served to lay the foundation for Epstein's legal team to argue that incarceration prior to trial was unnecessary, and that he could safely remain in the community under strict supervision.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-bail.pdf

In a letter dated July 11, 2019, defense attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein wrote to Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to formally request pretrial release for Epstein. They referenced the criminal case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 19-490, and sought to justify bail by presenting a proposed package of conditions they argued would mitigate both flight risk and any potential danger Epstein was alleged to pose to the public.The letter asserted that the proposed terms of release would be stringent and comprehensive, designed specifically to ensure Epstein's full compliance with court orders. While the details of those conditions were to follow in the broader bail application, this initial correspondence served to lay the foundation for Epstein's legal team to argue that incarceration prior to trial was unnecessary, and that he could safely remain in the community under strict supervision.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-bail.pdf

​Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegedly failing to comply with multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests concerning Jeffrey Epstein's associates and clients. The conservative watchdog group submitted four FOIA requests between February and March 2025 to various DOJ components, including the Office of Information Policy, the Criminal Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the FBI. These requests sought records related to Epstein's activities and communications involving Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel regarding the handling and potential release of Epstein-related documents. Despite acknowledgments and assigned tracking numbers, Judicial Watch claims the DOJ has failed to provide the requested information or justify any withholdings, prompting the lawsuit filed on April 8, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.The lawsuit references a February 24, 2025, Fox News report in which Attorney General Bondi stated that Epstein's client list was "sitting on [her] desk." However, a subsequent DOJ document release on February 27, 2025, was criticized for lacking substantive revelations, as it primarily listed already known associates of Epstein. Judicial Watch argues that the DOJ's actions violate FOIA and hinder public transparency regarding Epstein's network. The organization seeks a court order compelling the DOJ to conduct thorough searches for responsive records, produce all non-exempt documents, and provide explanations for any withholdings. Additionally, Judicial Watch requests that the court enjoin the DOJ from further withholding non-exempt records and award attorney's fees and litigation costs incurred due to the DOJ's non-compliance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ allegedly violating FOIA over Jeffrey Epstein files

In a letter dated July 11, 2019, defense attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein wrote to Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to formally request pretrial release for Epstein. They referenced the criminal case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 19-490, and sought to justify bail by presenting a proposed package of conditions they argued would mitigate both flight risk and any potential danger Epstein was alleged to pose to the public.The letter asserted that the proposed terms of release would be stringent and comprehensive, designed specifically to ensure Epstein's full compliance with court orders. While the details of those conditions were to follow in the broader bail application, this initial correspondence served to lay the foundation for Epstein's legal team to argue that incarceration prior to trial was unnecessary, and that he could safely remain in the community under strict supervision.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-bail.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a letter dated July 11, 2019, defense attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein wrote to Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to formally request pretrial release for Epstein. They referenced the criminal case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 19-490, and sought to justify bail by presenting a proposed package of conditions they argued would mitigate both flight risk and any potential danger Epstein was alleged to pose to the public.The letter asserted that the proposed terms of release would be stringent and comprehensive, designed specifically to ensure Epstein's full compliance with court orders. While the details of those conditions were to follow in the broader bail application, this initial correspondence served to lay the foundation for Epstein's legal team to argue that incarceration prior to trial was unnecessary, and that he could safely remain in the community under strict supervision.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-bail.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a letter dated July 11, 2019, defense attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein wrote to Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to formally request pretrial release for Epstein. They referenced the criminal case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 19-490, and sought to justify bail by presenting a proposed package of conditions they argued would mitigate both flight risk and any potential danger Epstein was alleged to pose to the public.The letter asserted that the proposed terms of release would be stringent and comprehensive, designed specifically to ensure Epstein's full compliance with court orders. While the details of those conditions were to follow in the broader bail application, this initial correspondence served to lay the foundation for Epstein's legal team to argue that incarceration prior to trial was unnecessary, and that he could safely remain in the community under strict supervision.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-bail.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government appealed all of these, and the Supreme Court took the case in order to decide the issue of whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” The Court granted the government’s applications for a partial stay of these injunctions, “but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and future implications.Featuring:Ed Wenger, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLCModerator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP --To register, click the link above.

​Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegedly failing to comply with multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests concerning Jeffrey Epstein's associates and clients. The conservative watchdog group submitted four FOIA requests between February and March 2025 to various DOJ components, including the Office of Information Policy, the Criminal Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the FBI. These requests sought records related to Epstein's activities and communications involving Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel regarding the handling and potential release of Epstein-related documents. Despite acknowledgments and assigned tracking numbers, Judicial Watch claims the DOJ has failed to provide the requested information or justify any withholdings, prompting the lawsuit filed on April 8, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.The lawsuit references a February 24, 2025, Fox News report in which Attorney General Bondi stated that Epstein's client list was "sitting on [her] desk." However, a subsequent DOJ document release on February 27, 2025, was criticized for lacking substantive revelations, as it primarily listed already known associates of Epstein. Judicial Watch argues that the DOJ's actions violate FOIA and hinder public transparency regarding Epstein's network. The organization seeks a court order compelling the DOJ to conduct thorough searches for responsive records, produce all non-exempt documents, and provide explanations for any withholdings. Additionally, Judicial Watch requests that the court enjoin the DOJ from further withholding non-exempt records and award attorney's fees and litigation costs incurred due to the DOJ's non-compliance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DOJ allegedly violating FOIA over Jeffrey Epstein filesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Hugo Blankingship III is a highly respected attorney based in Washington, D.C., specializing in identity theft and false credit reporting issues. With over 30 years of experience, he has built a strong reputation for advocating on behalf of consumers who are struggling with inaccurate credit information. His mission is to help clients get incorrect data removed from their credit reports, allowing them to move forward with their financial lives. A graduate of the University of Virginia (B.A., 1982) and the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at the College of William & Mary (J.D., 1986), Hugo began his career as a law clerk to the Honorable Albert V. Bryan, Jr., former chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This foundation shaped his career and led him to become a passionate consumer rights advocate. Throughout his career, Hugo has fought tirelessly against major credit reporting agencies like Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax, ensuring they adhere to the rules. In 2004, he argued the case Nigh v. Koons Buick Pontiac GMC before the U.S. Supreme Court, and has represented clients before the Supreme Court of Virginia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Hugo's clients know him as a tenacious attorney who won't back down in the pursuit of justice. Thomas B. Christiano received a B.A. from the University of Virginia in 1993 and a J.D. from the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at the College of William & Mary in 1999. Mr. Christiano has handled numerous consumer protection cases and specializes in cases involving inaccurate credit reporting under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He has reviewed the credit reporting procedure process from the major credit reporting agencies and the dispute investigation procedures of many banks who have furnished inaccurate credit information. As an experienced credit report lawyer, he can identify the actual damages associated with credit report problems, including emotional distress damages, the loss of employment opportunities, inability to obtain a mortgage, and loss of use of credit., Mr. Christiano also publishes a blog at yourfaircreditreportlawyernow.com, which is an excellent informational resource on the subject. Thomas B. Christiano has decades of experience helping clients who have been the victim of credit fraud and identity theft. Discover how he can help you!   During the show we discussed: Common credit report errors and their impact on consumers Effects of identity theft on credit and first steps to take Challenges in disputing false credit report information Overview of the dispute process with credit bureaus How bureaus respond to disputes and what to do if ignored Consumer rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Role of Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion in disputes What to do when bureaus don't fix errors and how attorneys help Issues with mixed/merged credit files and how to resolve them Fraud tactics in credit manipulation and identity theft prevention Importance of checking credit reports and common review mistakes Steps to fix credit scores after finding report errors How bad credit affects loans, housing, and employment Benefits of working with a credit report attorney vs. doing it alone   Resources: https://www.yourfaircreditlawyer.com/  

The Department of Justice has taken the rare step of suing all of the federal District Court judges in Maryland, after the Maryland court issued a 48-hour pause in every case where an immigrant was challenging their removal from the United States. We examine why this lawsuit is so unusual and how it fits into the Trump Administration's larger attitude toward the judicial branch.This episode: political correspondent Ashley Lopez, Justice correspondent Carrie Johnson, and senior national political correspondent Mara Liasson.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell & Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Registered Sex Offender Admits to Murder-for-Hire Plot Against 12-Year-Old He Lured and Assaulted PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A 30-year-old Rhode Island man has pleaded guilty in federal court to luring a 12-year-old girl from her middle school, sexually assaulting her, and then attempting to hire a hitman from prison to silence her. Chandler J. Cardente, already a registered sex offender, entered the plea Thursday to three charges: enticement of a minor, committing a felony while required to register, and interstate murder-for-hire, Acting U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom announced. Online deception and abduction Investigators say Cardente posed as a 17-year-old on social media to befriend the Burrillville Middle School student in the fall of 2021. On Dec. 10, after classes let out, the girl walked across a soccer field, through nearby woods, and climbed into Cardente's car on Route 102. When the child was reported missing, Burrillville police tracked her online messages and identified Cardente as the man she was with. Realizing officers were closing in, he pushed the girl from the vehicle on Jefferson Boulevard in Warwick. Warwick police soon found her curled up on the roadside; she told officers she had been assaulted. Plot hatched behind bars Cardente was arrested later that day in Cranston and booked into the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI). While awaiting trial, he phoned what he believed was a go-between for a contract killer, offering $200 cash and about $1,500 in equipment to ensure the girl “ended up dead” because, he said, she was “a witness.” The “contractor” was actually an undercover police officer recording the call. Prior record and penalties Cardente had previously been convicted in state court of child molestation and was under lifetime registration requirements when he committed the new crimes. Federal prosecutors say he now faces a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison on the enticement count alone, with potential decades more because of the murder-for-hire scheme and his status as a registered offender. He remains held without bail at the ACI. Sentencing is scheduled for April 23 in U.S. District Court, where Cardente also faces separate state charges stemming from the assault and abduction. Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872  

Registered Sex Offender Admits to Murder-for-Hire Plot Against 12-Year-Old He Lured and Assaulted PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A 30-year-old Rhode Island man has pleaded guilty in federal court to luring a 12-year-old girl from her middle school, sexually assaulting her, and then attempting to hire a hitman from prison to silence her. Chandler J. Cardente, already a registered sex offender, entered the plea Thursday to three charges: enticement of a minor, committing a felony while required to register, and interstate murder-for-hire, Acting U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom announced. Online deception and abduction Investigators say Cardente posed as a 17-year-old on social media to befriend the Burrillville Middle School student in the fall of 2021. On Dec. 10, after classes let out, the girl walked across a soccer field, through nearby woods, and climbed into Cardente's car on Route 102. When the child was reported missing, Burrillville police tracked her online messages and identified Cardente as the man she was with. Realizing officers were closing in, he pushed the girl from the vehicle on Jefferson Boulevard in Warwick. Warwick police soon found her curled up on the roadside; she told officers she had been assaulted. Plot hatched behind bars Cardente was arrested later that day in Cranston and booked into the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI). While awaiting trial, he phoned what he believed was a go-between for a contract killer, offering $200 cash and about $1,500 in equipment to ensure the girl “ended up dead” because, he said, she was “a witness.” The “contractor” was actually an undercover police officer recording the call. Prior record and penalties Cardente had previously been convicted in state court of child molestation and was under lifetime registration requirements when he committed the new crimes. Federal prosecutors say he now faces a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison on the enticement count alone, with potential decades more because of the murder-for-hire scheme and his status as a registered offender. He remains held without bail at the ACI. Sentencing is scheduled for April 23 in U.S. District Court, where Cardente also faces separate state charges stemming from the assault and abduction. Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872