Podcasts about Edwards

Dead all those All Star Game opinions y'all had, this was a great weekend Besides, the straw man of the old days was overblown Bottom line, all any game takes is one good psycho to make things competitive Seriously though, Wemby going for gold in LA is a national emergency He must be stopped Abolish the draft! Abolish the WNBA? I bet that admission didn't go well for that Olympian Guest: Nata Edwards - Dispatches From Spectrum   Like what you hear? Subscribe so you don't miss an episode!     Follow us on Twitter: @Dpalm66 @UDPod @TheMTRNetwork Want more podcast greatness? Sign up for a MTR Premium Account! Check out our Sponsors! TweakedAudio.com using the code ‘reviews' to get 33% off & free shipping. Shop at our Amazon Store to support the site  

February 15, 2026 http://theanchor.church https://www.instagram.com/theanchorchurch/ https://www.facebook.com/TheAnchorChurch

Bradley J. Edwards spent more than a decade fighting what many believed was an untouchable power structure surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. Based in Florida, Edwards began representing victims in the mid-2000s, when Epstein had already secured a highly controversial 2008 non-prosecution agreement that shielded him from federal prosecution and insulated potential co-conspirators. Edwards challenged that deal relentlessly, arguing that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by keeping survivors in the dark. His legal strategy wasn't just about individual settlements; it was about dismantling the machinery that protected Epstein. Through civil litigation, public pressure, and persistence in federal court, Edwards forced scrutiny back onto a case many thought was buried.His work helped reopen national attention on Epstein years after the original plea deal, culminating in a 2019 federal ruling that prosecutors had indeed violated victims' rights. Although Epstein's arrest and subsequent death prevented a criminal trial, Edwards continued pursuing civil accountability against the estate and alleged enablers. He also represented survivors in high-profile litigation involving institutions and powerful individuals connected to Epstein's orbit. Throughout the process, Edwards positioned himself as both litigator and advocate, often publicly criticizing the justice system's handling of the case. His long campaign transformed what began as a quiet Florida prosecution into one of the most consequential accountability battles in modern American criminal law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

En este episodio, hacemos el Fastbreak con las noticias más importantes de días recientes. Hacemos el Enjuague, hablamos de candidatos a que sus contratos sean comprados y firmen con nuevos equipos y nos vamos a fondo con el fin de semana de Estrellas. Únete a la comunidad de Whatsapp de Los NBA Freaks:https;//chat.whatsapp.com/FmSCEFkbeLyGzwnzfpSEFJRedes sociales:Facebook, X, Instagram: @losnbafreaksEmail:losnbafreaks@gmail.com

Braves pitching woes grow, MLB drops TV strike zone, Duvall dies at 95, GT opener moved, Edwards wins ASG MVP, PenisGate, Reddick takes Daytona 500, plus NFL and Olympic drama.

A closer look at the first Black woman to compete on the U.S. women's Olympic hockey team, Laila Edwards. Also, NBC News medical contributor Dr. John Torres breaks down how to take charge of your fitness routine and perform like an Olympic athlete. Plus, Dove Cameron and Avan Jogia stop by to catch up and discuss their new series ‘56 Days.' And, celebrity makeup artist Patrick Ta shares the most popular makeup trends to watch for. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Live and Learn with Katie, Learn Something New!In this powerful Live & Learn episode, Katie sits down with Dr. Scott Edwards, ​ traditionally trained MD, triple board-certified functional medicine physician, and co-founder of Natural Radiance Med Spa to have the conversation so many women need but aren't having.​​If you've been feeling exhausted, foggy, irritable, anxious, struggling with sleep, weight changes, or simply “not like yourself”, this episode is for you.​​Dr. Edwards shares what the most common signs of imbalance look like, why “normal labs” don't always mean you feel normal, how bioidentical hormones differ from synthetic treatments, and why true hormone balance can restore energy, confidence, relationships and even help you fall back in love with yourself again. ✨​​This conversation is about more than hot flashes and lab numbers. It's about energy. Clarity. Intimacy. Strength. And yes, sometimes even falling back in love with yourself again.

MMA Lock of the Night is back to give you breakdowns and predictions for UFC Houston: Strickland vs Hernandez. Also on the card, Neal vs Medic, Ige vs Costa, Spivac vs Delija, and Smith vs Harrell.

Boilers push all the right buttons as the two-headed monster of CJ/Gicarri lift each other up Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

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

All Who Wilderness Wander Are Not Lost, with Rev. Sharon Edwards. Series: Standalone Services A Spacious Christianity, First Presbyterian Church of Bend, Oregon.Curious about faith, doubt, and finding God in life's “wilderness”? Join us this Sunday (online or in-person) as Sharon Edwards shares a hopeful message about being held in the very palm of God's hand. Come as you are, ask your questions, and breathe in some grace with us.Join us each Sunday, 10AM at bendfp.org, or 11AM KTVZ-CW Channel 612/12 in Bend.  Subscribe/Follow, and click the bell for alerts.At First Presbyterian, you will meet people at many different places theologically and spiritually. And we love it that way. We want to be a place where our diversity brings us together and where conversation takes us all deeper in our understanding of God.We call this kind of faith “Spacious Christianity.” We don't ask anyone to sign creeds or statements of belief. The life of faith is about a way of being in the world and a faith that shows itself in love.Thank you for your support of the mission of the First Presbyterian Church of Bend. Visit https://bendfp.org/giving/ for more information.Keywords:Death Valley, Lent, wilderness, Jesus, temptation, faith, spiritual desert, angels, breath prayer, solace, fierce landscapes, God's love, spiritual growth, desert journey, divine presence., presbyterian, church, online worship, bend, oregonFeaturing:Rev. Dr. Steven Koski, Rev. Sharon Edwards, Becca Ellis, Brave of Heart, GuestsSupport the show

Guest preacher Dale Edwards shares a powerful message, taken from Luke 7, of the desperate but committed and faithful actions of a woman (some think it was Mary Magdalene) in the house of Simon the Pharisee. Her recognition of Jesus echoes the Hebrew tradition of the "kinsman redeemer" as seen in the Old Testament book of Ruth. Ruth and her kinsman redeemer Boaz were grandparents of King David and thus on the line to the woman's, and our, kinsman redeemer, Jesus.

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

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

Not Easily Broken

Send a textTake a drum teacher, add songwriting, arranging and divide between an eclectic marching band and a duo that does looping, bass lines vocally and rocks as full band would.  Keeping true to the beat of his drum, Hershyl Edwards is a powerhouse, performing with Macca Pazza, whose Wikipedia page describes as "an interdisciplinary instrumental music and performance ensemble."  As part of a group that can number 30 players, Edwards has written pieces for the group, such as "Stupid Icarus" that flares with energy drums, vocal bass, loops, vox and Jesse Crydeman playing guitar, loops, and vox as well. It is a rich auditory concoction that explores different genres of music and sound.  Both groups perform regularly in Chicago and throughout the world.  But there's also Edwards the instructor, mentoring students as he himself had been mentored at the University of Illinois.  He teaches at Musical Expressions of Naperville on the kit as well as instruction in voice.  This first interview delves into his background, growing up and how he ended up pursuing a musical path.  Another strong example that independent musicians can create their journey, make a living from it and deserve recognition and respect for being artisans in a world (especially in the US) that dismisses such ingenuity.  In this second interview, Edwards talks about how he goes about writing his music.  He reveals the various methods of capturing melody, as well as lyric writing. These skills are also passed along to the students he teaches. For Edward's teaching, go to:https://www.ensembleschools.com/musicalexpressions/staff/hershyl-edwards/ https://www.facebook.com/hershyl.edwards.2025/https://bifunkal.bandcamp.com/https://www.facebook.com/muccapazzaSupport the showWe are always grateful to have you listening to STRUNG OUT. Here are some important links:SUPPORT THE SHOW:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/MartyfineaKMARTIN'S WEBSITE:http://www.MARTINMcCORMACK.COM (note---you can get my weekly bulletin when you sign up on the list!)MARTIN'S MUSIC: Music | Martin Laurence McCormack (bandcamp.com)Martin McCormack | SpotifyMARTIN'S YOUTUBE CHANNELMartin McCormack - YouTubeFACEBOOKFacebook...

What happens when the hardest season of your life becomes the foundation for your strongest one?In this deeply honest and reflective conversation, Abbe from Koko Cosmetica returns to the podcast two years after her first appearance, and she is not the same woman. Since we last spoke, she's navigated postpartum depression, grown her salon to five years strong, welcomed a third baby, survived the FIFO juggle, and stepped into a calmer, more grounded version of herself as both a mother and business owner.We talk honestly about postpartum mental health, delegation in business, the pressure to keep expanding, sustainable systems, and the uncomfortable truth that growth often requires letting go.If you are a mother in business, a salon owner feeling stretched, or a woman quietly navigating your own hard season, this one will feel like a hand on your back.What we cover:The reality of postpartum depression as a business ownerWhy discomfort is often the birthplace of growthLetting go of a business idea that no longer fitsDelegation as both leadership and self protectionCreating sustainable systems in motherhood and businessThe power of separating work and home energyThis episode is a reminder that you can survive the mud, grow through it, and come out clearer, calmer, and stronger on the other side.Timestamps:00:00 Episode Summary 04:03 Meet Abbe Again: Five Years in Business, FIFO Life & New Baby 05:44 Putting Projects Down: Pausing the Clothing Brand to Focus 07:43 Choosing Baby #3 After Postpartum Depression Fears 11:31 A Healing Postpartum 13:53 Spotting the Signs: Anger, Overwhelm & Business Pressure 20:37 Sustainable Business Habits: Delegation, Stock & Systems 29:12 Motherhood + Business Balance: Separation, Routines & Small Wins 33:04 Ditching Social Media - Replacing Scroll Time with Podcasts 34:13 The 1% Reminders That Change Your Day 35:18 Family Systems That Save Your Sanity 36:49 Delegation Without Perfection 42:27 Close the Loops: Tackle One Annoying Area to Build Momentum 43:57 Why Uncertainty Is Needed to Level Up 48:06 Seasons of Business 50:33 Putting Projects Down and Staying True to You 55:02 Redefining Success & LegacyMentioned in this episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this episode, we explore the trends reshaping how churches impact their communities. Success is no longer just about attendance or sermons— leaders are called to combine spiritual formation with practical equipping, helping members rebuild skills, confidence, and resilience.Pastor Conway breaks down how economic shifts, AI-driven job changes, and personal crises are affecting congregants in real ways and how churches that offer career support, skill development, and networking have become essential for transformation. If you're a leader that is ready to create impact that extends beyond Sunday service, this episode is for you!  

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

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

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

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

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

Oliver is joined on the line by Eddie ‘The Eagle' Edwards

Purdue threw away a 22 point lead on the way to a 3 point overtime win. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

Check out the panel discussion from this year's Super Saturday Man Breakfast, hosted by UNPACKIN' it, that took place in Charlotte the day before the Super Bowl. This year's panel included former NFL players Brentson Buckner and Dwan Edwards. They talk about faith, football, and life with Bryce Johnson. It's an authentic, encouraging, and inspiring conversation.Topics Include:Keep Pounding and Buckner's battle with cancer.How God has worked in Dwan's life in the midst of a divorce.God's plan for Brentson Buckner to play in the NFL and become a coach.What it was like to lose a Super Bowl.How sports prepare us for life.Brentson Buckner Bio. Grew up in Columbus, Georgia, played college football at Clemson, and was a first-team All-ACC selection. He is in the Clemson Athletic Hall of Fame. He was drafted in the second round of the 1994 NFL draft by the Pittsburgh Steelers. He played in Super Bowl XXX (30) against the Cowboys. Throughout his 12-year NFL career, he also played for the Bengals and 49ers and was with the Panthers from 2001-2005, including being a member of the 2003 Panthers team that played in Super Bowl XXXVIII (38). After his playing career, he coached high school football and was a radio personality on WFNZ. For over a decade, he was a defensive line coach in the NFL with stops in Arizona, Tampa Bay, Oakland, and Jacksonville. He has four children and has been married to Denise for 31 years.Dwan Edwards Bio: He grew up in Columbus, Montana, and in high school played football, basketball, and track and field, and was the senior class president. He played college football for the Oregon State Beavers, and He graduated in 2003 with a degree in business administration. He was selected by the Baltimore Ravens in the second round of the 2004 NFL draft.During his 12-year career, he also played for the Carolina Panthers and Buffalo Bills. He was a member of the 2015 Carolina Panthers team that played in Super Bowl 50. That was also his final game. Since retiring, he's been a full-time dad with five kids and has also coached Weddington High School football.Click here to support UNPACKIN' it.https://www.unpackinit.com/donateOur Social Media:Instagram: / unpackinit Facebook: / unpackinit X/Twitter: / unpackinit Tiktok: / unpackinit Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

Mike Schopp and Bulldog are joined by Sal Capaccio to get more information about the Bills' cap problems. Sal shares his thoughts on how the Bills could save money by extending players like Dawson Knox to free up cap space for this season. Sal Capaccio discusses the idea of the Bills trading Dion Dawkins away and why he thinks it wouldn't be a good idea for the Bills. Sal expresses his concerns about the Bills losing both McGovern and Edwards this offseason. The guys share their thoughts on the Bills' TE room and whether Dawson Knox is a player the Bills can let go to another team.

Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen chapter 37, narrated by Isaac BirchallSubscribe on YT or Join the Book Club on Patreon and support me as an independent creator :D⁠https://ko-fi.com/theessentialreads⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfOFfvo05ElM96CmfsGsu3g/join⁠Summary:After doing her rounds to visit her daughter, Mrs. Jennings comes to Elanor with some gossip. She comes to say, that Mrs John Dashwood is ill, and has been seen by a doctor who happened to be seeing Charlotte's newborn just after being to the Dashwood's place. Mrs. Jenning's then goes on to explain that Anne let slip to Fanny that Edward and Lucy have been engaged for the past year. This threw Fanny into hysterics and she, only after her husband's pleading with her to let them pack their bags first, threw the Miss Steeles out of their house. Elanor is shocked by this account and while she manages to keep her cool before Mrs. Jennings, she feels deeply shocked by what has happened. She then goes to Marianne and tells her of all that has passed. Marianne is distraught by the news and cries all throughout Elanor's recounting of Mrs. Jenning's story and of her knowledge of the affair. Only after Elanor says truly how hurt she was by Lucy's announcement does Marianne believe that her sister truly cared about it. Marianne then laments about how hard it must have been for Elanor to deal with what happened to her and also with what happened to herself. Following this Elanor urges Marianne not to be angry with Edward for his actions, and she does, though very upset with him. The following day, their brother comes to visit and talk through everything that happened at their house too. He explains what happened once Mrs. Ferrars heard the news, and more importantly what happened once Edward arrived… Mrs. Ferrars, Fanny, and John all apparently demanded that Edward end the engagement immediately, and no matter how severe the punishment for keeping it, Edward refuses. John then explains that Mrs. Ferras has vowed to make sure that Edward shall never be able to find a decent job, that he shall only have his 2000 pounds to live off of, and that she will bestow the estate that Edward was to inherit, on his brother, Robert. Mrs. Jennings finds Edwards actions very noble and offers, if the occasion were to arise, to invite Edward to stay with her while he gets onto his feet. John doesn't wish to offend her, so he doesn't say anything, and though Marianne wishes to, she remembers her promise to her sister. SEO stuff I don't want to do. Jane Austin's timeless classic Sense and Sensibility follows the story of two girls, Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, and their endeavors in love, marriage, and societal expectations. Love is not easy however, and Elinor finds her sense tested by her charming brother-in-law, while Marianne's sensibility brings her nothing but heartbreak

In dieser Folge werfen Basti und Per einen Blick auf den Free-Agent-Markt: Wer ist noch zu haben, wer passt wohin – und welches Topteam sollte jetzt ganz genau hinhören? Dazu geht's um die besten Highlighttapes, mit denen man auch den Nachwuchs für den besten Hallensport der Welt begeistern kann. Und als Bonus erzählt Per von seiner Erfahrung hinterm Mikrofon als Synchronsprecher. Es ist also einiges geboten!

Today we highlight the accomplishments and firsts of US hockey player Laila Edwards.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeannine Edwards joins Hutt and Chad to talk about her 22-year career at ESPN — from breaking into sideline reporting and covering marquee events like the Super Bowl and college football to the evolution of the halftime show and what it's like as a woman in sports journalism. Subscribe to Hot Mic for daily videos and shorts: https://tr.ee/Hhk8Rk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Laila Edwards and Caroline Harvey are part of the next generation of Team USA women's hockey, known for their speed, confidence, and the bond they've built as teammates. In this conversation with NBC News correspondent Stephanie Gosk, Edwards and Harvey talk about growing up in the game, supporting each other under pressure, and Harvey's special connection with Jason Kelce and Travis Kelce.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Feburary 9, 2026 http://theanchor.church https://www.instagram.com/theanchorchurch/ https://www.facebook.com/TheAnchorChurch

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

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

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

Jay Edwards joins the show to talk about his campaign for Treasurer, fighting for freedoms and against de-banking of conservatives, using the Treasurer's office to help economic and community development and more.