Podcasts about Edwards

Purdue/Fletch Get back on track in Maryland Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What most people don't realize is that the Miami Herald didn't “expose” Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart deal — three of his victims and their lawyers did. Long before the headlines, those women and attorneys Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards had been fighting for nearly a decade to uncover how then–U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta secretly gave Epstein and his network immunity from prosecution. Acosta's office violated the Crime Victims Rights Act by hiding the non-prosecution agreement and misleading the victims into thinking the federal case was still alive. The Justice Department fought the victims at every turn, denying them information and arguing they had no rights, but Cassell and Edwards refused to quit. Their persistence forced the truth out: Epstein's elite legal team dictated the deal, silenced victims, and helped him serve just 13 cushy months while his crimes went largely untouched.The case exposed far more than Epstein's depravity — it revealed a justice system built to serve power, not people. Poor, vulnerable girls were targeted, dismissed, and smeared while prosecutors and billionaires protected one another. The same biases that fail defendants crushed the victims too, showing how easily money warps the law. But despite every obstacle, those women and their lawyers won a ruling confirming the government's illegal concealment, proving that even against billionaires and corrupt officials, truth can still claw its way to the surface. Their courage didn't just expose Epstein — it ripped the mask off the system that shielded him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

Brian Edwards of MajorWager.com and Jay Greeson of the Chattanooga Times Free Press share their thoughts on Auburn vs. Alabama in a huge SEC basketball matchup on Saturday, which team has the advantage in the second matchup between John Calipari's Razorbacks and Mark Pope's Cats, expectations for whether Tennessee can keep its momentum going against Auburn, and much more. 0:00 Intro 0:30 Good, Bad, & Ugly 15:45 SEC Coaching Hot Seats 27:45 Saturday Best Bets &COLLAR Use promo code SEC16 for 16% off! ROKFORM Use promo code SEC25 for 25% off! The world's strongest magnetic phone case! https://www.rokform.com/ JOIN OUR MEMBERSHIP Join the "It Just Means More" tier for bonus videos and live streams! Join Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1w_TRbiB0yHCEb7r2IrBg/join FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA Twitter: https://twitter.com/16Southeastern ADVERTISE WITH SOUTHEASTERN 16 Reach out to se16.caroline@gmail.com to find out how your product or service can be seen by over 200,000 unique viewers each month! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 171 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is the president of the German Patent and Trademark Office Eva Schewior! But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you: The US Supreme Court has taken up an important patent law case concerning so-called “skinny labels” for generic drugs. Specifically, the highest US court is reviewing a case in which Amarin accuses generic drug manufacturer Hikma of inciting doctors to use the cholesterol drug Vascepa in violation of patents by providing a limited package insert. In two landmark decisions, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified the criteria for inventive step and essentially confirmed the EPO’s typical “problem-solution” approach (Amgen v Sanofi and Meril v Edwards). However, experts are not entirely sure whether the Court of Appeal’s decisions, particularly those relating to the determination of the closest prior art, deviate from EPO practice. As a result of Brexit, mutual recognition of trademark use between the EU and the UK will cease to apply from January 1, 2026. Use of a trademark only in the UK will then no longer count as use of an EU trademark for the purpose of maintaining rights – and conversely, EU use will no longer count for British trademarks. Bayer is attacking several mRNA vaccine manufacturers in the US (Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, and J&J separately). The core allegation: patent infringements relating to old (Monsanto) patents on mRNA stabilization; Bayer is seeking damages, not sales bans. DISCO Pharmaceuticals from Cologne signs an exclusive license agreement with Amgen (potentially up to USD 618 million plus royalties) for novel cancer therapies targeting surface structures. Relevant from an IP perspective: license scope, milestones, data/know-how allocation. And now let's jump into the interview with Eva Schewior! The German IP System in Transition: Key Insights from DPMA President Eva Schewior In an in-depth conversation on the IP Fridays podcast, Eva Schewior, President of the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA), outlined how Germany's IP system is responding to rising demand, technological change, and a fundamentally altered European patent landscape. The interview offers valuable insights for innovators, companies, and IP professionals navigating patent, trademark, and design protection in Europe. Sustained Demand and Procedural Efficiency Despite the introduction of the Unitary Patent system, national German IP rights continue to see strong and growing demand. According to Schewior, application numbers at the DPMA have been increasing for years, which she views as a strong vote of confidence in the quality and reliability of German IP rights. At the same time, this success creates pressure on examination capacity. The average duration of patent proceedings at the DPMA is currently around three years and two months from filing to grant, provided applicants request examination early and avoid extensions. Internationally, this timeframe remains competitive. Nevertheless, shortening procedures remains a strategic priority. Search requests alone have risen by almost 50% over the past decade, yet the DPMA still delivers search reports on time in around 90% of cases. To better reflect applicant needs, the DPMA distinguishes between two main user groups: applicants seeking a rapid grant, often as a basis for international filings, and applicants primarily interested in a fast, high-quality initial assessment through search or first examination. Future procedural adjustments are being considered to better serve both groups. The Role of Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence already plays a practical role at the DPMA, particularly in patent search, classification, and the translation of Asian patent literature. Schewior emphasized that the office is closely monitoring rapid developments in AI to assess where these tools can further improve efficiency. However, she made clear that AI will remain a supporting technology. In public administration, and especially in IP examination, final decisions must always be taken and reviewed by humans. AI is seen as a way to relieve examiners of routine tasks so they can focus on substantive examination and quality. Maintaining and Monitoring Examination Quality Quality assurance is a central pillar of the DPMA's work. Schewior reported consistently positive feedback from users, but stressed that maintaining quality is a continuous task. The office applies systematic double checks for grants and refusals and uses internal quality management tools to randomly review searches and first office actions during ongoing proceedings. External feedback is equally important. The DPMA's User Advisory Board, which includes patent attorneys, startups, and patent information centers, plays a key role in identifying issues and suggesting improvements. Several of its recommendations have already been implemented. Trademark Filings and Bad-Faith Applications The trademark side of the DPMA has experienced particularly strong growth. In 2025, the office received around 95,000 trademark applications, an increase of approximately 18% compared to the previous year. Much of this growth came from abroad, especially from China. While new trademark types such as sound marks, multimedia marks, and holograms have so far seen only moderate uptake, word marks and figurative marks remain dominant. A growing challenge, however, is the rise in bad-faith trademark filings. The DPMA has responded by intensively training examiners to identify and handle such cases. Procedural reforms following EU trademark law modernization have also shifted competencies. Applicants can now choose whether to bring revocation and invalidity actions before the courts or directly before the DPMA. While courts may act faster, proceedings before the DPMA involve significantly lower financial risk, as each party generally bears its own costs. Accelerated Examination as a Practical Tool Despite rising filing numbers, the DPMA aims to avoid significant delays in trademark proceedings. Organizational restructuring within the trademark department is intended to balance workloads across teams. Schewior highlighted the option of accelerated trademark examination, available for a relatively modest additional fee. In practice, this can lead to registration within a matter of weeks, without affecting priority, since the filing date remains decisive. New Protection for Geographical Indications A major recent development is the extension of EU-wide protection for geographical indications to craft and industrial products. Since late 2025, the DPMA acts as the national authority for German applications in this area. The first application has already been filed, notably for a traditional German product. Under the new system, applications undergo a national examination phase at the DPMA before being forwarded to the EUIPO for final decision. Products eligible for protection must originate from a specific region and derive their quality or reputation from that origin, with at least one production step taking place there. The EU estimates that around 40 German products may qualify. Outreach, SMEs, and Education Schewior underlined the DPMA's statutory duty to inform the public about IP rights, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises. The office has significantly expanded its presence on platforms such as LinkedIn and YouTube, offering accessible and practical IP content. Studies show that fewer than 10% of European SMEs use IP rights, despite evidence that IP-owning companies generate higher revenues. To address this gap, the DPMA is expanding outreach formats, strengthening cooperation with educational institutions, and publishing new empirical studies, including a forthcoming analysis of patenting behavior among innovative German startups conducted with WIPO. Strategic Challenges Ahead Looking forward, Schewior identified several key challenges: insufficient awareness of IP protection among SMEs and startups, a tendency in some sectors to rely solely on trade secrets, and the growing problem of product and trademark piracy linked to organized crime. From an institutional perspective, the DPMA must remain attractive and competitive in a European system offering multiple routes to protection. This requires legally robust decisions, efficient procedures, qualified staff, and continuous investment in IT and training. Careers at the DPMA Finally, Schewior highlighted recruitment as a strategic priority. The DPMA recently hired around 50 new patent examiners and continues to seek experts in fields such as electrical engineering, e-mobility, IT, and aerospace, as well as IT specialists, lawyers, and staff in many other functions. She emphasized the DPMA's role as Europe's largest national patent office and a globally significant, stable, and family-friendly employer at the forefront of technological development. German and European Patents as Complementary Options In her closing remarks, Schewior addressed the post-UPC patent landscape. Rather than competing, German and European patent systems complement each other. For many SMEs, a German patent alone may be sufficient, particularly where Germany is the core market. At the same time, the possibility of holding both a European patent and a national German patent offers strategic resilience, as national protection can survive even if a European patent is revoked. Her key message was clear: the range of options has never been broader, but making informed strategic choices is more important than ever. If you would like, I can also adapt this article for a specialist legal audience, condense it for a magazine format, or rework it as a thought-leadership piece for LinkedIn or your website. Rolf Claessen: Today's interview guest is Eva Schewior. If you don't know her yet, she is the President of the German Patent and Trademark Office. Thank you very much for being here. Eva Schewior: I'm very happy that you're having me today. Thank you, Mr. Claessen. Rolf Claessen: Shortening the length of procedures has been a stated goal since you took office. What is the current situation, and which measures are in place to achieve this goal? Eva Schewior: First of all, I'm very glad that German IP rights are in high demand. Even though applicants in Europe have multiple options today to obtain protection for their innovations, we have seen increasing application numbers for years at my office, even after the introduction of the Unitary Patent system. I see this as very positive feedback for our work. It is clear, however, that the high number of applications leads to a constantly increasing workload. At the same time, we want to remain attractive for our applicants. This means we must offer not only high-quality IP rights but also reasonable durations of proceedings. Ensuring this remains a central and permanent objective of our strategy. The average duration of proceedings from filing to grant is currently about three years and two months, provided that applicants file an examination request within the first four months after application and do not request extensions of time limits. In other cases, the average duration of proceedings is admittedly longer. With these three years and two months, we do not have to shy away from international comparison. Nonetheless, we strive to get better. In the last few years, we were able to improve the number of concluded proceedings or to keep them at a high level. In some areas, we were even able to shorten durations of proceedings a bit, though not yet to the extent that we would have wished for. Our efforts are often overtaken by the increasing demand for our services. Just to give you an example, in the last ten to fifteen years, search requests increased by nearly fifty percent. Despite this, we managed to deliver search reports in ninety percent of all cases in time, so that customers have enough time left to take a decision on a subsequent application. I have to admit that we are not equally successful with the first official communication containing the first results of our examination. Here, our applicants need a bit more patience due to longer durations of proceedings. But I think I do not have to explain to your expert audience that longer processing times depend on various reasons, which are in no way solely to be found on our side as an examination office. To further reduce the length of proceedings, we need targeted measures. To identify them, we have analyzed the needs of our applicants. It has been shown that there are two main interests in patent procedures. About three quarters of our applicants have a very strong interest in obtaining a patent. They mainly expect us to make fast decisions on their applications. Here we find applicants who want to have their invention protected within Germany but often also wish for subsequent protection outside Germany. The remaining quarter consists of applicants that are solely interested in a fast and high-quality first assessment of the application by means of a search or a first official examination. We observe that these applicants use our services before they subsequently apply outside Germany. This latter group has little interest in continuing the procedure before my office here in Germany. We are currently considering how we can act in the best interest of both groups. What I can certainly say is that we will continue to address this topic. And of course, in general, it can be said that if we want to shorten the duration of proceedings, we need motivated and highly skilled patent examiners. Therefore, we are currently recruiting many young colleagues for our offices in Munich and Jena, and we want to make our procedures more efficient by using new technical options, thus taking workload from patent examiners and enabling them to concentrate on their core tasks and on speedy examination. Rolf Claessen: Thank you very much. I also feel that the German Patent and Trademark Office has become quite popular, especially with the start of the UPC. Some applicants seem to find that it is a very clever option to also file national patents in Germany. Eva Schewior: I think you're perfectly right, and I think we will come to this point later. Rolf Claessen: In 2023, you mentioned artificial intelligence as an important tool for supporting patent examiners. What has happened regarding AI since then? Eva Schewior: Of course, we are already successfully using AI at our office. For instance, in the field of patent search, we use AI-based tools that make our examiners' work easier. We also use AI quite successfully for classification and for the translation of Asian patent literature into English. In the meantime, we have seen a rapid development of AI in the market. I think it is strategically imperative to get an overview and to make realistic assessments of what AI is capable of doing to make our procedures more efficient. Therefore, we are observing the market to find out where AI can perform tasks so that we enable examiners to concentrate on their core business. There are many ideas right now in our office where artificial intelligence can help us tackle challenges, for instance demographic change, which certainly also affects our office, and maintaining our quality standards. We will strategically promote new tools in this field to cope with these challenges. But this much is also clear: humans will always stay in our focus. Especially in public administration, I consider it a fundamental principle that in the end, decisions must be taken and reviewed by humans. AI may help us reach our goals in a more efficient way, but it can never replace patent or trademark examiners. Rolf Claessen: You have made quality improvements in patent examination a priority and have already implemented a number of measures. How would you describe the current situation? Eva Schewior: I often receive positive feedback from different sides that our users are very satisfied with the quality of our examination, and I'm very glad about that. But maintaining this quality standard is a permanent task, and we must not become careless here. For years, for instance, we have established double checks for all grants and rejections. In addition, we have introduced a quality management tool that enables us, even during the examination process, to randomly check the quality of first office communications and searches. This helps us detect critical trends and take appropriate countermeasures at a very early stage. What is also very important when it comes to patent quality is to actively ask our customers for their feedback. We do this in different ways. Just to give you an example, we have a User Advisory Board, which is a panel of external experts implemented a couple of years ago. Discussing questions of quality is regularly on the agenda of this board. We carefully listen to criticism, ideas, and suggestions, and we have already implemented some of them for the benefit of the office and our users. Rolf Claessen: The German Patent and Trademark Office, as the largest patent and trademark office in Europe, records very high numbers of trademark applications. What are you currently especially concerned with in the trademark area? Eva Schewior: In 2025, we saw around ninety-five thousand trademark applications. This is an increase of eighteen percent compared to the previous year, and I have to say that this took us by surprise. Especially applications from outside Germany, and above all from China, have risen significantly. It is of course challenging to cope with such a sudden increase on an organizational level. Another challenge is dealing with trademark applications filed in bad faith, which we are currently seeing more and more of. We have thoroughly trained our trademark examiners on how to identify and handle such applications. As regards the new types of trademarks, the rush has been moderate so far. Sound marks, multimedia marks, or holograms are apparently not yet common solutions for the majority of applicants. The key focus remains on word marks and combined word and figurative marks. Nevertheless, I believe that the new trademark types are a meaningful supplement and may play a greater role as digitization advances. The most significant changes, however, concern procedures. Applicants can now choose whether to file revocation or invalidity actions with the courts or with our office. While courts may proceed somewhat faster, the financial risk is higher. Before the DPMA, each party generally bears its own costs, apart from exceptional cases. Rolf Claessen: How does this dynamic filing development impact the duration of trademark proceedings? Eva Schewior: This is indeed a major organizational challenge. For a long time, our trademark department managed to keep durations of proceedings very short, especially with regard to registration. Despite the recent increases in applications, especially in 2025, we hope to avoid a significant extension of processing times. We have restructured the organization of the trademark department to distribute applications more equally among teams. Applicants should also be aware that it is possible to request accelerated examination for a relatively moderate fee of two hundred euros. This often leads to registration within a very short time. The filing date, of course, always determines priority. Rolf Claessen: Since December 2025, the EU grants protection not only for agricultural products but also for craft and industrial products through geographical indications. Has your office already received applications? Eva Schewior: Yes, we have received our first application, and interestingly it concerns garden gnomes. Protected geographical indications are an important topic because they help maintain traditional know-how in regions and secure local jobs. The DPMA is the competent authority for Germany. Applications go through a national examination phase at our office before being forwarded to the EUIPO, which takes the final decision on EU-wide registration. Eligible products must originate from a specific region and derive their quality, reputation, or characteristics from that origin, with at least one production step taking place there. Rolf Claessen: The DPMA has expanded its outreach activities, including social media. What else is planned? Eva Schewior: Raising awareness of IP rights, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises, is part of our statutory duty. We currently use LinkedIn and YouTube to communicate IP topics in an understandable and engaging way. We also plan dedicated LinkedIn channels, for example for SMEs. Studies show that fewer than ten percent of European SMEs use IP rights, even though those that do earn significantly more on average. In 2026, we will further expand outreach activities, cooperate more closely with universities and educational institutions, and publish new studies, including one on the patenting behavior of innovative German start-ups conducted together with WIPO. Rolf Claessen: Where do you see the biggest future challenges in IP? Eva Schewior: Germany depends on innovation, but awareness of IP protection is still insufficient, particularly among SMEs and start-ups. Some companies deliberately avoid IP rights and rely on trade secrets, which I consider risky. Another growing concern is the increase in product and trademark piracy, often linked to organized crime. For our office, remaining attractive and competitive is crucial. Applicants have many options in Europe, so we need fast procedures, legally robust decisions, qualified staff, and modern IT systems. Rolf Claessen: The DPMA is currently recruiting. Which areas are you focusing on? Eva Schewior: Our focus is on patent examination and IT. We recently hired fifty new patent examiners and are particularly looking for experts in fields such as electrical engineering, e-mobility, IT, and aerospace. We are Europe's largest national patent office and offer meaningful, secure jobs with fair compensation and strong development opportunities. Rolf Claessen: Is there a final message you would like to share with our listeners? Eva Schewior: The Unitary Patent system has created many new options. German and European patent systems do not compete; they complement each other. For many SMEs, a German patent may already be sufficient, especially where Germany is the core market. Holding both European and national patents can also be a strategic advantage. My key message is: be aware of the options, stay informed, and choose your IP strategy deliberately. Rolf Claessen: Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Eva Schewior: Thank you for having me. It was a pleasure.

In this episode of In The LOOP Podcast, we sit down with Jill Edwards, the founder of the Something Special Breakaway, to talk about how one mother's vision helped reshape youth breakaway roping. What started as a solution for her 10 year old daughter has grown into one of the most impactful all girls breakaway roping events in the country, serving competitors from ages 8 to 16. Now heading into its sixth year, the Something Special Breakaway has paid out nearly $100,000 in money and prizes, while creating a positive, high level platform for young female athletes to compete, grow, and belong. If you care about the future of breakaway roping, youth athletics, or empowering young women through competition, this episode offers insight, perspective, and a powerful reminder that championships are defined by how you respond, not just by the result. ----In The LOOP Podcast hosted by Jordan Jo Hollabaugh, is inspired by the western culture and breakaway roping lifestyle. This podcast highlights the raw, real, truth behind the box of the breakaway roping industry. Bringing you behind the scenes stories of what real life looks like everyday from; breakaway ropers, cowgirls, cowboys, producers, leaders, trailblazers, and the like, all sharing stories of the western culture and lifestyle that they live daily.In The LOOP Podcast & Fabrizio Marketing LLC are not responsible for any losses, damages, or liabilities that may arise from the use of this podcast.----New Episodes Every Friday @ 9a ET on Rodeo Live YT----Get In The LOOP Podcast with Jordan JoGet the Newsletter at | www.inthelooprodeo.com/Like us on Facebook | www.facebook.com/inthelooppodcast.jordanjoTag us on Instagram | www.instagram.com/inthelooppodcast.jordanjoFollow us on TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@jordanjo.hollabaughWatch more on our Youtube Channel Watch on Youtube @ JordanJoHollabaugh ... Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's Thursday, January 29th, A.D. 2026. 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 Evangelical college fired teacher for calling homosexual behavior sin A Christian teacher in England went to court last week to defend his religious freedom. Dr. Aaron Edwards worked at Cliff College in Derbyshire. Three years ago, the Evangelical college fired him after he called homosexuality a sin in a social media post. Edwards is now appealing a tribunal decision that upheld his dismissal with the help of the Christian Legal Centre. Andrea Williams, chief executive of the organization, said, "This case raises serious questions about freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the lawful limits of institutional authority.” Referencing Acts 4:20, Edwards said he does not regret speaking the truth, saying, “As the apostles said before their accusers, ‘We cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.'” Euthanasia bill failed in French Senate A bill to legalize euthanasia failed in France's Senate last week.  Political deadlock among lawmakers effectively killed the bill. Gregor Puppinck is the Director General of the European Centre for Law and Justice. He said, “This text was terrible. It allowed euthanasia and suicide by decision of a single doctor, at the oral request of a patient, in three days, without the relatives being informed and able to take legal action.” Canada euthanized elderly woman against her will Meanwhile, in Canada, an elderly woman was tragically euthanized against her will through the country's Medical Assistance in Dying program.  This according to a report by the Office of the Chief Coroner. The report identified the 80-year-old woman as “Mrs. B.” She initially expressed interest in the program. But later, she wanted to withdraw her request, “citing personal and religious values and beliefs.” However, assessors with the euthanasia program approved the killing after her husband reported experiencing “caregiver burnout.” Proverbs 12:10 says, “The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” Canada backs off deal with China after Trump tariff threat Canada reached a preliminary agreement with China earlier this month to lower tariffs on certain goods. However, U.S. President Trump criticized the deal. He wrote on Truth Social, “If Canada makes a deal with China, it will immediately be hit with a 100% Tariff against all Canadian goods and products coming into the U.S.A.” In response, Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney backed off the agreement with China. Federal Reserve didn't change interest rate In the United States, the Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged yesterday. The central bank decided to keep its key lending rate between 3.5 percent and 3.75 percent.  The Fed noted, “Available indicators suggest that economic activity has been expanding at a solid pace. Job gains have remained low, and the unemployment rate has shown some signs of stabilization. Inflation remains somewhat elevated.” Fewer U.S. pastors leaving ministry A new survey from the Barna Group found fewer pastors are considering walking away from the ministry. Twenty-four percent of U.S. senior Protestant pastors say they have seriously considered leaving full-time ministry within the past year. That's down from 42 percent in 2022. Pastoral burnout heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic but has been stabilizing since then. The report noted, “Fewer pastors appear to be in immediate vocational crisis, even as many continue to carry fatigue, grief, and uncertainty about the future of ministry.” Today is birthday of Martin Luther's wife And finally, today marks the birthday of Katharina Von Bora, the wife of Martin Luther. She was born on January 29, 1499. Her mother died in childhood and she was sent to a Catholic boarding school before becoming a nun. At the convent, Katharina discovered the writings of Martin Luther. Along with other nuns, she learned about salvation by grace through faith in Christ. This led Katharina and the nuns to ask Luther for help to escape the convent.  Luther was able to help the nuns find husbands and jobs, except for Katharina. The two were eventually married. Together, they had six children.  Author Michelle DeRusha described Katharina as “a woman who risked marrying one of the most controversial men of the time – a man who could have very likely been burned as a heretic at any given moment. She was a woman who raised six children; ran a boardinghouse; oversaw a farm complete with fruit orchards, livestock, and a fishpond; and advised and cared for her husband.” Consider an excellent, full-color, beautifully illustrated children's book about her entitled Katharine von Bora: The Morning Star of Wittenberg. It is co-authored by Shanna and Jenna Strackbein, twin sisters who were homeschooled in Aransas Pass, Texas, by their beloved mother Jenny. Joel Beeke, President of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan said, "Boys and girls (and adults too) will love this beautiful book about a godly woman who helped to change the world." Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, January 29th, in the year of our Lord 2026. 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.

In this Dailycast episode of Wrestling Coast to Coast, Chris Maitland and Justin McClelland review Fightt Pro Wrestling's Enter the Fight Round 3. The promotion still can't spell, but does continue to present an intriguing alternative vision of pro wrestling as sport with rankings and a points system, and featuring a lot of very good technical matches, including Gia Scott vs. Serena Deeb, Rhett Titus vs. O'Shay Edwards, Ryan Mooney vs. Matt Quay, and more. We talk about the promotion's strengths and weakness, if its complicated rule set is to its advantage, and what its prospects are. We also take a look at the extremely disappointing debut of Jordan Price and Alex Price as contracted members of the AEW roster. For VIP listeners, we dip back to Beyond Wrestling for the much anticipated return of Jonathan Gresham facing Ryan Clancy in a technical masterpiece and the much-dreaded Krule vs. Gaby Forza match for the IWTV title.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pwtorch-dailycast--3276210/support.

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

Clay Edwards delivers a passionate closing rant, urging listeners to reject compromise with Democrats and choose sides in what he frames as a battle between good and evil. He warns against negotiating with "terrorists" over demands for ICE reform, insisting there's no gray area in politics—only right and wrong. Critiquing the outdated notion of "crossing the aisle," Edwards argues Democrats would never reciprocate and calls for unyielding resistance, even suggesting a metaphorical "right cross" instead of bipartisanship. He highlights media efforts to rewrite history, portraying Trump as a Nazi and MAGA as racist, and emphasizes drowning out the noise to focus on core issues like immigration enforcement and election integrity. Edwards points to recent setbacks for Democrats, including revelations about Alex Pretti's aggressive behavior and evidence of 2020 election fraud in Fulton County, declaring it a "bad day to be a Democrat." He condemns Democratic threats, such as prosecuting Trump with the death penalty or arresting ICE agents, and calls out media allies who side against ICE, demanding they pick good over evil. Stressing consequences for law-breaking, he rallies supporters to stay focused amid distractions like Epstein conspiracies, warning that midterm losses could lead to Trump's impeachment or exile. The rant ends with a call to action: tell opponents to "kiss your ass" and recognize the fight's ugliness for a better future.

Clay Edwards hosts a lively radio discussion tackling cancel culture, local Mississippi issues, and national politics. He chats with guest Jamie Creel about the rapid growth in North Mississippi, the strong performance of DeSoto County schools, and opposition to school choice legislation that could disrupt high-performing districts. They praise Senator McClendon for representing his constituents effectively, including his Glacier Act bill, and express sympathy for ice storm victims in areas like Tate County and Oxford, where buildings have collapsed under the weight of snow and ice.   The conversation shifts to political accountability, emphasizing the need for representatives to prioritize their voters over leadership agendas. They critique the removal of ballot initiatives and discuss recent backlash against lawmakers who supported school choice. Edwards and Creel differentiate between cancel culture and "consequence culture," citing examples like a University of Mississippi employee fired for inflammatory comments and nurses losing jobs over extreme political statements on social media.   They delve into the Alex Prady case, debunking portrayals of him as an ideal citizen by sharing video evidence of his aggressive encounters with ICE agents, including assaults and property damage. The hosts argue that carrying a gun at protests requires responsibility and that Prady's actions led to foreseeable consequences. Broader political topics include election fraud allegations in Fulton County, Georgia, and Minnesota's laws allowing non-citizens to obtain driver's licenses that enable voting, skewing results in blue cities.   Edwards touches on personal fitness and mental clarity from lifestyle changes, then pivots to insurance advice, stressing the importance of proper coverage for valuables, renters' policies, and business needs amid volatile rates and storm damage. They highlight affordable life insurance options without exams for those with clean records.   The show wraps with a brief sports segment, picking the Seahawks over the Patriots in a hypothetical matchup due to strong defense, and a passionate rant on resisting Democratic narratives around immigration enforcement, election integrity, and threats to prosecute political figures like Trump. Edwards urges listeners to stay focused on core issues amid distractions.  

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

John Colt never denied killing Samuel Adams. As the murder trial wrapped up, the defense argued that John Colt never planned to kill Samuel Adams. He'd acted in self defense. In the finale of this series, the jury returns their verdict. John Colt faces the aftermath. Remember, kids, history hoes always cite their sources! For this episode, Norm pulled from: Dunphy, Thomas. Remarkable Trials of All Countries. Diossy & Company, 1870.Edwards, William. The Story of Colt's Revolver. Stackpole Co, 1953.Phelps, M. Devil''s Right Hand: The Tragic Story of the Colt Family Curse. Lyons Press, 2013.Schechter, Harold. Killer Colt: Murder, Disgrace, and the Making of an American Legend. 1st ed. Open Road Integrated Media, Inc, 2010.Are you enjoying An Old Timey Podcast? Then please leave us a 5-star rating and review wherever you listen to podcasts!Are you *really* enjoying An Old Timey Podcast? Well, calm down, history ho! You can get more of us on Patreon at patreon.com/oldtimeypodcast. At the $5 level, you'll get a monthly bonus episode (with video!), access to our 90's style chat room, plus the entire back catalog of bonus episodes from Kristin's previous podcast, Let's Go To Court.

Illinois' length was a problem all day as Purdue couldn't get a rebound when they needed it...but problems on defense and the inability to close a game strong killed them in Mackey Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

IU makes plays as Purdue doesn't down the stretch...Purdue's fork in the road for the season is here Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Join us for a conversation on EFS with Kyle Claunch, Associate Professor of Christian Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.   Detailed Analytical Outline: "Everything You Need to Know About EFS and The Trinity | Kyle Claunch | #100" This outline structures the podcast episode chronologically by timestamp, providing a summary of content, key theological arguments, analytical insights (e.g., strengths of positions, biblical/theological connections, and implications for Trinitarian doctrine), and notable quotes. The discussion centers on Eternal Functional Submission (EFS, also termed Eternal Submission of the Son [ESS] or Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission [ERAS]), its biblical basis, critiques, and broader Trinitarian implications. Host Sean Demars interviews Kyle Claunch, a theologian offering a non-EFS perspective rooted in classical Trinitarianism (e.g., Augustine, Athanasius). The tone is conversational, humble, and worship-oriented, emphasizing the doctrine's gravity (per Augustine: "Nowhere else is a mistake more dangerous"). Introduction and Setup (00:10–01:48) Content Summary: Episode opens with music and host introduction. Sean Demars welcomes first-time guest Kyle Claunch (noting a prior unreleased recording). Light banter references mutual acquaintance Jim Hamilton (a repeat guest) and a breakfast discussion on Song of Solomon. Transition to topic: the Trinity, with humorous acknowledgment of its complexity. Key Points: Shoutout to Hamilton as the "three-timer" on the show; playful goal of featuring Kenwood elders repeatedly. Tease of future episodes on Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Psalms. Analytical Insights: Establishes relational warmth and insider Reformed/Baptist context (e.g., Kenwood Baptist Church ties). Frames Trinity discussion as high-stakes yet accessible, aligning with podcast's "Room for Nuance" ethos—nuanced, non-polemical engagement. Implications: Builds trust for dense theology, reminding listeners of communal discipleship. Notable Quote: "Nothing better to talk about... Nowhere else is a mistake more dangerous, Augustine says about the doctrine of the trinity." (01:33) Opening Prayer (01:48–02:29) Content Summary: Claunch prays for accurate representation of God, protection from error, and edification of listeners (believers to worship, unbelievers to Christ). Key Points: Gratitude for knowing God as Father through Son by Spirit; plea for words and meditations to be acceptable (Psalm 19:14 echo). Analytical Insights: Models Trinitarian piety—prayer invokes all persons, underscoring episode's theme of relational unity over hierarchical submission. Strengthens devotional framing, countering potential abstraction in doctrine. Notable Quote: "May the saints who hear this be drawn to worship. May those that don't know you be drawn to want to know you through your son Jesus." (02:07–02:29) Interview Origin and Personal Context (02:29–04:18) Content Summary: Demars recounts how Hamilton recommended Claunch as a counterpoint to Owen Strawn's EFS views (from a prior episode on theological retrieval). Demars shares his wavering stance on EFS (initial acceptance, rejection, ambivalence—like amillennialism) and seeks Claunch's help to "land" biblically. Key Points: EFS as a debated topic in evangelical circles; Claunch's approach ties to retrieval. Demars' vulnerability: Desire for settled conviction on God's self-revelation. Analytical Insights: Highlights EFS debate's live-wire status in Reformed theology (post-2016 surge via Ware, Grudem). Demars' "help me land" plea humanizes the host, inviting listeners into personal theological pilgrimage. Implication: Doctrine as transformative, not merely academic—echoes Augustine's "discovery more advantageous" (later referenced). Notable Quote: "Part of this is really just being like dear brother Kyle help me like land where I need to land on this." (03:53) Defining EFS/ESS/ERAS (04:18–07:01) Content Summary: Claunch defines terms: EFS (eternal functional submission of Son/Spirit to Father per divine nature); ESS (eternal submission of Son); ERAS (eternal relations of authority/submission, per Ware). Contrasts with incarnational obedience (uncontroversial for creatures). Key Points: Eternal (contra-temporal, constitutive of God's life); not limited to human nature. Biblical focus on Son, but extends to Spirit; relations as "godness of God" (Father-Son-Spirit distinctions). Analytical Insights: Clarifies nomenclature's evolution (avoiding "subordinationism" heresy). Strength: Steel-mans EFS as biblically motivated, not cultural. Weakness: Risks blurring persons' equality if submission is essential. Connects to classical taxonomy (one essence, three persons via relations). Notable Quote: "This relation of authority and submission then is internal to the very life of God and as such is constitutive of what it means for God to be God." (06:36) Biblical Texts for EFS: Steel-Manning Arguments (07:01–14:34) Content Summary: Claunch lists key texts EFS advocates use, steel-manning sympathetically. John 6:38 (07:35): Son came "not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me"—roots in pre-incarnate motive. Sending Language (09:04): Father sends Son (never reverse); implies authority-obedience. Father-Son Names (09:43): Eternal sonship entails biblical patriarchal authority. 1 Cor 11:3 (10:04): "God [Father] is the head of Christ"—parallels man-woman headship (authority symbol). 1 Cor 15:24–28 (13:13): Future subjection of Son to Father ("eternity future" implies past). Key Points: EFS holders (e.g., Ware, Grudem—Claunch's friends/mentor) prioritize Scripture; not anti-Trinitarian. Analytical Insights: Effective charity—affirms motives (biblicism) while previewing critiques. Texts highlight economic Trinity (missions reveal immanent relations). Implication: If valid, EFS grounds complementarity in creation (e.g., gender roles via 1 Cor 11). But risks Arianism echoes if submission essentializes inequality. Notable Quote: "They believe this because they are convinced that this is what the Bible teaches... It's a genuine desire to believe what the Bible says." (14:15) Critiquing EFS Texts: Governing Principles (14:52–19:02) Content Summary: Claunch introduces "form of God/form of servant" rule (Augustine, Phil 2:6–8) and unity of God (one essence, attributes, acts). Applies to texts, emphasizing incarnation. John 6:38 (15:11): Incarnational (Son assumes human will to obey as Last Adam); "not my own will" implies distinct (human-divine) wills, not eternal submission. Compares to Gethsemane (Lk 22:42), Phil 2 (obedience as "became," not eternal), Heb 5:8 (learns obedience via suffering). Key Points: Obedience creaturely (Adam failed, Christ succeeds); EFS demands discrete divine wills, contradicting one will/power (inseparable operations). Analytical Insights: Augustinian rule shines—resolves tensions without modalism/Arianism. Strength: Harmonizes canon (analogy of Scripture). Implication: Protects active obedience's soteriological role (imputed righteousness). Weakness in EFS: Overlooks hypostatic union's permanence. Notable Quote: "Obedience is something he became, not something he was." (35:15) Inseparable Operations and Unity (19:02–28:18) Content Summary: One God = one almighty/omniscient/will (Athanasian Creed); external acts (ad extra) undivided (e.g., creation, resurrection appropriated to persons but shared). EFS's "distinct enactment" incoherent—submission requires discrete wills, implying polytheism. Submission entails disagreement possibility, undermining unity. Key Points: Appropriation (e.g., Father elects, but all persons do); one will upstream from texts. Analytical Insights: Core classical rebuttal—echoes Cappadocians vs. Arius (one ousia, three hypostases). Strength: Biblical (e.g., Jn 1 creation triad). Implication: Safeguards monotheism; critiques social Trinitarianism/EFS as quasi-polytheistic. Ties to procession (relations without hierarchy). Notable Quote: "If God's knowledge and mind understanding will is all one then the very idea... that you could have one divine person... have authority and the other... not have the same authority... Seems to be a category mistake." (24:41–25:14) Further Critiques: Sending, Headship, Future Submission (28:18–50:07) Content Summary: Sending (42:30): Not command (Aquinas/Augustine); missions reveal processions (eternal generation), not authority (analogical, e.g., adult "sending" without hierarchy). 1 Cor 11:3 (46:34): Incarnational (Christ as mediator); underdetermined text, informed by whole Scripture. 1 Cor 15 (48:10): Post-resurrection = ongoing hypostatic union (God-man forever submits as creature). Spirit's "Obedience" (49:26): No biblical texts; EFS extension illogical (Spirit unincarnate). Jn 16:13 ("not... on his own authority") mistranslates—Greek "from himself" denotes procession, not submission (parallels Jn 5:19–26 on Son's generation). Key Points: Obedience emphasis on Son's humanity for redemption; Spirit's mission unified (takes Father's/Son's). Analytical Insights: Devastating on Spirit—exposes EFS asymmetry. Strength: Exegetical precision (Greek apo heautou). Implication: EFS risks divinizing hierarchy over equality; retrieval favors Nicene grammar. Notable Quote: "There's not one single biblical text that uses the language of authority, submission, obedience in relation to the spirit." (50:07) Processions, Personhood, and Retrieval Tease (50:07–1:10:04) Content Summary: Persons = rational subsistences (Boethius); distinction via relations/processions (Father unbegotten, Son generated, Spirit spirated—not three wills/agents). Demars probes: Processions define persons (Son from Father, Spirit from both?). Claunch: Analogical, not creaturely autonomy. Teases retrieval discussion for future episode. Key Points: Creator-creature distinction; via eminentia/negativa for terms like "person." God unlike us—worship response to mystery. Analytical Insights: Clarifies hypostases vs. prosopa; counters social Trinitarianism. Strength: Humility amid density ("take your sandals off"). Implication: EFS confuses economic/immanent Trinity; retrieval recovers Nicene subtlety vs. modern individualism. Notable Quote: "The distinction is in the relation only... The ground of personhood is the divine nature." (1:03:07–1:03:32) Eschatological Reflection and Heaven (1:10:04–1:13:39) Content Summary: Demars: Perpetual learning in heaven? Claunch: Infinite expansion (Edwards' analogy—expanding vessel in God's love); Augustine: Laborious but advantageous pursuit. Key Points: Glorified knowledge joyful, finite yet ever-growing; press on (Hos 4:6). Analytical Insights: Pastoral pivot—doctrine doxological, not despairing. Ties to episode's awe: Trinity as eternal discovery. Notable Quote: "Nowhere else is a mistake more dangerous or the task more laborious or the discovery more advantageous." (1:13:11) Rapid-Fire Q&A (1:13:55–1:20:14) Content Summary: Fun segment: Favorites (24, Spurgeon/Piper sermons, Tolkien, It's a Wonderful Life, mountains, wine, licorice hate, fly, morning person, etc.). Ends with straw holes trick (one). Key Points: Reveals Claunch's tastes (e.g., Owen's works as "systematic theology," "Immortal, Invisible" hymn for funeral—mortality vs. God's eternity). Analytical Insights: Humanizes expert; hymn choice reinforces theme (Psalm 90 echo). Lightens load post-depth. Closing Prayer (1:20:14–1:21:04) Content Summary: Demars thanks God for Claunch's clarity; prays for his influence in church/academy. Key Points: Blessing for edification, glory. Analytical Insights: Bookends with prayer—Trinitarian focus implicit. Overall Analytical Themes: Claunch's non-EFS view upholds Nicene equality via processions/operations, critiquing EFS as well-intentioned but incoherent (risks subordinationism). Episode excels in balance: exegetical rigor, historical retrieval (Augustine/Aquinas/Owen), pastoral warmth. Implications: Bolsters complementarianism without Trinitarian cost; urges humility in mystery. Ideal for theology students/pastors navigating debates.  

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdf

In this episode of The Clay Edwards Show, host Clay Edwards dives into the chaos of current events, from the brutal ice storm hitting North Mississippi to the escalating tensions in Minneapolis involving ICE operations and anti-law enforcement protests. He breaks down the tragic shooting of Alex Priddy, critiques media narratives, and draws comparisons to cases like Kyle Rittenhouse and Ashli Babbitt, while calling out hypocrisy on both sides of the political divide. Edwards also reflects on local Jackson issues, cancel culture, and the fight for America's soul, delivering unfiltered commentary on corruption, accountability, and the culture war. Tune in for raw, no-holds-barred talk on what's really happening in Mississippi and beyond.   Subscribe for daily doses of reality radio, and catch past episodes on your favorite platforms. #ClayEdwardsShow #CurrentEvents #Politics #MississippiNews    

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

What most people don't realize is that the Miami Herald didn't “expose” Jeffrey Epstein's sweetheart deal — three of his victims and their lawyers did. Long before the headlines, those women and attorneys Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards had been fighting for nearly a decade to uncover how then–U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta secretly gave Epstein and his network immunity from prosecution. Acosta's office violated the Crime Victims Rights Act by hiding the non-prosecution agreement and misleading the victims into thinking the federal case was still alive. The Justice Department fought the victims at every turn, denying them information and arguing they had no rights, but Cassell and Edwards refused to quit. Their persistence forced the truth out: Epstein's elite legal team dictated the deal, silenced victims, and helped him serve just 13 cushy months while his crimes went largely untouched.The case exposed far more than Epstein's depravity — it revealed a justice system built to serve power, not people. Poor, vulnerable girls were targeted, dismissed, and smeared while prosecutors and billionaires protected one another. The same biases that fail defendants crushed the victims too, showing how easily money warps the law. But despite every obstacle, those women and their lawyers won a ruling confirming the government's illegal concealment, proving that even against billionaires and corrupt officials, truth can still claw its way to the surface. Their courage didn't just expose Epstein — it ripped the mask off the system that shielded him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode of the Soil Sisters Podcast, meet Dr. Ben Edwards, founder and CEO of Veritas Medical and Veritas Wellness in Lubbock, Texas. Dr. Edwards shares his path from conventional family medicine to a holistic, root-cause resolution approach to health and wellness. He discusses his transformation following a divine intervention that guided him to realize the flaws in conventional chronic disease management. The conversation explores real patient experiences and the importance of nutrition, hydration, movement, and peace—The four pillars taught at Veritas Wellness. Dr. Ben also explains in practical terms the role of the gut microbiome and mitochondrial health in foundational wellbeing. You'll gain insights into the power of mindset, the significant impact of epigenetics, and the interconnectedness of soil health and human health. Tune in to learn how you're the cure you've been looking for.MEET OUR GUEST: Dr. Ben Edwards has over 20+ years in the medical field. He is the founder and CEO of Veritas Medical and Veritas Wellness in Lubbock, TX. And he also hosts the "You're The Cure" Podcast (Top 75 Functional Health Podcast), where he educates people on getting to the root cause of disease, and teaching them how to NOT NEED a Doctor!Raised in Belton, TX, Dr. Edwards holds degrees from Baylor University and the University of Texas Medical School at Houston. He completed his residency at Waco's McLennan County Medical Education and Research Foundation before moving to West Texas in 2005 with his wife Jamie where Dr. Edwards was the only doctor in the county at the Garza County Health Clinic. After 7 years of practicing conventional medicine, a divine appointment opened his eyes to root cause resolution medicine.TIME STAMPS:00:00 Welcome to the Soil Sisters Podcast00:43 Introducing Dr. Ben Edwards00:52 Dr. Ben's Medical Journey04:17 A Divine Appointment  08:39 Challenging Conventional Medicine09:18 A Nurse Practitioner's Transformation14:39 The Power of Alternative Medicine27:10 Personal Testimonies and Success Stories31:01 Integrative Approaches to Cancer Treatment33:23 Transitioning to Root Cause Resolution37:14 A New Beginning: Starting Veritas Medical38:59 Overcoming Challenges: Building the Practice40:41 The Insurance Dilemma: Breaking Free from The System41:34 The Power of Mitochondria and Microbiome42:47 Launching Veritas Wellness: Health Coaching Revolution44:25 The Four Pillars of Wellness59:54 Epigenetics: Taking Control of Your Health01:09:43 Healthy Soil, Healthy Gut01:12:48 Conclusion: Empowering Health and Wellness

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The videotaped deposition of Virginia Roberts Giuffre taken on January 16, 2016, in Fort Lauderdale sits at the center of the bitter legal war between Epstein survivors' attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell and Alan Dershowitz, who was accused by Giuffre of sexually abusing her when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. In the deposition, Giuffre gives a detailed, sworn narrative of how she was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell, groomed, trafficked to powerful men, and moved across multiple jurisdictions while still underage. She identifies Epstein's residences, flight patterns, intermediaries, and specific encounters, placing her allegations firmly inside the broader trafficking structure rather than as isolated claims. The testimony was preserved on video precisely because her lawyers anticipated that credibility, consistency, and demeanor would become central issues in the defamation battle that followed. It also captured Giuffre under oath before years of public pressure, media narratives, and evolving legal strategies could reshape the record.What made this deposition legally explosive was its direct role in the defamation and civil litigation between Dershowitz and the Edwards–Cassell team, after Giuffre publicly accused Dershowitz and he responded with an aggressive campaign claiming she had fabricated the allegations and falsely implicated him. The video became a critical piece of evidence in determining whether Giuffre's statements were knowingly false or grounded in a consistent trafficking account supported by contemporaneous detail. Dershowitz's lawyers later argued that contradictions, memory gaps, and timeline disputes undermined her credibility, while Giuffre's side pointed to the overall coherence of her narrative and the corroborating travel and contact records emerging in parallel cases. Long before the unsealing battles and public reckonings, this deposition quietly locked in one of the earliest comprehensive sworn accounts of Epstein's trafficking network—and the legal fault line that would later fracture the reputations of some of the most powerful lawyers and institutions tied to the case.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1257-12.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Amelia B. Edwards wrote this historical travelogue in in 1873. The book describes her travels through a relatively un-visited area in the South Tyrol district of Italy. The Dolomites are a part of that most famous of mountain chains, the Alps.In this book, the Writer and her friend and companion, L., travel from Southern Italy, having over-wintered there, to visit the Dolomite district. Her chatty style, dry sense of humor, accuracy of facts, and sympathy for humanity set her works apart. The slice of Victorian British life presented is quite captivating.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Amelia B. Edwards wrote this historical travelogue in in 1873. The book describes her travels through a relatively un-visited area in the South Tyrol district of Italy. The Dolomites are a part of that most famous of mountain chains, the Alps.In this book, the Writer and her friend and companion, L., travel from Southern Italy, having over-wintered there, to visit the Dolomite district. Her chatty style, dry sense of humor, accuracy of facts, and sympathy for humanity set her works apart. The slice of Victorian British life presented is quite captivating.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Amelia B. Edwards wrote this historical travelogue in in 1873. The book describes her travels through a relatively un-visited area in the South Tyrol district of Italy. The Dolomites are a part of that most famous of mountain chains, the Alps.In this book, the Writer and her friend and companion, L., travel from Southern Italy, having over-wintered there, to visit the Dolomite district. Her chatty style, dry sense of humor, accuracy of facts, and sympathy for humanity set her works apart. The slice of Victorian British life presented is quite captivating.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Amelia B. Edwards wrote this historical travelogue in in 1873. The book describes her travels through a relatively un-visited area in the South Tyrol district of Italy. The Dolomites are a part of that most famous of mountain chains, the Alps.In this book, the Writer and her friend and companion, L., travel from Southern Italy, having over-wintered there, to visit the Dolomite district. Her chatty style, dry sense of humor, accuracy of facts, and sympathy for humanity set her works apart. The slice of Victorian British life presented is quite captivating.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Amelia B. Edwards wrote this historical travelogue in in 1873. The book describes her travels through a relatively un-visited area in the South Tyrol district of Italy. The Dolomites are a part of that most famous of mountain chains, the Alps.In this book, the Writer and her friend and companion, L., travel from Southern Italy, having over-wintered there, to visit the Dolomite district. Her chatty style, dry sense of humor, accuracy of facts, and sympathy for humanity set her works apart. The slice of Victorian British life presented is quite captivating.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Amelia B. Edwards wrote this historical travelogue in in 1873. The book describes her travels through a relatively un-visited area in the South Tyrol district of Italy. The Dolomites are a part of that most famous of mountain chains, the Alps.In this book, the Writer and her friend and companion, L., travel from Southern Italy, having over-wintered there, to visit the Dolomite district. Her chatty style, dry sense of humor, accuracy of facts, and sympathy for humanity set her works apart. The slice of Victorian British life presented is quite captivating.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Amelia B. Edwards wrote this historical travelogue in in 1873. The book describes her travels through a relatively un-visited area in the South Tyrol district of Italy. The Dolomites are a part of that most famous of mountain chains, the Alps.In this book, the Writer and her friend and companion, L., travel from Southern Italy, having over-wintered there, to visit the Dolomite district. Her chatty style, dry sense of humor, accuracy of facts, and sympathy for humanity set her works apart. The slice of Victorian British life presented is quite captivating.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Dave Davis is here on a gloomy Sunday morning for Liverpool fans. He rounds up all the news and gossip on our Daily Red podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Caroline Harvey and Laila Edwards 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. Plus, they share what they're most excited about as they look to Milan-Cortina 2026. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Atlanta United is in the middle of a preseason reset, and for defender Matt Edwards, that process starts with identity.In this full-length conversation from training camp in Florida, Edwards reflects on aggression, mentality, and the defensive edge this team is trying to build in 2026. He discusses what last season taught him, how health shapes his year ahead, and why learning how to be difficult to play against matters for this group.A wide-ranging look at preseason, culture, and the work behind Atlanta United's rebuild.

When John Colt went on trial for the murder of Samuel Adams, it felt like all of New York was watching. The media shared inflammatory, and often inaccurate stories about the defendant. The public clamored for more. Courtroom antics ranged from theatrical to downright gross. John Colt sat at the center of it all, shielded by a defense team that argued he hadn't murdered Samuel Adams. He'd simply been defending himself. Remember, kids, history hoes always cite their sources! For this episode, Norm pulled from: Dunphy, Thomas. Remarkable Trials of All Countries. Diossy & Company, 1870.Edwards, William. The Story of Colt's Revolver. Stackpole Co, 1953.Phelps, M. Devil''s Right Hand: The Tragic Story of the Colt Family Curse. Lyons Press, 2013.Schechter, Harold. Killer Colt: Murder, Disgrace, and the Making of an American Legend. 1st ed. Open Road Integrated Media, Inc, 2010.Are you enjoying An Old Timey Podcast? Then please leave us a 5-star rating and review wherever you listen to podcasts!Are you *really* enjoying An Old Timey Podcast? Well, calm down, history ho! You can get more of us on Patreon at patreon.com/oldtimeypodcast. At the $5 level, you'll get a monthly bonus episode (with video!), access to our 90's style chat room, plus the entire back catalog of bonus episodes from Kristin's previous podcast, Let's Go To Court.

When 62% of your customers are making decisions based on deals and discounts, is investing in premium customer experience a luxury you can still afford, or is it the only thing that can actually save you? Agility requires brands to move beyond seasonal planning and into a state of continuous listening. It's about having the insight and infrastructure to pivot your customer experience strategy in real-time based on economic signals and shifting consumer priorities. Today, we're going to talk about decoding the often-conflicting signals consumers sent during the last holiday season. Five9 posted some of their findings in a report that we'll link out to in the show notes. We'll explore how deep-seated economic pressures are reshaping shopping habits, and how AI is moving from a back-office tool to a front-line differentiator that can deliver both the savings customers crave and the experiences that build loyalty. To help me discuss this topic, I'd like to welcome, Jenn Edwards, VP of Customer Experience at Five9. About Jenn Edwards Jenn Edwards is an accomplished professional in customer experience and marketing, currently serving as the VP of Customer Experience at Five9. With a robust background that includes roles such as Marketing and Customer Experience Advisor at JME Consulting and Co-Founder of Community Art Collaborative, Jennifer has demonstrated strong leadership and innovative thinking. Previously, Jennifer held the position of Americas Field Marketing Leader at Cisco and served as VP Global Demand at WalkMe™. Educationally, Jennifer holds a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management from UCL and a Bachelor of Science in Marketing/International Business from Manhattan College. Jenn Edwards on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennifermaciveredwards/ Resources Five9: https://www.five9.com/ The Agile Brand podcast is brought to you by TEKsystems. Learn more here: https://www.teksystems.com/versionnextnow Drive your customers to new horizons at the premier retail event of the year for Retail and Brand marketers. Learn more at CRMC 2026, June 1-3. https://www.thecrmc.com/ Enjoyed the show? Tell us more at and give us a rating so others can find the show at: https://ratethispodcast.com/agileConnect with Greg on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregkihlstromDon't miss a thing: get the latest episodes, sign up for our newsletter and more: https://www.theagilebrand.showCheck out The Agile Brand Guide website with articles, insights, and Martechipedia, the wiki for marketing technology: https://www.agilebrandguide.com The Agile Brand is produced by Missing Link—a Latina-owned strategy-driven, creatively fueled production co-op. From ideation to creation, they craft human connections through intelligent, engaging and informative content. https://www.missinglink.company

OA1227 - Come play the worst ever round of the Connections game and figure out what on earth Tuskegee Alabama, the CDC, Southern Denmark University, and the West African country of Guinea-Bissau all have in common, as RFK Jr. continues his campaign of “just asking questions” that we already have the answer to. Black men untreated in Tuskegee syphilis study. Heller, J. (July 25, 1972; republished May 10, 2017). Associated Press. The untreated syphilis study at Tuskegee timeline. Centers for Disease Control. (September 4, 2024). 45 CFR 46 Protection of Human Subjects. (Department of Health and Human Services regulations to implement the National Research Act and create Institutional Review Board policies). Hepatitis B. World Health Organization (July 23, 2025). Should the U.S. model its vaccine policy on Denmark's? Experts say we're nothing alike. Godoy, M. (December 26, 2025). NPR. RFK Jr. overhauls childhood vaccine schedule to resemble Denmark's in unprecedented move. Lovelace Jr., B., Edwards, E., Fattah, M., & Bendix, A. (January 5, 2026). NBC News. What is actually the emerging evidence about non-specific vaccine effects in randomized trials from the Bandim Health Project? Støvring, H., Ekstrøm, C.T., Schneider, J.W., & Strøm, C. (2025). Vaccine, 68, 1-4. Notice of award of a single source unsolicited grant to fund University of Southern Denmark (SDU). Department of Health and Human Services. (December 15, 2025). U.S. plan for $1.6m hepatitis B vaccine study in Africa called ‘highly unethical'. Schreiber, M. & Lay, K. (December 19, 2025). The Guardian. CDC awards $1.6 million for hepatitis B vaccine study by controversial Danish researchers. Szabo, L. (December 18, 2025). Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. CDC funds controversial hepatitis B vaccine trial in African newborns. Offord, C. (December 18, 2025). Science Insider. Research ethics and compliance support. Southern Denmark University. Further reading: Qiao, H. (2018). A brief introduction to institutional review boards in the United States. Pediatric Investigation, 2, 46-51. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. International compilation of human research standards. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/compilation-human-research-standards/index.html University of North Carolina. Nuremberg Code. https://research.unc.edu/human-research-ethics/resources/ccm3_019064/ Torrance, R.J., Mormina, M., Sayeed, S., Kessel, A., Yoon, C.H., & Cislaghi, B. (2024). Is the U.N. receiving ethical approval for its research with human participants? Journal of Medical Ethics, 51, 1-4. Barchi, F. & Little, M.T. (2016). National ethics guidance in Sub-Saharan Africa on the collection and use of human biological specimens: A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 17, 1-25. Salhia, B. & Olaiya, V. (2020). Historical perspectives on ethical and regulatory aspects of human participants research: Implications for oncology clinical trials in Africa. JCO Global Oncology, 6, 959-965. Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!