Podcasts about filed

America Awakens To Spiritual War After Democrats Publicly Attack People Praying For Victims Of Catholic School Trans Shooting, Dem Gov Of Maryland Asks Trump To Send Troops! Plus, More Criminal Referrals Filed Against Fed Governor Cook As Mortgage Scandal Grows

Charges filed against the man accused of fatally running over KCK Police Officer Hunter Simoncic. Hour 2 8/27/2025 full 2107 Wed, 27 Aug 2025 20:00:00 +0000 nDRwMFgsrhjeDc2QbySUTgeNyT0uKD2d news The Dana & Parks Podcast news Charges filed against the man accused of fatally running over KCK Police Officer Hunter Simoncic. Hour 2 8/27/2025 You wanted it... Now here it is! Listen to each hour of the Dana & Parks Show whenever and wherever you want! © 2025 Audacy, Inc. News False

A complaint against SDPD Chief Scott Wahl has been filed with the State Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, or POST. Then, a county supervisor is calling for major changes to be made regarding detention facilities in the county. Next, a draft update to the Clairemont Community Plan will now see the neighborhood rezoned, we will bring you those details. Finally, a tribute to the animals that recently died at the San Diego Zoo.

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

Certain aspects of the Christian view of law found in Romans 7:14 were broached in two briefs filed with the United States Supreme Court! Today, David discusses those briefs, describing what he appreciated and what he would have done differently. Along the way, he explains how Christology and Christian eschatology inform his analysis. "Law is [indeed] spiritual" as the Apostle Paul wrote.

On this episode of the podcast, Amy Nelson shares the harrowing five-year ordeal her family endured after the FBI launched a federal criminal investigation into her husband, a former Amazon executive. Despite no charges ever being filed, the Department of Justice seized their assets, including $7 million, devastating their family financially, mentally, and emotionally. Backed by former federal prosecutors, Amazon pressed for charges of “honest services fraud” even though her husband had complied fully with his employment contract.Over the years the Nelsons fought back, spending over $4 million in legal fees, while corporate giants and government agencies closed ranks. Their story exposes a disturbing alliance between Big Tech and the federal government, raising serious questions about unchecked corporate influence, prosecutorial overreach, and the lack of accountability from top leaders. Amy now advocates for justice and systemic reform, determined to prevent other families from enduring similar abuses of power.You can learn more about Amy's story and you can follow her on X by searching for her handle: @Amy_K_Nelson.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Certain aspects of the Christian view of law found in Romans 7:14 were broached in two briefs filed with the United States Supreme Court! Today, David discusses those briefs along with what he appreciated and what he would have done differently. Along the way, he explains how Christology and Christian eschatology inform his analysis.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Certain aspects of the Christian view of law found in Romans 7:14 were broached in two briefs filed with the United States Supreme Court! Today, David discusses those briefs, describing what he appreciated and what he would have done differently. Along the way, he explains how Christology and Christian eschatology inform his analysis. "Law is [indeed] spiritual" as the Apostle Paul wrote.

Bryan Kohberger has filed at least 3 complaints in the less than a month he's been in prison. Let's read them.ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.

Aggressive coaches have been around for decades...but now players have filed suit. Hour 3 8/18/2025 full 2001 Mon, 18 Aug 2025 21:00:00 +0000 zmRSkLdCMTJyb6HsVUIZKvlDYvW5P2Nc news The Dana & Parks Podcast news Aggressive coaches have been around for decades...but now players have filed suit. Hour 3 8/18/2025 You wanted it... Now here it is! Listen to each hour of the Dana & Parks Show whenever and wherever you want! © 2025 Audacy, Inc. News False

In March 2023, JPMorgan Chase filed a lawsuit against Jes Staley—its former head of private banking—alleging that he concealed knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking in order to maintain Epstein as a lucrative client. The bank sought to claw back eight years' worth of compensation—potentially over $80 million—and held Staley financially accountable for any penalties stemming from lawsuits brought against JPMorgan by the U.S. Virgin Islands and an Epstein survivor known as Jane Doe 1. JPMorgan accused Staley of prioritizing his own and Epstein's interests over those of the firm, seeking punitive damages for his alleged failure to disclose key information.    A federal judge allowed the case to proceed, declining to dismiss it, which enabled JPMorgan to continue its legal push.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:JP Morgan sues former executive over claims he hid Jeffrey Epstein's sex abuse | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

She did everything right.  She kept the records. Filed the reports. Changed her routines. But none of it mattered. Because the man tormenting her stayed just outside the rules.  A case where psychological terror was real, constant, and intentional-  and yet, legally invisible. In episode 364, Jac and Lex unravel how stalking can become a form of slow-motion violence. How the system waits for blood before it acts. And how, sometimes, the most dangerous threats are the ones hiding in plain sight, waiting, watching, and never quite crossing the line.

The lawsuit filed by Jane Doe against billionaire Leon Black alleges that he raped her at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan townhouse when she was a vulnerable young woman in her early twenties. Filed in 2023 under New York's Adult Survivors Act, the civil suit claims Black used Epstein's residence—a known hub of abuse—as the setting for the assault, and that Epstein facilitated the encounter. Jane Doe alleges that she was trafficked and groomed within Epstein's network and that Black's actions were part of the larger pattern of abuse and exploitation that Epstein orchestrated for his powerful associates. The lawsuit accuses Black not only of rape, but also of intentional infliction of emotional distress and other civil claims tied to Epstein's broader trafficking enterprise.Black has denied the allegations and filed a countersuit against the accuser and her attorneys, claiming extortion and reputational harm. However, the civil complaint against him highlights a critical and recurring theme in the Epstein saga: the deep connections between Epstein and prominent men who allegedly used his network for their own gratification under the guise of friendship or philanthropy. The suit adds to the growing scrutiny of Black's long-standing ties to Epstein, including previous revelations that he paid Epstein over $150 million for undisclosed “financial advice” long after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Jane Doe's case underscores how Epstein's reach extended well beyond his own crimes, into the lives—and alleged actions—of the elite men he surrounded himself with.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.152.0.pdf

An organisation representing early childhood centre owners and managers has filed a complaint with the commerce commission about a sector advocacy group called the 'Office of Early Childhood Education'. Alexa Cook reports.

It will be 6-3 ending gay marriage Possible 5-4 But it going 4-5 in favor of Obergefell seems extremely unlikely Become A Member http://youtube.com/timcastnews/join The Green Room - https://rumble.com/playlists/aa56qw_g-j0 BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - https://castbrew.com/ Join The Discord Server - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL

The 2009 federal lawsuit Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, filed in the Southern District of Florida, accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking the plaintiff when she was a minor in Palm Beach County. Filed under a pseudonym to protect her identity, the complaint outlines a pattern of predatory conduct consistent with other allegations against Epstein during the same period. It asserts federal jurisdiction, establishes venue in Florida, and demands a jury trial. Early filings also sought a no-contact order and measures to preserve evidence, signaling the seriousness of the claims and the plaintiff's intent to prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering.The case emerged alongside a wave of similar “Jane Doe” suits that were being coordinated in federal court, reflecting the widening legal fallout for Epstein at the time. The complaint fits within the broader narrative of civil actions that sought to hold Epstein accountable after his controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to avoid federal prosecution. By placing this new plaintiff's claims into the public record, the suit added further pressure on Epstein's legal defenses and contributed to the mounting body of litigation alleging he operated a long-running sex trafficking network targeting underage girls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.334533.1.0.pdf

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloud

The 2009 federal lawsuit Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, filed in the Southern District of Florida, accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking the plaintiff when she was a minor in Palm Beach County. Filed under a pseudonym to protect her identity, the complaint outlines a pattern of predatory conduct consistent with other allegations against Epstein during the same period. It asserts federal jurisdiction, establishes venue in Florida, and demands a jury trial. Early filings also sought a no-contact order and measures to preserve evidence, signaling the seriousness of the claims and the plaintiff's intent to prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering.The case emerged alongside a wave of similar “Jane Doe” suits that were being coordinated in federal court, reflecting the widening legal fallout for Epstein at the time. The complaint fits within the broader narrative of civil actions that sought to hold Epstein accountable after his controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to avoid federal prosecution. By placing this new plaintiff's claims into the public record, the suit added further pressure on Epstein's legal defenses and contributed to the mounting body of litigation alleging he operated a long-running sex trafficking network targeting underage girls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.334533.1.0.pdf

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloud

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The 2009 federal lawsuit Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, filed in the Southern District of Florida, accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking the plaintiff when she was a minor in Palm Beach County. Filed under a pseudonym to protect her identity, the complaint outlines a pattern of predatory conduct consistent with other allegations against Epstein during the same period. It asserts federal jurisdiction, establishes venue in Florida, and demands a jury trial. Early filings also sought a no-contact order and measures to preserve evidence, signaling the seriousness of the claims and the plaintiff's intent to prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering.The case emerged alongside a wave of similar “Jane Doe” suits that were being coordinated in federal court, reflecting the widening legal fallout for Epstein at the time. The complaint fits within the broader narrative of civil actions that sought to hold Epstein accountable after his controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to avoid federal prosecution. By placing this new plaintiff's claims into the public record, the suit added further pressure on Epstein's legal defenses and contributed to the mounting body of litigation alleging he operated a long-running sex trafficking network targeting underage girls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.334533.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The 2009 federal lawsuit Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, filed in the Southern District of Florida, accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking the plaintiff when she was a minor in Palm Beach County. Filed under a pseudonym to protect her identity, the complaint outlines a pattern of predatory conduct consistent with other allegations against Epstein during the same period. It asserts federal jurisdiction, establishes venue in Florida, and demands a jury trial. Early filings also sought a no-contact order and measures to preserve evidence, signaling the seriousness of the claims and the plaintiff's intent to prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering.The case emerged alongside a wave of similar “Jane Doe” suits that were being coordinated in federal court, reflecting the widening legal fallout for Epstein at the time. The complaint fits within the broader narrative of civil actions that sought to hold Epstein accountable after his controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to avoid federal prosecution. By placing this new plaintiff's claims into the public record, the suit added further pressure on Epstein's legal defenses and contributed to the mounting body of litigation alleging he operated a long-running sex trafficking network targeting underage girls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.334533.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The 2009 federal lawsuit Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, filed in the Southern District of Florida, accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking the plaintiff when she was a minor in Palm Beach County. Filed under a pseudonym to protect her identity, the complaint outlines a pattern of predatory conduct consistent with other allegations against Epstein during the same period. It asserts federal jurisdiction, establishes venue in Florida, and demands a jury trial. Early filings also sought a no-contact order and measures to preserve evidence, signaling the seriousness of the claims and the plaintiff's intent to prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering.The case emerged alongside a wave of similar “Jane Doe” suits that were being coordinated in federal court, reflecting the widening legal fallout for Epstein at the time. The complaint fits within the broader narrative of civil actions that sought to hold Epstein accountable after his controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to avoid federal prosecution. By placing this new plaintiff's claims into the public record, the suit added further pressure on Epstein's legal defenses and contributed to the mounting body of litigation alleging he operated a long-running sex trafficking network targeting underage girls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.334533.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The 2009 federal lawsuit Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, filed in the Southern District of Florida, accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking the plaintiff when she was a minor in Palm Beach County. Filed under a pseudonym to protect her identity, the complaint outlines a pattern of predatory conduct consistent with other allegations against Epstein during the same period. It asserts federal jurisdiction, establishes venue in Florida, and demands a jury trial. Early filings also sought a no-contact order and measures to preserve evidence, signaling the seriousness of the claims and the plaintiff's intent to prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering.The case emerged alongside a wave of similar “Jane Doe” suits that were being coordinated in federal court, reflecting the widening legal fallout for Epstein at the time. The complaint fits within the broader narrative of civil actions that sought to hold Epstein accountable after his controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to avoid federal prosecution. By placing this new plaintiff's claims into the public record, the suit added further pressure on Epstein's legal defenses and contributed to the mounting body of litigation alleging he operated a long-running sex trafficking network targeting underage girls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.334533.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuit filed by Jane Doe against billionaire Leon Black alleges that he raped her at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan townhouse when she was a vulnerable young woman in her early twenties. Filed in 2023 under New York's Adult Survivors Act, the civil suit claims Black used Epstein's residence—a known hub of abuse—as the setting for the assault, and that Epstein facilitated the encounter. Jane Doe alleges that she was trafficked and groomed within Epstein's network and that Black's actions were part of the larger pattern of abuse and exploitation that Epstein orchestrated for his powerful associates. The lawsuit accuses Black not only of rape, but also of intentional infliction of emotional distress and other civil claims tied to Epstein's broader trafficking enterprise.Black has denied the allegations and filed a countersuit against the accuser and her attorneys, claiming extortion and reputational harm. However, the civil complaint against him highlights a critical and recurring theme in the Epstein saga: the deep connections between Epstein and prominent men who allegedly used his network for their own gratification under the guise of friendship or philanthropy. The suit adds to the growing scrutiny of Black's long-standing ties to Epstein, including previous revelations that he paid Epstein over $150 million for undisclosed “financial advice” long after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Jane Doe's case underscores how Epstein's reach extended well beyond his own crimes, into the lives—and alleged actions—of the elite men he surrounded himself with.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.152.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Gary Harper is the founder and CEO of Sharper Business Solutions and co-creator of the Rise Business Framework. After a successful career as a corporate executive, Gary transitioned to real estate and later business coaching, helping over 4,000 entrepreneurs grow and systematize their operations. His work blends deep business strategy with a purpose-driven mission to empower others while supporting meaningful causes.    

The lawsuit filed by Jane Doe against billionaire Leon Black alleges that he raped her at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan townhouse when she was a vulnerable young woman in her early twenties. Filed in 2023 under New York's Adult Survivors Act, the civil suit claims Black used Epstein's residence—a known hub of abuse—as the setting for the assault, and that Epstein facilitated the encounter. Jane Doe alleges that she was trafficked and groomed within Epstein's network and that Black's actions were part of the larger pattern of abuse and exploitation that Epstein orchestrated for his powerful associates. The lawsuit accuses Black not only of rape, but also of intentional infliction of emotional distress and other civil claims tied to Epstein's broader trafficking enterprise.Black has denied the allegations and filed a countersuit against the accuser and her attorneys, claiming extortion and reputational harm. However, the civil complaint against him highlights a critical and recurring theme in the Epstein saga: the deep connections between Epstein and prominent men who allegedly used his network for their own gratification under the guise of friendship or philanthropy. The suit adds to the growing scrutiny of Black's long-standing ties to Epstein, including previous revelations that he paid Epstein over $150 million for undisclosed “financial advice” long after Epstein's 2008 conviction. Jane Doe's case underscores how Epstein's reach extended well beyond his own crimes, into the lives—and alleged actions—of the elite men he surrounded himself with.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.152.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Daily updates from Rich Rod. Count injunction is on the way and Noel Devine's son is coming to Morgantown.

This Day in Legal History: Gulf of Tonkin ResolutionOn August 7, 1964, the U.S. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, dramatically reshaping the legal landscape of American military engagement. Prompted by reports—later disputed—of North Vietnamese attacks on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, the resolution granted President Lyndon B. Johnson broad authority to use military force in Southeast Asia without a formal declaration of war. It passed nearly unanimously, with only two dissenting votes in the Senate, reflecting the tense Cold War atmosphere and congressional trust in the executive branch.Legally, the resolution functioned as an open-ended authorization for the president to escalate military operations in Vietnam. Within months, it led to the deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Critics would later argue that it allowed the executive to bypass Congress's constitutional war-making powers, effectively green-lighting a years-long conflict based on contested facts.As the war dragged on and public opinion turned, the resolution became a focal point for debates over separation of powers, congressional oversight, and executive overreach. In 1971, amid growing backlash, Congress repealed the resolution, but its legacy endured. It served as a legal and historical precedent for future authorizations of force, including those passed after 9/11.A federal appeals court has upheld the SEC's long-standing “gag rule,” which prevents defendants who settle civil enforcement cases from publicly denying the agency's allegations. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the rule is not unconstitutional on its face but left room for future challenges depending on how it's applied. The policy, in place since 1972, requires settling parties to at least refrain from admitting or denying wrongdoing. The court emphasized that defendants remain free to reject settlements if they wish to speak out.Twelve petitioners, including former Xerox CFO Barry Romeril and the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), challenged the SEC's January 2024 decision not to revise the rule. Romeril had previously brought a similar challenge to the Supreme Court with support from Elon Musk, but the Court declined to hear it. Writing for the panel, Judge Daniel Bress noted that removing the gag could reduce the SEC's ability to settle cases efficiently and that speech restrictions are voluntary components of settlement agreements.The NCLA criticized the decision, arguing it effectively sanctions government-imposed silence and announced plans to pursue further appeals. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce also dissented from the agency's refusal to revisit the rule, arguing that it hinders public accountability by suppressing potential criticism. The SEC declined to comment on the ruling, which came in the case Powell et al v. SEC.US appeals court upholds SEC 'gag rule' over free speech objections | ReutersThe Stanford Daily, Stanford University's student newspaper, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of violating the free speech rights of foreign students. The suit, filed in federal court in California, alleges that threats of arrest, detention, or deportation have created a climate of fear among international students, discouraging them from writing about sensitive political issues—particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Two unnamed students joined the paper in the lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as defendants.According to the plaintiffs, the administration has labeled pro-Palestinian viewpoints as antisemitic or extremist and attempted to deport students expressing such views, framing them as threats to U.S. foreign policy. In some instances, students have been detained without charges, though judges have later ordered their release. The lawsuit contends that these actions have led to widespread self-censorship among international students, chilling constitutionally protected speech in areas such as protests, slogans, and commentary on U.S. and Israeli policy.The Stanford Daily is seeking a court ruling affirming that the First Amendment protects non-citizens from government retaliation based on their speech. The university clarified it is not involved in the suit, as the newspaper operates independently. Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, representing the paper, called the government's actions antithetical to American values of free expression.Stanford student newspaper sues Trump administration for alleged free speech violations | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit accusing major drugmakers Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca of conspiring to limit drug discounts provided under the federal 340B program. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's dismissal, allowing two health clinics—Mosaic Health and Central Virginia Health Services—to proceed with their proposed class action. These clinics claim the companies colluded in 2020 to restrict discounts on diabetes medications, harming safety-net providers and the low-income patients they serve.The court found that because the four companies control much of the diabetes drug market, coordination to limit discounts could be feasible. Judge Myrna Pérez, writing for the panel, noted the allegations were plausible enough to move forward. The drugmakers have denied wrongdoing and argue their policies were developed independently to address alleged fraud in the 340B program. Sanofi and Novo Nordisk said they are reviewing the decision, while Lilly criticized the ruling and defended its practices as legal.The clinics say the drugmakers earned billions in extra profits through these policies, which allegedly undercut essential savings for providers. The case underscores the broader tension between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers over the administration of the 340B program, which requires drugmakers to offer discounts in exchange for access to federal healthcare funds.US appeals court reinstates drug-price conspiracy lawsuit against Sanofi, rival pharma companies | ReutersPepsiCo is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it engaged in illegal price discrimination by giving more favorable pricing and discount terms to large retailers like Walmart while denying the same deals to smaller businesses. Filed in federal court in Manhattan by an Italian restaurant operator, the lawsuit claims this practice violates the Robinson-Patman Act, a rarely enforced 1936 antitrust law meant to prevent discriminatory pricing that harms competition.The suit accuses Pepsi of providing payments and allowances to Walmart that were not extended to other retailers, placing smaller businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Although Walmart is named in the allegations, it is not a defendant in the case. The plaintiff argues that Pepsi's pricing tactics unfairly burden other merchants who must pay more for the same products.This legal action echoes a previous Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit filed against Pepsi in January under the Biden administration. However, the second Trump administration dropped the case in May, with Trump-appointed FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson criticizing it as a politically motivated effort launched too late in the prior administration's term. The FTC has not commented on the new private lawsuit.The class action seeks unspecified damages on behalf of thousands of Pepsi purchasers nationwide. Neither Pepsi nor Walmart has publicly responded to the allegations.Pepsi accused of price discrimination in new merchant class action | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

NEWS: DPWH officials linked to collapsed Isabela bridge to keep jobs until charges are filed | Aug. 8, 2025Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein #TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Road rage leads to shooting at Harrisonville Walmart, no charges being filed?! Hour 4 08/06/2025 full 2088 Wed, 06 Aug 2025 22:50:37 +0000 ZvQPjGfsWt74PzuLyNMzw8tNceLUtCFM kansas city,kmbz,dana and parks,news & politics,news The Dana & Parks Podcast kansas city,kmbz,dana and parks,news & politics,news Road rage leads to shooting at Harrisonville Walmart, no charges being filed?! Hour 4 08/06/2025 You wanted it... Now here it is! Listen to each hour of the Dana & Parks Show whenever and wherever you want! © 2025 Audacy, Inc. News & Politics News False

990K Women Filed For Divorce In 2024? Why They Are Leaving Good Marriages | Not Worth The Risk by Greg Adams

Visit: RadioLawTalk.com for information & full episodes! Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/RLTFacebook Follow us on Twitter: bit.ly/RLTTwitter Follow us on Instagram: bit.ly/RLTInstagram Subscribe to our YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Owf1BEB-klmtD_92-uqzg Your Radio Law Talk hosts are exceptional attorneys and love what they do! They take breaks from their day jobs and make time for Radio Law Talk so that the rest of the country can enjoy the law like they do. Follow Radio Law Talk on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter & Instagram!

Document 1 is the original Complaint and Jury Demand filed by Jane Doe No. 6 against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida (case number 9:08-cv-80994-KAM). It alleges that Epstein engaged in systemic sexual abuse, molestation, and assault of a minor under federal and state law jurisdiction. The complaint includes detailed personal injury claims and asserts that Epstein knowingly trafficked and exploited the plaintiff for his own sexual gratification. Though initially sealed, the filing formally requests damages, declaratory relief, and preservation of claims under both Florida and federal statutes.Just days later, the case was consolidated with related lawsuits under Judge Marra's docket involving other Jane Does. Document 1 served as the procedural foundation for coordinated civil litigation nearly identical across numerous plaintiffs (case numbers 80119, 80232, 80380, etc.), all naming Epstein as the defendant. The lawsuit demanded a jury trial and laid out Epstein's alleged pattern of grooming and abuse across multiple properties, making it a key piece in the broader class of civil actions that predated the federal non‑prosecution agreement by months.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.321287.1.0_4.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

As with most entities or people involved with Jeffrey Epstein, Deutsche Bank is claiming that they are protected from lawsuits by the same old tired reason the rest of the enablers were protected: Technicalities. With the pressure now being turned up against several financial institutions by the surivvors, the banks are looking for anyway to deny their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The problem? All of the receipts are available and what they show us is damning.(commercial at 7:23)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Deutsche Bank tries to toss Jeffrey Epstein survivors case (lawandcrime.com)

⚡ How to Get a Fast Divorce in San Diego County | San Diego Divorce Need a fast divorce in San Diego County?

Mt. Iliamna is an active cone-shaped volcano located one hundred and forty miles (225 km) southwest of Anchorage and seventy miles (113 km) northwest of Homer. It is part of the Chigmit Mountains and rises from its base near Cook Inlet to 10,016 feet (3052.9 m), one of the highest peaks in the volcanically active area of the Alaska Peninsula. Ten glaciers radiate from the volcano's slopes. Iliamna last erupted in 1867, and observers have occasionally seen smoke wafting from the summit since then. However, it is the weather surrounding the mountain, not the volcanic activity, that makes Iliamna dangerous. Clouds frequently cloak the mountain's peak, and turbulent winds buffet this mountainous region, creating some of the most hazardous weather on the planet. Coastal fog and rain often create restricted visibility and a low ceiling. For aviators, flying in this area of the state can be challenging, dangerous, and sometimes deadly. Between 1958 and 1977, four mid-sized planes either crashed into Mt. Iliamna or were destroyed by the turbulence near the mountain, killing a total of seventy-nine people. Sources: Abbott, Jeanne. “No survivors found at site of plane crash.” September 9, 1977. Anchorage Daily News. “Clouds, rain hinder search.” February 14, 1977. Anchorage Daily News. “Ground party will investigate wreck of C-54 at Iliamna.” December 27, 1958. Anchorage Daily News. “Halt attempted to recover airmen on Mt. Iliamna.” December 29, 1958. Anchorage Daily News. Liefer, Gregory P. Aviation Mysteries of the North. “Cleared as Filed.” 2011. Anchorage, AK. Publication Consultants. Liefer, Gregory P. Broken Wings. “Turbulence Over Pedro Bay.” 2014. Anchorage, AK. Publication Consultants. Liefer, Gregory P. Broken Wings. “An Accumulation of Errors.” 2014. Anchorage, AK. Publication Consultants. “Mt. Iliamna crash hearing to open today.” November 9, 1977. Anchorage Daily News. “Mt. Iliamna – Where 15 Alaska airmen died.” December 27, 1958. Anchorage Daily News. “Pilots, AAI blamed for crash.” May 5, 1978. Anchorage Daily News. “Plane wreckage is identified as missing C-54.” December 26, 1958. Anchorage Daily News. Porterfield, Bob. “AAI crash probe opens.” November 10, 1977. Anchorage Daily News. Porterfield, Bob. “Federal findings show AAI plane's violation.” October 22, 1977. Anchorage Daily News. Porterfield, Bob. “Iliamna crash – why?” October 1, 1977. Anchorage Daily News. “Rescuers held off crash site.” September 8, 1977. Anchorage Daily News. Weller, Robert. “Controller at fault in air crash?” February 15, 1977. Anchorage Daily News. _______________________________________________ Join the Last Frontier Club's Free Tier ___________________________________________________________   The Crime is More Horrible Than You Can Imagine! _________________________________________________________________________ IF YOU ENJOY LISTENING TO YOUR NOVELS, CHECK OUT THE AUDIOBOOK VERSION OF MASSACRE AT BEAR CREEK LODGE ________________________________ Robin Barefield lives in the wilderness on Kodiak Island, where she and her husband own a remote lodge. She has a master's degree in fish and wildlife biology and is a wildlife-viewing and fishing guide. Robin has published six novels: Big Game, Murder Over Kodiak, The Fisherman's Daughter, Karluk Bones, Massacre at Bear Creek Lodge, and The Ultimate Hunt. She has also published two non-fiction books: Kodiak Island Wildlife and Murder and Mystery in the Last Frontier. She draws on her love and appreciation of the Alaska wilderness as well as her scientific background when writing. Robin invites you to join her at her website: https://robinbarefield.com, and while you are there, sign up for her free monthly newsletter about true crime in Alaska. Robin also narrates a podcast, Murder and Mystery in the Last Frontier. You can find it at: https://murder-in-the-last-frontier.blubrry.net Subscribe to Robin's free,

This is the noon All Local for Wednesday, July 30, 2025

Eric, Dave and Marty cover the new VisionOS developer beta 4, productivity and training use, and the best sailing experience you can get on land. What's New in VisionOS 26 Beta 4Build: 23M5300g – Released July 22, 2025 For Vision Pro Users: What You'll Notice in Beta 4• Smoother System Performance – General UI responsiveness is noticeably better—less jitter, quicker animation timing, and improved hand gesture accuracy.• Refined Visual Transitions – Window edges and movement feel more polished. Think glassy transitions with fewer graphical hiccups when opening or resizing apps.• Persistent Layouts – Apps, windows, or objects that you position in your environment now remember where you put them—even after a reboot.• More Natural Gaze Feedback – Interactive elements now subtly highlight when you look at them—menus glow or lift slightly when your gaze hovers, giving you a stronger sense of “touch” with your eyes.For Developers: What's New Under the HoodPersistence API – “Place it once, keep it always”What It Does:Lets developers anchor app content (like windows or widgets) to real-world surfaces that stay in place even after Vision Pro restarts.Compositor Updates – “Visuals That Adapt to You”• Hover Effects with Eye Tracking – As users gaze at buttons or menus, they now subtly highlight. • Dynamic Render Quality – Developers can adjust rendering sharpness or smoothness in real-time, based on user activity. Text and UI stay crisp when you need it. • Better Eye-Tracked Rendering (Foveation) – Vision Pro can now prioritize rendering quality at the center of your gaze, reducing quality around the edges. —————————————————————Apple has Filed for a series of Trademarks covering the Vision Pro Demo Fit App, macOS Tahoe, EnergyKit, 31 Mystery Designs and morehttps://www.patentlyapple.com/2025/07/apple-has-filed-for-a-series-of-trademarks-covering-the-vision-pro-demo-fit-app-macos-tahoe-energykit-31-mystery-designs-a.htmlWhy Apple's Vision Pro Could Redefine Game Mechanics on iOShttps://vocal.media/01/why-apple-s-vision-pro-could-redefine-game-mechanics-on-i-os The Best Apple Vision Pro Alternative You Can Actually Affordhttps://www.oliur.com/the-best-apple-vision-pro-alternative-you-can-actually-afford Blackmagic URSA Cine Immersive test footage for Apple Vision Prohttps://www.fxguide.com/quicktakes/first-look-blackmagic-ursa-cine-immersive-test-footage-for-apple-vision-pro/ How to shut down and restart Apple Vision Prohttps://www.igeeksblog.com/how-to-shut-down-restart-apple-vision-pro/ Digital Twin on Apple Vision Prohttps://www.reddit.com/r/augmentedreality/comments/1m7yl74/digital_twin_on_apple_vision_pro/How Apple Vision Pro Can Give Your Business an Unfair Advantagehttps://forasoft.medium.com/how-apple-vision-pro-can-give-your-business-an-unfair-advantage-f8d800018310 Top Streaming Apps Optimized for visionOS: Elevate Your Apple Vision Pro ExperienceTop Streaming Apps Optimized For VisionOS: Elevate Your Apple Vision Pro Experience - AppleMagazine Mushroom Garden an immersive edutainment experience for children on Apple Vision Pro!https://www.xrom.in/post/mushroom-garden-an-immersive-edutainment-experience-for-children-on-apple-vision-pro https://apps.apple.com/us/app/eduturf-mushroom-garden/id6747197371Digital Twin on Apple Vision Prohttps://www.reddit.com/r/augmentedreality/comments/1m7yl74/digital_twin_on_apple_vision_pro/ APPS SailGP RaceScape XRhttps://apps.apple.com/us/app/sailgp-racescape-xr/id6742781005 SailGP Launches First-Ever XR Experience in Sailing: RaceScape XR for Apple Vision Prohttps://www.sportsvideo.org/2025/07/28/sailgp-launches-first-ever-xr-experience-in-sailing-racescape-xr-for-apple-vision-pro/ MacStockMacstockconferenceandexpo.com  Digital Pass https://macstockconferenceandexpo.com/product/macstock-ix-digital-pass/Email: ThePodTalkNetwork@gmail.com Website: ThePodTalk.Net

⏳ Los Angeles Divorce Timeline: What to Expect | Los Angeles Divorce “How long will my divorce take?”

The lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Epstein's survivors against JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank laid bare the sickening reality that these financial institutions weren't just passive service providers—they were active enablers. The claims, backed by damning internal communications and banking records, painted a picture of banks that knowingly facilitated Epstein's trafficking operation by allowing suspicious transactions, cash withdrawals, and payments to recruiters to continue for years. Despite glaring red flags and Epstein's 2008 conviction, both banks chose profit over principle, keeping him on as a client because he was connected, wealthy, and useful. The survivors argued—and rightfully so—that without these banks propping him up financially, Epstein's abuse empire could not have thrived at the scale it did.The lawsuits didn't just seek compensation—they sought exposure, accountability, and the brutal truth: that these institutions turned a blind eye to a sex trafficking operation because it was too profitable to interrupt. JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank settled out of court for hundreds of millions, but no executive faced criminal charges, no institution admitted real wrongdoing, and no comprehensive reform was forced. Survivors were paid, but the culture that allowed this to happen remains largely intact. These settlements were hush money in disguise—a way to close the book without turning the page. The lawsuits may have rattled Wall Street's cage, but they didn't break it. The financial world shrugged, paid the toll, and moved on. The survivors, meanwhile, are left with scars that no payout will ever erase.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://nypost.com/2022/11/24/jeffrey-epstein-sex-abuse-accusers-sue-jpmorgan-deutsche-bank/

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

Maria Farmer, among the earliest public accusers of Jeffrey Epstein, filed a civil lawsuit in 2019 against his estate, alongside several other women, accusing Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell of kidnapping, rape, false imprisonment, and battery. The complaint details traumatic incidents in 1996—within Ohio and New Mexico properties owned by Epstein and his associates—where both Maria and her sister Annie were sexually assaulted. Her suit asserts the estate's responsibility for the "vast enterprise" that enabled their abuse and seeks damages, underscoring longstanding failures to hold Epstein and his network legally accountable.Beyond seeking damages, the lawsuit challenges the enduring silence and institutional protection that allowed Epstein's crimes to persist unchecked. Farmer argues that serial investigations by the FBI and other authorities were bungled or abandoned—even after initial victim reports in 1996 and again in 2006. By targeting the estate, the legal action aims not just for financial compensation but symbolic justice, demanding transparency and consequences long overdue. Her case holds the estate to account for more than just Epstein's actions; it challenges the entire infrastructure that covered up and perpetuated his abuses for decades.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DisplayFile.aspx (vicourts.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Epstein's survivors against JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank laid bare the sickening reality that these financial institutions weren't just passive service providers—they were active enablers. The claims, backed by damning internal communications and banking records, painted a picture of banks that knowingly facilitated Epstein's trafficking operation by allowing suspicious transactions, cash withdrawals, and payments to recruiters to continue for years. Despite glaring red flags and Epstein's 2008 conviction, both banks chose profit over principle, keeping him on as a client because he was connected, wealthy, and useful. The survivors argued—and rightfully so—that without these banks propping him up financially, Epstein's abuse empire could not have thrived at the scale it did.The lawsuits didn't just seek compensation—they sought exposure, accountability, and the brutal truth: that these institutions turned a blind eye to a sex trafficking operation because it was too profitable to interrupt. JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank settled out of court for hundreds of millions, but no executive faced criminal charges, no institution admitted real wrongdoing, and no comprehensive reform was forced. Survivors were paid, but the culture that allowed this to happen remains largely intact. These settlements were hush money in disguise—a way to close the book without turning the page. The lawsuits may have rattled Wall Street's cage, but they didn't break it. The financial world shrugged, paid the toll, and moved on. The survivors, meanwhile, are left with scars that no payout will ever erase.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://nypost.com/2022/11/24/jeffrey-epstein-sex-abuse-accusers-sue-jpmorgan-deutsche-bank/

Ninety percent of people's problems in their lives and business are that they don't manage expectations properly.    I've been married 4 times, divorced 3.    A long time ago, when I met Amy, we sat down and had a conversation.    I've been with her about 11 years and once we decided we were going to be getting serious, we sat down and had a conversation.    Pre-nup.    No matter what you think, everything begins and ends with agreements.     When we discussed our marriage, we outlined what the consequences would be if:    Either of us cheated Filed for Divorce Didn't stay in shape   The list goes on.    The crazy thing is at the time, I was making about 7 figures and she was making 6.    We still have separate bank accounts to this day, but we didn't want our marriage to be anything but successful.    Do we argue?    Yes.    Do we have disagreements?   Yes, just like every other couple.    Imagine if everyone decided to make agreements like this?    What would the world be like?    No matter what you think or believe, there is a always as way to manage expectations better.    Lean in and take notes.    This one is going to be a game-changer for how you make agreements moving forward in life.    About the ReWire Podcast   The ReWire Podcast with Ryan Stewman – Dive into powerful insights as Ryan Stewman, the HardCore Closer, breaks down mental barriers and shares actionable steps to rewire your thoughts. Each episode is a fast-paced journey designed to reshape your mindset, align your actions, and guide you toward becoming the best version of yourself. Join in for a daily dose of real talk that empowers you to embrace change and unlock your full potential.    Learn how you can become a member of a powerful community consistently rewiring itself for success at https://www.jointheapex.com/   Rise Above