Podcasts about filed

Reports indicate that Ghislaine Maxwell has filed more than 100 complaints while incarcerated at FCI Tallahassee, earning her the reputation of being a “prison Karen” among staff and fellow inmates. Her grievances cover a wide range of issues, from allegations of excessive body-cavity searches and invasive shower routines to dissatisfaction with food, bedding, and access to legal calls. While some portray her filings as frivolous or entitled, others note that her actions have highlighted broader, systemic problems within the facility.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/ghislaine-maxwell-filed-more-than-100-complaints-over-jail-conditions/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Theresa Helm has alleged that Epstein's estate has been uncooperative with survivors in terms of transparency, accountability, and compensation. She and other claimants have brought civil lawsuits against the estate, accusing it of rape, sexual battery, false imprisonment, and of perpetuating a system that allowed Epstein and his enablers to continue abusing and trafficker women and minors. Helm has called for the release of federal documents related to Epstein's cases, arguing that they are essential for understanding the full scope of what happened, who was involved, and how much oversight (or negligence) there was.She has also alleged that many survivors were recruited under false pretenses (e.g. “job interviews,” modeling, legitimate opportunities), and that the estate has not done enough to address the harms done or to compensate victims fairly. Some of the lawsuits in which she is involved (including Teresa Helm et al v. Epstein's estate) seek not only monetary damages but acknowledgment of wrongdoing, accountability for enablers, and public disclosure of records. Helm emphasizes that this is about more than money—it's about exposing structural wrongdoing and ensuring survivors' voices are heard.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.

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to BrownOn September 12, 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Cooper v. Aaron, firmly rejecting a challenge by the State of Arkansas to the enforcement of Brown v. Board of Education. In the wake of Brown, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, Arkansas officials sought to delay desegregation efforts in Little Rock, citing violent resistance and the need to preserve public order. The state's governor and legislature argued they were not bound by the Court's ruling.The Supreme Court rejected that claim unequivocally. In a rare decision signed by all nine justices, the Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the binding nature of its interpretations. It stated that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," and that the Court's rulings are final and must be followed by all states, regardless of political disagreement or local unrest.The ruling was a direct rebuke to Governor Orval Faubus, who had used the Arkansas National Guard to block the entry of nine Black students into Little Rock Central High School in 1957. President Eisenhower had responded by sending federal troops to enforce the desegregation order. Cooper v. Aaron underscored the federal judiciary's power to enforce constitutional rights, even in the face of open defiance by state authorities.The Court's opinion in Cooper was a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement, signaling that federal law could not be nullified by state action. It also clarified that resistance to judicial decisions, especially on constitutional matters, was itself unconstitutional. By reasserting its own authority and that of the federal government, the Court helped ensure that desegregation would proceed, however slowly, across the South.Senate Republicans pushed through a rule change aimed at speeding up the confirmation of President Donald Trump's executive-branch nominees. In a 53-45 vote, the GOP majority limited the ability of Senate Democrats to slow the process, allowing groups of nominees to be confirmed together rather than individually. The change does not apply to Cabinet heads or federal judges.Senate Majority Leader John Thune defended the move, saying the chamber was being bogged down by procedural delays. In contrast, Democratic Senator Adam Schiff warned the rule change weakens institutional checks on presidential power, calling it a further erosion of Senate independence. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized it as enabling a “conveyor belt of unqualified nominees.”This is the third significant alteration in 12 years to Senate rules that weaken the minority party's influence, a trend that began with Democrats in 2013 and continued under Republicans in 2017. Critics argue the Senate is drifting away from its traditional role as a stabilizing body in the legislative process. The first group of Trump nominees could see expedited confirmation as early as next week. Stephen Miran's Federal Reserve nomination will proceed under the prior rules.US Senate loosens rule to speed confirmation of some Trump nominees | ReutersA federal judge in Seattle issued a nationwide injunction blocking the Trump administration from enforcing a policy that would have barred undocumented children from enrolling in Head Start, a federal preschool program for low-income families. Judge Ricardo Martinez ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lacked the authority to impose immigration-based restrictions on access to Head Start, criticizing the agency for failing to follow proper rulemaking procedures.The decision followed a similar ruling one day earlier from a federal judge in Rhode Island, which halted the policy in 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. The Seattle lawsuit was brought by Head Start associations from Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin, along with two parent advocacy groups. They challenged a July directive that expanded the interpretation of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) to include Head Start among programs limited to legal residents.Since 1998, HHS had interpreted the law as not applying to non-postsecondary education programs like Head Start. Judge Martinez stated that Congress had effectively endorsed that interpretation by not altering the law and had even broadened access to Head Start over time. Despite recent limits by the U.S. Supreme Court on nationwide injunctions, Martinez justified his decision as necessary to provide uniform relief.Trump policy barring migrants from Head Start blocked nationwide | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Uber Technologies, accusing the company of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against riders with disabilities. Filed in federal court in San Francisco, the complaint alleges that Uber drivers have routinely denied rides to passengers who use service animals or wheelchairs, and sometimes insulted or mistreated them.The DOJ claims that Uber also imposed illegal fees on disabled riders, including cleaning charges for service animals and cancellation fees for rides that drivers refused to complete. The lawsuit details incidents involving 17 individuals, such as a 7-year-old amputee denied a ride due to his wheelchair, a veteran with a service dog who missed a flight after being refused service, and a blind man in New Jersey whose ride requests were repeatedly canceled.The government is seeking an injunction to stop further violations, mandatory improvements to Uber's policies and training, monetary damages for those affected, and a civil penalty. In response, Uber denied the allegations, stating it has a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination and is committed to accessibility and inclusion for riders with disabilities.US sues Uber, alleges discrimination against disabled riders | ReutersWe'll see you back here on Monday and, until then, note. We like to close out the week of shows with a featured musical piece. That will make these Friday episodes seem especially long. We hope you'll stick it out and enjoy the featured piece but, if music – specifically classical music – isn't your bag, we get it. Our mouth sounds unrelated to the week's closing music ends here.This week's closing theme is by Clara Schumann.This week's closing music features a brilliant piece by Clara Schumann, a composer, pianist, and musical force whose work was often overshadowed by the men around her—most notably her husband Robert Schumann and close friend Johannes Brahms. Yet Clara was a prodigy in her own right, performing across Europe and composing with a clarity and emotional depth that demanded attention in a male-dominated 19th-century musical world.Her Scherzo No. 2 in C Minor, Op. 14, written in 1845, is a striking example of her compositional voice—bold, technically challenging, and emotionally complex. The piece opens with stormy, rapid-fire passages that give way to more lyrical interludes, showcasing Clara's mastery of contrast and dramatic pacing. It's music that demands virtuosity but also rewards listeners with its structural elegance and passionate energy.As you listen, consider how Clara's work stood alongside—and at times surpassed—that of her more famous peers. Her Scherzo No. 2 is not just a curiosity from a historical figure, but a work of enduring artistic merit that more than earns its place in the canon.Without further ado, Clara Schumann's Scherzo No. 2 in C Minor, Op. 14, enjoy! 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

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell faced a torrent of lawsuits in the years after Epstein's arrest and death, as survivors came forward in growing numbers to pursue civil claims. These lawsuits, filed across multiple jurisdictions, alleged sexual abuse, trafficking, and complicity in enabling a sprawling network of exploitation. Many cases targeted not only Epstein's estate but also Maxwell personally, as plaintiffs accused her of actively recruiting, grooming, and participating in the abuse. The volume of litigation reflected the sheer scale of their alleged crimes, with courts becoming a battleground for survivors seeking accountability and financial redress.The flood of civil suits forced Epstein's estate into a claims program that paid out hundreds of millions to victims, while Maxwell's legal exposure intensified as she was named in case after case. The lawsuits painted a consistent picture of a systemic operation designed to exploit young women and shield powerful figures. For Maxwell, these suits ran parallel to her criminal trial, ensuring that even if she escaped conviction, she would remain entangled in costly legal battles. The large number of cases underscored how deeply embedded the abuse was, and how many lives were shattered, amplifying the pressure on the courts, prosecutors, and the public to confront the enormity of what had been hidden for so long.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.insider.com/ghislaine-maxwell-new-trial-more-accusers-stepping-forward-lawyer-says-2022-1https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/8317367/prince-andrew-hide-and-seek-teddy-bears/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Join us in Clean Biz Network! https://www.cleanbiznetwork.app/AJ Simmons consultation call with ColleahJoin this channel to get access to perks:   / @ajsimmonsonline  Schedule a 1 on 1 Consultation: https://calendly.com/ajsimmonsLet my lead generation company to set bid appointments for you! Click here https://www.cleanbizleads.comFollow: @AjSimmonsOnline on Instagram   / ajsimmonsonline  Need Business Insurance? Click this link https://nextinsurance.sjv.io/Ea23K9Need Business Credit? Apply at this linkhttps://americanexpress.com/en-us/ref...Thank you for watching, subscribing, liking, sharing, and commenting!!!!

Arizona has re-arrested a convicted kidnapper who was mistakenly released from prison earlier this summer. The erroneous release was part of a scheme cooked up by the inmate and his daughter. Plus, thousands of voters caught up in a state record-keeping error could lose voting rights.

Hey my wonderful sweet babies, Follow Me:Instagram- fabvictoria94Twitter- VictoriaB_94Snapchat- fabvictoria94TikTok: FabVictoria94Facebook: Victoria BishopFacebook Page- Fabulous Victoria BroadcastsPatreon: Fabulous Victoria PodcastPodcast Name- Fabulous Victoria PodcastYouTube Main Channel: Fabulous VictoriaCashApp: $fabvictoria (optional)Music from Simply Kee Simone, Dessie Style, and Kaysie Amya on YouTube.Email me for business inquiries only:bishopvictoria94@gmail.comTHIS VIDEO IS NOT SPONSORED.

Description: Dive into the chilling true crime saga of Michelle Lyn Michaud and James Anthony Daveggio, the infamous killer couple who terrorized California and Nevada in the 1990s. From abductions in a modified "torture van" to brutal rapes, tortures, and the murder of Vanessa Samson, this episode uncovers their meth-fueled rampage, twisted fantasies inspired by other killers, and the shocking assaults on victims including their own family members. Explore Jim's violent youth, Michelle's dark past, and their deadly partnership that led to death row. Perfect for fans of serial killers, couple murderers, true crime podcasts, kidnapping cases, and forensic psychology. #TrueCrime #SerialKillers #DeathRow #MichaudDaveggio #MurderMysterySources:Parker, RJ. ABDUCTION: The Minivan Murders: Killer Couple Michelle Michaud and James Daveggio. Kindle Edition. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,S110294 v. JAMES ANTHONY DAVEGGIO and MICHELLE LYN MICHAUD, Alameda CountyDefendants and Appellants. Super. Ct. No. 134147. Filed 4/26/18.https://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/psyc%20405/serial%20killers/Daveggio,%20James%20_fall,%202007_.pdfUnited States of America, Plaintiff-appellee v. Michelle Lyn Michaud, Defendant-appellant, 268 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2001). In the Supreme Court of the United States MICHELLE LYN MICHAUD, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 18-5079. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-5079/55822/20180727182319666_Opposition.pdfCourt Upholds Death Sentences In Pleasanton Woman's Murder. For CBS News. April 26, 2018.

Commercial diesel truck emissions testing bill filed for special session -- AI and "digital dopamine" 

The first of two Pay Equity claims under the government's new stricter regime have been filed on Tuesday by the Nurses Organisation. Plunket nurse and Nurses Organisation delegate Hannah Cook spoke to Ingrid Hipkiss.

Listen to news from and about the Church in Asia in a capsule of around 10 minutes.Chinese authorities are training children and youth to vilify religious groups deemed illegal in the communist-ruled nation. Listen to the story and more in a wrap-up of the weekly news from Asia.Filed by UCA News reporters, compiled by Fabian Antony, text edited by Anosh Malekar, presented by Joe Mathews, background score by Andre Louis and produced by Binu Alex for ucanews.com For news in and about the Church in Asia, visit www.ucanews.comTo contribute please visit www.ucanews.com/donateOn Twitter Follow Or Connect through DM at : twitter.com/ucanewsTo view Video features please visit https://www.youtube.com/@ucanews

Lawsuits Filed vs. Missouri, Trump vs. Rosie and American Eagle Soars | 9-4-25See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Truth in Politics and Culture lawsuits are filed after two people who turned to AI for help with their suicidal thoughts commit suicide. Can adequate protections be incorporated into AI to prevent tragedies like this from happening? What does it say about our society when people are isolated to the point of depending on AI as a counselor and friend? And, what will motivate the Supreme Court as they take up the constitutionality of tariffs?

This Day in Legal History: Little Rock NineOn September 4, 1957, a constitutional crisis unfolded in Little Rock, Arkansas, when Governor Orval Faubus ordered the Arkansas National Guard to block nine Black students—known as the “Little Rock Nine”—from entering Central High School. This came after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Faubus claimed the move was to prevent violence, but it was widely seen as defiance of federal desegregation orders.The legal showdown intensified the struggle between federal authority and states' rights. On September 4, the students arrived at Central High and were turned away by National Guard troops, prompting national outrage and escalating tensions over civil rights. In response, the NAACP filed a lawsuit in federal court, and on September 20, a federal judge ordered Faubus to remove the troops.The confrontation culminated later that month when President Dwight D. Eisenhower, invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, sent in federal troops from the 101st Airborne Division to enforce integration and protect the students. This marked one of the first times since Reconstruction that the federal government used military force to uphold civil rights rulings.This day is remembered as a pivotal moment in civil rights legal history, illustrating the federal judiciary's growing role in dismantling racial segregation and enforcing constitutional rights in the face of state resistance.President Trump's administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to urgently review a case challenging his use of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs. The request comes after a federal appeals court ruled on August 29 that Trump overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law historically used to sanction enemies or freeze assets, not to impose tariffs. Trump had used IEEPA earlier this year to justify tariffs targeting trade deficits and drug trafficking from countries like China, Canada, and Mexico.In the appeal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer emphasized the stakes, arguing that blocking the tariffs could endanger national security and economic stability. The administration asked the Court to decide by September 10 whether it will hear the case, hoping for arguments to be scheduled in November.Small businesses and a coalition of 12 Democrat-led states sued to block the tariffs, arguing that only Congress can impose them. The appeals court agreed, stating that IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs and warning against giving the president unchecked economic powers. The ruling also cited the “major questions” doctrine, which limits executive authority unless clearly granted by Congress in matters of broad economic or political importance.The Trump administration argues that these tariffs are key tools for diplomacy and economic leverage. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the Supreme Court to act quickly, saying the ruling undermines the president's ability to defend national interests. Other court decisions have similarly rejected Trump's tariff strategy, and at least eight related lawsuits are ongoing.Trump takes tariffs fight to US Supreme Court | ReutersA federal judge ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully terminated $2.2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard University, marking a significant legal win for the school. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs found the administration's actions violated Harvard's First Amendment rights, characterizing the move as ideologically motivated retaliation. The administration had claimed the funding cuts were due to Harvard's failure to adequately address antisemitism on campus, particularly following pro-Palestinian protests after the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.Judge Burroughs acknowledged that Harvard had tolerated hateful behavior for too long but said the administration used antisemitism as a “smokescreen” for political pressure. She barred the government from cutting current or future funding and emphasized that academic research must be protected from arbitrary government action. Harvard had argued the funding cuts came after it resisted demands to restructure governance and academic programs to fit the administration's ideological expectations.The Trump administration has targeted several Ivy League schools over similar issues, including Columbia University, which agreed in July to pay $220 million to restore lost research funding. Trump previously said he would not settle with Harvard for less than $500 million. The administration has also tried to bar international students from Harvard and challenged its accreditation.While Harvard President Alan Garber praised the ruling for affirming academic freedom, he did not comment on ongoing settlement talks. The university's faculty chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which co-litigated the case, opposes any deal with the administration, arguing it would compromise the rights of the academic community.Trump administration unlawfully cut Harvard's funding, US judge rules | ReutersHarvard $2 Billion Funding Freeze Found Illegal by US Judge (3)Newsmax has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against Fox Corporation and Fox News Network, accusing them of using their dominance in right-leaning cable news to suppress competition and block Newsmax's growth. Filed in West Palm Beach, Florida, the lawsuit alleges that Fox pressured TV distributors to exclude or limit Newsmax, stalling the smaller network's expansion in the pay-TV market for nearly a decade.Newsmax claims Fox's actions deprived conservative viewers of diverse news options and calls for monetary damages and a court order to stop the alleged anti-competitive practices. CEO Christopher Ruddy stated the lawsuit aims to restore market fairness and consumer choice. Fox, in response, dismissed the suit as an attempt to mask Newsmax's market struggles, calling it headline-chasing.Founded in 1998, Newsmax entered the pay-TV space in 2014 and went public earlier in 2025. The company asserts its programming offers a non-establishment alternative to Fox and claims it now reaches over 40 million Americans. It also noted a ratings boost surrounding the 2020 election.This legal action follows Newsmax's recent $67 million defamation settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over false claims about the 2020 election, and a previous confidential settlement with Smartmatic. Fox also settled with Dominion in 2023 for $787.5 million. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee.Newsmax sues Fox, claiming TV distribution deals strangled business | ReutersNewsmax Sues Fox News Claiming Conservative TV News Monopoly (2) 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

Dr. Michael New of the Charlotte Lozier Institute Michael New's Articles at National Review The Charlotte Lozier Institute The post Complaints Filed against a Late-Term Abortionist – Dr. Michael New, 9/2/25 (2453) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

Dalton Gibbs was riding his bicycle when he was struck and killed by an 80-year-old driver. The family has made it clear that they intend to forgive the driver only two months after their son's death, but the state Is still pursuing charges. Greg and Holly talk about the family's perspective and what the state may do.

Linktree: ⁠https://linktr.ee/Analytic⁠Join The Normandy For Additional Bonus Audio And Visual Content For All Things Nme+! Join Here: ⁠https://ow.ly/msoH50WCu0K⁠Join Analytic Dreamz on Notorious Mass Effect for a critical segment on Roblox's 2025 sexploitation lawsuits. Filed in Missouri (Aug 27) and Louisiana (Aug 15), cases allege Roblox's platform, with 42% of users under 12, enables predators to exploit children via lax safety measures. A Clay County case details a 13-year-old boy's grooming, while St. Louis and Louisiana suits claim negligence and CSA material distribution. Analytic Dreamz examines Roblox's defense, public backlash, and calls for reform.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/analytic-dreamz-notorious-mass-effect/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Linktree: ⁠https://linktr.ee/Analytic⁠Join The Normandy For Additional Bonus Audio And Visual Content For All Things Nme+! Join Here: ⁠https://ow.ly/msoH50WCu0K⁠Join Analytic Dreamz on Notorious Mass Effect for a critical segment on Roblox's 2025 sexploitation lawsuits. Filed in Missouri (Aug 27) and Louisiana (Aug 15), cases allege Roblox's platform, with 42% of users under 12, enables predators to exploit children via lax safety measures. A Clay County case details a 13-year-old boy's grooming, while St. Louis and Louisiana suits claim negligence and CSA material distribution. Analytic Dreamz examines Roblox's defense, public backlash, and calls for reform.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/analytic-dreamz-notorious-mass-effect/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

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

(The Center Square) – Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell is the focus of a Washington State Bar Association complaint alleging misconduct for responding on Attorney General Nick Brown's behalf in a separate bar complaint, and directly communicating with private law firm Perkins Coie without its attorney's consent. The complaint comes right after news broke that Brown faces an inquiry by the bar association over an amicus brief filed in support of Perkins Coie, The Center Square reported this month. Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxx Read more: https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_18d2bfb4-df4c-4673-ba96-fb702a5ba87c.html

The start of a new school year is just ahead in Northeast Wisconsin, but it comes following Wednesday's deadly shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.

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.

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, 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

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 - 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

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 - 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 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.

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.

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