Podcasts about inspectors

Join us as the inspector arrives to inspect this JEEP Grand Cherokee HEMI SRT8 and begins the vehicle assessment with a thorough paperwork check before moving on to the physical inspection. In this video, you'll see the complete pre-purchase inspection process, starting from arrival at the seller's location through document verification and the initial condition assessment.

To watch a video version of this podcast, click here: https://youtu.be/FFgBErKxCHs In this episode, Reuben Saltzman and Tessa Murry tackle a question that's becoming increasingly common in the home inspection industry: Should home inspectors report cosmetic defects in new construction homes? From nail pops and scuff marks to drywall imperfections, they explore the growing expectations of homebuyers, the role of inspection standards, and whether inspectors should adapt their services to meet changing consumer demands. They also discuss builder performance guidelines, the balance between cosmetic concerns and material defects, and why this conversation could shape the future of new construction inspections TakeawaysHomebuyers are placing greater emphasis on cosmetic imperfections in new construction homes.Home inspectors must balance identifying material defects while managing client expectations.Cosmetic issues such as nail pops, scuffs, and minor drywall imperfections are becoming a frequent source of concern.Some inspection companies heavily document cosmetic defects, while others focus primarily on safety, performance, and structural issues.Inspectors should clearly communicate the scope and limitations of a home inspection before beginning.Industry standards of practice generally prioritize material defects over cosmetic concerns.The National Association of Home Builders' Residential Construction Performance Guidelines provide useful benchmarks for evaluating workmanship.Performance guidelines distinguish between acceptable cosmetic imperfections and warrantable defects.Many cosmetic defects are only considered excessive when visible under normal lighting from approximately six feet away.Builders may have their own warranty standards, making expectations vary from one company to another.Cosmetic walkthroughs could become an additional service offering, though they require significantly more inspection time.Thorough inspections should continue to prioritize issues affecting safety, functionality, durability, and performance.Client expectations continue to evolve, and inspection companies may need to adapt their services accordingly.Listening to feedback and analyzing recurring client concerns can help improve inspection processes.Ongoing conversations with builders and inspectors are essential for developing practical industry standards around cosmetic reporting.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Personal Updates04:19 Why Cosmetic Defects Are Becoming a Bigger Issue06:22 Comparing Home Inspection Reports on New Construction10:10 What Do Homebuyers Really Expect?12:09 Existing Standards and Builder Performance Guidelines17:10 Minnesota Statutes and Builder Responsibilities20:33 Understanding Cosmetic Performance Standards25:00 Builder Guidelines vs. Home Inspection Standards27:18 Should Inspectors Document Cosmetic Defects?31:27 Where Should Inspectors Draw the Line?35:30 Meeting Client Expectations Without Expanding Scope37:34 Looking Ahead: Continuing the Conversation

Clement Manyathela speaks to Orrin Singh, an Investigative Journalist with AmaBhungane about their revelation that shows how police minister Senzo Mchunu drew suspended Inspector General of Intelligence, Imtiaz Fazel into Crime Intelligence wars. The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station, weekdays from 09:00 to 12:00 (SA Time). Clement Manyathela starts his show each weekday on 702 at 9 am taking your calls and voice notes on his Open Line. In the second hour of his show, he unpacks, explains, and makes sense of the news of the day. Clement has several features in his third hour from 11 am that provide you with information to help and guide you through your daily life. As your morning friend, he tackles the serious as well as the light-hearted, on your behalf. Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Clement Manyathela Show. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to The Clement Manyathela Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/XijPLtJ or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/p0gWuPE Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's poddy, we love to see it! Follow The Big Show on Instagram Subscribe to the podcast now on iHeartRadio, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts!Featuring Jason Hoyte, Mike Minogue, and Keyzie, "The Big Show" drive you home weekdays from 4pm on Radio Hauraki.Providing a hilarious escape from reality for those ‘backbone’ New Zealanders with plenty of laughs and out-the-gate yarns.Download the full podcast here:iHeartRadio Apple Spotify Follow The Big Show on InstagramSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 The Guardians of the Highway: Inside the MTO Inspector Skills Competition What does it take to ensure safety on Ontario's roads? In this episode of the Lead Pedal Podcast, we go behind the scenes to explore the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) Inspector Skills Competition. We discuss what these competitions entail, from rigorous vehicle inspection standards to legislative compliance, and why these events are critical for maintaining the high level of professionalism required to keep our highways safe. Join us for a deep dive into the technical challenges, the dedication of the officers involved, and the essential role they play in the trucking ecosystem. The Ministry of Transportation in Ontario is currently recruiting inspection officers.  At Bison – They Put Safety First! Bison's "Right to Decide" Policy gives every Driver their ultimate protection. Drivers make the final decision if it is safe to drive and Bison actively encourages Driver's use of this policy.    You can learn more about Bison and the opportunities available at www.bisondriving.com   or call 1-800-527-5781 @BisonTransport #bisontransport     Start Your Career on Solid Ground With Ontario Truck Driving School This episode is also sponsored by Ontario Truck Driving School which has a number of courses to help you be successful when starting a career in transportation from heavy equipment to over the road trucking. You can learn more about starting your career at www.otds.com   Improve the Compliance of Your Fleet With Compliance Mentorz Compliance Mentorz, a leading commercial safety consulting company, is proud to serve clients nationwide across Canada. But our commitment to safety and compliance doesn't stop at borders – we're excited to extend our support to clients throughout North America. Call 905-486-1666x215 or Learn more at www.compliancementorz.com                         About the Podcast The Lead Pedal Podcast for Truck Drivers helps truck drivers improve their truck driving careers, trucking businesses as owner operators, CDL skills, find trucking jobs, and offer trucking career tips. Learn about the trucking benefits and salaries as a professional truck driver through interviews and tips related to the North American Trucking Industry. The Lead Pedal Podcast is a Canadian based trucking podcast focused on trucking in Ontario, Canada. LISTEN TO THE PODCAST- The show is available at www.theleadpedalpodcast.com , Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartradio, and other popular podcast platforms. Thanks for listening! The Lead Pedal Podcast for Truck Drivers talks all things trucking for people in the transportation industry helping them improve their business and careers. Interviews with industry professionals and truck drivers, trucking equipment information, event coverage, and other features on the industry are meant to be helpful for truck drivers and those in transportation. The Lead Pedal Podcast for Truck Drivers has main episodes released every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with bonus material on other days. You can learn more about the host and show on our website and make sure to SUBSCRIBE to the show on your favourite podcast platform. www.theleadpedalpodcast.com  What does The Lead Pedal Podcast mean? The Lead (pronounced - Led) stands for acceleration or fast-track of your career or business. It is a play on words and we certainly are not here promoting speeding in the industry. We are hoping this information will help you become a professional driver faster than if you didn't know about many of these topics. Are you enjoying the show? If so we would appreciate you leaving us a rating and review on your favourite podcast platform. www.theleadpedalpodcast.com  Join The Lead Pedal Fan Club where are loyal fans get first chance at specials, discounts on merchandise and much more.The club is free to join and you can learn more at www.theleadpedalfanclub.com  LISTEN TO LEAD PEDAL RADIO with music and entertainment with a trucking theme at www.LeadPedalRadio.com       

Sherlock Holmes and the Sport of Kings by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle单词提示1.lame 跛脚的原文Chapter 4: Looking for a horseHolmes and I walked slowly across the moor.In the evening sunlight, the autumn colors on the hills were beautiful reds and browns and yellows, but Holmes saw nothing of that."So,Watson," he said, "Let's forget John Straker for a minute, and think about the horse. Horses are friendly animals. Let's say that Silver Blaze runs away after the killing. Here he is out on the cold, wet moor. What does he do next?""He looks for a nice warm stable," I said, "With food and water.""Right,Watson. He didn't go back to King's Pyland, we know that, but there is another stable not far away at Capleton, perhaps he went there. And the way to cable to Capleton. Watson, is down, this hill, let's go."We walked quickly down the hill.And at the bottom, we found a small river and some very wet ground."Wonderful,"said Holmes, "I wanted mud and here it is. You follow the left side of the river, Watson. We're looking for the tracks of horseshoes."We found them after only 50 meters.Holmes took the horseshoe out of his pocket and put it next to the tracks."Yes, that silver blaze, no question about it."We followed the tracks easily, then lost them for a time, but found them again about 200 meters from the Capleton stables."Here they are," I cried, "And look, there's another track here of a man's shoe."Holmes got down to look."You're right, Watson, and the man is walking next to the horse."We followed the two tracks to Capleton stables, and were still 20 meters away when a man came out and called to us.He had a red, angry face go away, "We don't want visitors here. Go away.""Mr.Silas Brown?" Holmes said to him."What do you want?" said the man, "I don't talk to newspaper people, so just go away.""We are not from a newspaper," said Holmes, smiling, "But you have a horse called Silver Blaze in your stable.""That'snot true." Mr. Brown said angrily."Shall we go in and talk about it?" said Holmes.He did not wait for an answer, but took the man's arm and moved quickly to the gate.He looked back at me and said quietly, "Wait for me here, Watson."Twenty minutes later, they came out again.Holmes looked pleased, and Mr. Silas Brown was a different man.He looked smaller and older, and his face was afraid."Remember," said Holmes, "You must be there on the day, on time, and everything must be ready.""Yes,yes," Silas Brown said quickly, "You can be sure of it. Oh, yes, you can be sure of it." "Good,"said Holmes, "Well, goodbye for now."Holmes and I then began to walk back to King's Pyland along the road."Does he have the horse then?" I asked.Holmes laughed."Yes,"he said, "No at first, of course, but he's afraid of the police. He doesn't want them to know about this, and I can help him with that.""But why didn't the police find the horse?" I asked, "Inspector Gregory said they went to Capleton.""Oh, it's easy to change the color of a horse's coat."Holmes laughed again, "Gregory is a good policeman, but I don't think he knows much about horses.""And why did Brown tell you?" I said."When I walked through the stables with him," said Holmes, "The ground was muddy and I saw the tracks of his shoes in the mud. You remember those tracks on the moor? Well, these were the same shoes. After that, it was easy, and he told me everything. He found Silver Blaze on the moor early in the morning, and brought him into the stables. The horse is very well, just a different color at the moment. Brown put a very big bet on Desborough to win the Wessex Cup, you see, and with Silver Blaze out of the race.""But why did you leave the horse there? Is it safe with him?"I did not understand Holmes's plan."My dear Watson," Holmes said, "The horse is very safe. Silas Brown is afraid of me, afraid of the police, afraid of losing everything. Silver Blaze must be ready to race next week, or Brown's life as a racehorse trainer is finished, and Brown knows that.""Mr.Ross isn't going to like it," I said."Mr.Ross," said Holmes, "Doesn't understand detective work, he wants answers today, now, at once. So, he must learn a lesson, he must learn to wait.Say nothing about Silver Blaze for the moment, Watson."Back at King's Pyland, we found Mr. Ross and Inspector Gregory in the trainer's house."An interesting visit," said Holmes, "But my friend and I must go back to London by the midnight train."The Inspector and Mr. Ross stared at him, and I saw that Holmes was right about Mr. Ross."So our famous London detective can't find poor Straker's killer," Mr. Ross said. "Or my horse.""It's a difficult case, that's true," said Holmes quietly, "But your horse is going to run in the Wessex Cup next Tuesday. You have my promise on that.""A promise is a wonderful thing," said Mr. Ross, "but I would like the horse better than a promise."Holmes smiled, then turned to Inspector Gregory."Inspector,can you give me a photograph of Straker?""Yes,of course." said the Inspector.He took one from an envelope in his pocket and gave it to Holmes.It was now time to go back to Tavistock, and we went outside.One of the stable boys was there, and Holmes suddenly spoke to him."I see you have some sheep here, next to the stables," he said, "Are they all well?""They're all right, sir," said the boy, "But two or three of them are a little lame. They went lame last week."Holmes was very pleased about this.He got into the carriage and said to the Inspector, "Remember the lame sheep,Gregory, remember the lame sheep!"Mr.Ross was not interested in the sheep, but the Inspector stared at Holmes."You think the sheep are important?""Oh,yes," said Holmes, "Very important."The inspector still stared at him, very interested now."And what other things are important, Mr. Holmes?""The strange incident of the dog in the night-time.""The dog did nothing in the night time.""That was the strange incident."翻译第四章：寻找赛马福尔摩斯和我慢慢穿过高沼地。夕阳下，山上的秋色非常美--红色、棕色、黄色交相辉映。但福尔摩斯对此视而不见。"那么，华生，"他说，"让我们暂时忘记斯特雷克，想想那匹马吧。马是温顺的动物。我们假设'银光'在斯特雷克被杀之后跑了。它跑到这又湿又冷的高沼地上，然后会怎么办呢?""它会寻找一处温暖的马厩，"我说，"一个有食有水的地方。""对，华生。它没回到金斯皮兰，我们知道这一点，但离这儿不远的地方还有一个马厩，在卡普莱顿。没准它去那儿了。华生，去卡普莱顿的路就是从这儿下山。我们走!"我们很快下了山，在山脚下，我们发现一条小河，还有一片很湿的地面。"太好了，"福尔摩斯说，"我正想有块泥地，它就出现了。华生，你沿着河的左岸走。我们找找马蹄铁的痕迹。"就在50米远的地方，我们发现了马蹄铁的印子。福尔摩斯从口袋里拿出那块马蹄铁，放在那个蹄印的旁边。"没错，这就是'银光'，毫无疑问。"我们轻松地追踪着蹄印，有一会儿又失去了它的踪迹，但在离卡普莱顿马厩大约200米的地方，又发现了蹄印。"在这儿，"我叫道，"看，这儿还有个印记，是一个人的鞋印。"福尔摩斯蹲下查看。"你说得对，华生。而且这个人是走在马旁边的。"我们随着二者的脚印一直到了卡普莱顿的马厩。当我们离马厩还有20米远时，一个人出来朝我们大吼。他满脸通红，怒火万丈。"走开!我们这儿不欢迎游客!走开!""赛拉斯·布朗先生?"福尔摩斯对他说道。"你们想干什么?"那个人问，"我不接受记者采访，赶快走开。""我们不是报社的记者，"福尔摩斯微笑着说，"但你的马厩里有一匹名叫'银光'的马。""那不可能!"布朗先生愤怒地说。"我们能进去谈谈吗?"福尔摩斯说。他没有等着那人回答，而是抓住他的胳膊，快步走向大门。他回头看看我，从容地说："华生，在这儿等我。"20分钟后，他们又出来了。福尔摩斯看上去很满意，赛拉斯·布朗先生完全变了个人。他看上去矮了些，也老了些，脸上满是惊恐。"记住，"福尔摩斯说道，"到那天你一定得准时到，准备好一切。""好的，好的，"赛拉斯·布朗连忙说，"你放心吧。好的，你放心。""那好，"福尔摩斯说，"那先再见吧。"福尔摩斯与我开始沿着大路走回金斯皮兰。"那他藏着那匹马吗?"我问道。福尔摩斯大笑起来。"没错。他一开始当然说没有。但他害怕警察。他不想让他们知道这件事，而我能帮他应付。""但警方为什么没发现那匹马呢?"我问道，"格雷戈里巡官说他们去过卡普莱顿。""哦，要改变一匹马的毛色很容易，"福尔摩斯再次大笑起来。"格雷戈里是个好警察，但我认为他对马了解不深。""那布朗为什么要告诉你呢?"我说。"当我跟他一起穿过马厩的时候，"福尔摩斯说，"地上有很多泥，我看见了他留在泥地上的鞋印。你还记得高沼地里的脚印吗?两种鞋印是一样的。然后就简单了，他把一切都告诉了我。那天清早，他在高沼地里发现了'银光'，就把它带回了自己的马厩。那匹马很好，只不过现在是另一个颜色。你知道，布朗下了重注，赌德斯伯勒能赢得韦塞克斯杯。如果'银光'不参加比赛的话......""但你为什么要把马留在那儿呢?它在他那儿安全吗?"我不明白福尔摩斯的想法。"亲爱的华生，"福尔摩斯说，"那匹马很安全。赛拉斯·布朗害怕我，害怕警察，害怕失去一切。'银光'一定要参加下周的比赛，否则布朗作为赛马训练师的生涯就完蛋了--布朗明白这一点。""罗斯先生不会喜欢这样的。"我说。"罗斯先生，"福尔摩斯说，"不了解侦探工作。他想今天、现在、立刻就得到答案。因此，他必须得到点儿教训。他得学会等。暂时不要透露关于'银光'的事情，华生。"我们回到金斯皮兰，发现罗斯先生和格雷戈里巡官都在驯马师家里。"这是一次很有意思的拜访，"福尔摩斯说，"但我的朋友和我必须乘午夜的火车返回伦敦。"巡官和罗斯先生瞪着他，我发现福尔摩斯对罗斯先生的判断是对的。罗斯先生说道："这么说我们著名的伦敦大侦探找不到杀死可怜的斯特雷克的凶手，也找不到我的马。""不错，这个案子很复杂。"福尔摩斯平静地说，"但你的马会参加下星期二的韦塞克斯杯。这一点我敢保证。""哼!保证真是妙不可言，"罗斯先生说，"但我更想要回我的马，不想要什么保证。"福尔摩斯笑了，然后转向格雷戈里巡官。"巡官，能不能给我一张斯特雷克的照片?""当然可以。"巡官说。他从口袋里的一个信封内掏出一张照片，递给福尔摩斯。该回塔维斯托克了，我们走到屋外。有一个小马倌在外面，福尔摩斯突然跟他说起话来。"我看见你们在这儿养了几只羊，在马厩旁边，"他说，"它们还好吗?""它们很好，先生，"小马倌说，"但其中两三只有点儿跛。它们上星期开始跛的。"福尔摩斯对此非常高兴。他上了马车，对巡官说道："记住那些跛脚的羊，格雷戈里，记住那些跛脚的羊!"罗斯先生对羊一点儿兴趣都没有，但巡官盯着福尔摩斯。"你觉得那些羊很重要?""对。"福尔摩斯说，"非常重要。"巡官还瞪着他，马上就来了兴致。"那你觉得还有什么东西很重要，福尔摩斯先生?""狗在那天晚上的奇怪举动。""那天晚上狗什么举动都没有。""这就是奇怪的地方。"

Our Beach Boys saga continues today with what some consider the spiritual successor to Pet Sounds... whereas others... really didn't dig it. With one foot in their classic lighthearted era and one foot firmly in what would become the new wave (with Brian Wilson's extensive use of synth as a way to simplify production), a lot of people didn't know what to make of "The Beach Boys Love You". It was oddly gruffer than their previous output and Brian was back to taking big swings, with the harmonies still popping as they always did. Regardless of how you feel, it is an interesting listen that grows on you and we're going to talk about it. WITH none other than Beach Boys historian and Inspector 34 frontman, Jimm Warren!!!Episode Links:Memphis Kansas Breeze (honk beep) on Comedy Bang Bang: https://youtu.be/L8MBUZjJX7Y?si=CFnZRWx179iw-OCpInspector 34 bandcamp: https://inspector34.bandcamp.com/musicSad Milk Collective Beach Boys cover album: https://sadmilkcollective.bandcamp.com/album/its-three-oclock-go-to-your-sink-pour-some-milk-and-start-to-think-about-this-terrific-new-beach-boys-tribute-from-the-sad-milk-collectiveSad Milk Collective Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/sadmilkcollective/homeCONCEPT ALBUM RANKINGS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.supatier.com/tierlist/019a64d9-9691-7ed1-87e9-1fc99161d9c0/tachp-ranked-tierlist⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠OUR DISCORD: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/2stA2P7pTC⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠OUR MERCH: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://flyoverstatepark.creator-spring.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠OUR YOUTUBE: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

(1) Regulatory Certitude in Londinium: The Power of the Building Inspector and Beachfront Evictions Guests in Londinium, 92 AD: Gaius and Germanicus. The show is temporarily halted due to occupancy issues at the wine bar. Gaius admits to a "completely unforgivable error": failing to give the building inspector an annual birthday raise. He notes that even far from Rome, the local inspector's "red ticket" carries enough weight to shut down their beachfront wine bar despite the Emperor Domitian's distance. The inspector cited concerns about running water, windows, and roof tiles, though Gaius suspects it was a move for more "generous gifts." He laments that his focus on a "robot" sent from Chinafor the orchestra caused him to neglect the inspector's welfare. The hosts plan a "great big party" with the help of centurions to scrub the facility and restore order for the following week's broadcast. (1)londinium 1682 ad

Comprehensive coverage of the day's news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice. The United Nations says that its international inspectors have lost oversight of Iran's nuclear material. Trump says ceasefire ‘over,' but willing to allow negotiators to continue. Trump fires last Democratic members of Election Assistance Commission, casting body into limbo. Witnesses to fatal ICE shooting in Houston remain detained, dispute agency's account. Graham Platner officially files to end his campaign for Maine senate. Oakland names new permanent police chief. The post The UN says that its international inspectors have lost oversight of Iran's nuclear material – July 10, 2026 appeared first on KPFA.

According to today's figures the country's prisons remain seriously overcrowded. The inspector Mark Kelly joined Rachael in studio.

Do you know there's a side hustle where you can get paid to drive around, take a few photos of houses being built, and turn it into a steady side income? That is the little-known real estate side hustle Lou Shaver from drawinspectortraining.com picked up in retirement. Lou is a construction loan draw inspector. It has almost no startup costs, no special license, and not much selling. He started it as a retirement gig, made about $2,000 a month last year, and is now averaging about $4,100 a month. Lou spent a career as an inspector, first in the Army and then for the Navy, and now he is getting ready to teach others how to do this work through his own training program. Tune in to Episode 748 of the Side Hustle Show to learn: what a construction loan draw inspector actually does how to find your first jobs through inspection marketplaces the simple tools and low costs that make this work Full Show Notes: $2k+/mo Taking Pictures of Houses: The Life of a Loan Draw Inspector New to the Show? Get your personalized money-making playlist ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! Sponsors: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Quo (formerly OpenPhone)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ — Get 20% off of your first 6 months! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Shopify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ — Sign up for a $1 per month trial! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Gusto⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ — Get 3 months free of the leading payroll, benefits, and HR provider for modern small businesses! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Wealthfront — Start earning up to 4.30% variable APY today! Terms and conditions apply. Monarch — Get an extended 30-day free trial! About The Side Hustle Show This is the entrepreneurship podcast you can actually apply! The award-winning small business show covers the best side hustles and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠side hustle ideas⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. We share how to start a business and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠make money online⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and offline, including online business, side gigs, freelancing, marketing, sales funnels, investing, and much more. Join 100,000+ listeners and get legit business ideas and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠passive income⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ strategies straight to your earbuds. No BS, just actionable tips on how to start and grow your side hustle. Hosted by Nick Loper of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Side Hustle Nation⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Wealthfront Disclaimer This experience may not be representative of other Wealthfront clients, and there is no guarantee of future performance or success. Experiences will vary. Nicholas Loper and Side Hustle Show podcast (collectively "Media Partner") are not clients of Wealthfront. The Media Partner receives cash compensation from Wealthfront Brokerage for this paid endorsement placed in their podcast, creating a conflict of interest. More details available via the referral link. The Direct Deposit Plus Investing Program from Wealthfront Advisers LLC and Wealthfront Brokerage LLC provides eligible clients a 0.25% APY increase above the base APY on eligible Cash Account balances (up to an overall boosted rate of 4.30% for a limited time when including the three month 0.75% APY boost for new clients) when you direct deposit $1,000 a month, plus open, fund, and maintain an investing account. Wealthfront may change or end the program at any time and determine eligibility at its discretion. Terms apply. Full details at wealthfront.com/promo-terms. The Cash Account, which is not a deposit account, is offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC, member FINRA/SIPC.  Wealthfront Brokerage is not a bank. The base APY is 3.30% on cash deposits as of January 30, 2026, is representative, subject to change, and requires no minimum. Funds in the Cash Account are swept to program banks, where it earns the variable APY. Same-day withdrawal or instant payment transfers may be limited by destination institutions, daily transaction caps, and by participating entities such as Wells Fargo, the RTP® Network, and FedNow® Service. New Cash Account deposits are subject to a 2-4 day holding period before becoming available for transfer. Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Securities investments are not bank deposits, bank-guaranteed or FDIC-insured, and may lose value. Investment advisory services are provided by Wealthfront Advisers LLC, an SEC-registered investment adviser.

The Justice Department's inspector general has launched a formal review into how the agency handled the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, following widespread bipartisan criticism over the process. The review will focus on whether the department actually complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the release of all related records within a set deadline—a deadline the DOJ missed. Investigators will examine how officials identified, collected, and ultimately decided what to release, as well as how they handled redactions and withheld materials.The move comes amid mounting controversy over how the files were rolled out, including concerns that sensitive information was mishandled and that key material may still be missing or overly redacted. The inspector general will also look into how the DOJ responded to issues that emerged after the release, including public backlash and privacy concerns tied to victims. The findings will eventually be made public, but the review itself signals that even internally, there are serious questions about whether the Epstein files release was handled properly or transparently.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Justice Department watchdog launches probe into compliance with Epstein files law - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sherlock Holmes and the Sport of Kings by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle单词提示1.moor 荒原2.matches 火柴原文Chapter 3: John Straker's Pockets"Very interesting." I said.I gave the papers back to Holmes, and he put them away."So,Watson, what can you tell me?" he asked.I thought for a minute."This cut on Straker's leg, perhaps he did it with his own knife. When something hits you very hard on the head, and you have a knife in your hand… It can happen,you know.""Very good, Watson, and that's bad news for Fitzroy Simpson.""So,did Simpson do it? do you think?" I said."Perhaps,"said Holmes, "Let's look at it. Simpson puts opium in the boy's dinner. He goes away and comes back later in the night. He gets into the stables, takes the horse out, and leaves. But the trainer arrives at that moment, sees him,and follows him. The two men fight, and Simpson breaks Straker's head open with his stick. Then Simpson takes the horse. But where or did the horse run away? Is it still out on the moor? And how did Simpson get into the locked stables? I don't know, Watson, I don't know, we must wait and see." When we arrived at Tavistock Station, two men came to meet us.Inspector Gregory was a tall, slow-moving man with blue eyes.And Mr. Ross was small and quick.He was the first to speak, "Very pleased to see you, Mr. Holmes. The Inspector here is working hard, but we need help. We must find poor Straker's killer and I want to find my horse.""Is there any news?" asked Holmes."Let's talk on the way," the Inspector said, "I'd like you to see everything in the daylight."We were soon out of the little town and upon the brown hills of the moor.Inspector Gregory thought that the killer was Fitzroy Simpson."Simpson was out in the rain that night. His suit was still wet on the Tuesday."he said, "He had a big stick, and his scarf was in the dead man's hand.That looks bad, Mr. Holmes, very bad."Holmes smiled, "You need more than that, Inspector. The servant Edith,spoke of an envelope, did Simpson say anything about that?""Yes,he said it had money in it, a £10 note for the stable boy. "What about this other training stables at Capleton?" asked Holmes, "Does Simpson have friends there?""No,we don't think so, we went to Capleton of course. Their horse Desbrough is the second favorite for the Wessex Cup, and Silas Brown, the trainer, was not friendly with Straker, but we found nothing when we arrived at King's Pyland." Inspector Gregory took us into the trainer's house."Straker's body is upstairs," he said, "But we have here the things from his pockets and from the ground next to his body. Would you like to see them, Mr.Holmes?""Very much." said Holmes.We went into the front room, and the Inspector opened a box and put things on a table.There was a box of matches, a small piece of candle, some money, a watch, some papers and a small thin knife."This is a strange knife." Holmes said.He looked at it carefully and then gave it to me."What is it, Watson?""It's an eye knife," I said, "Doctors use these when they cut into an eye. You don't usually see them outside a hospital.""Mm,"said Holmes, "So why did Straker take this knife? It's no good for fighting,""His wife says it was in the bedroom for some days," said Inspector Gregory, "Perhaps he just took it, because it was there on the table.""Perhaps,"said Holmes, "What about these papers?""One is a letter from Mr. Ross, the others are bills," the Inspector said, "Three of them are bills for the horse's food, and this one is a bill from a dressmaker in London for a Mr. William Derbyshire. He was a friend of Straker's, his wife tells us. His letters sometimes came here and Straker sent them on.""Mrs.William Derbyshire is an expensive lady," said Holmes, looking at the bill, "£25 is a lot of money for just one dress and one hat."He put the bill down and moved to the window."Inspector,can we go out on the moor now before the light begins to go?"We left the room, and at the front door, we saw a woman.She came up to Inspector Gregory, and put her hand on his arm."Is there any news?" She said."No,Mrs. Straker, but here is Mr. Holmes-the famous detective from London. We have him to help us now.""I think I met you a month or two ago, Mrs. Straker," said Holmes, "Let me see… Yes, it was in Plymouth, at a garden party, do you remember?""No,sir, that wasn't me.""But I remember so well… You had a blue dress and a dark blue hat with white flowers on it.""I don't have a hat with flowers on it, sir. " Mrs. Straker said."Well,well, I am wrong, then. I am so sorry,"Andwith that, Holmes followed the inspector outside.Thefour of us, then walked past the stables and up onto the moor.Afterten minutes, Inspector Gregory stopped."Herewe are," he said, "Straker's body was down there, his coat was hereon this small tree…""Onthe tree, not on the ground?" Holmes asked,"Oh, no, it was on the tree, carefully away from the mud on the ground.""Mm.Interesting," said Holmes. "Now I must look at the mud down there.""Ah," said Inspector Gregory, "And to help you, I have here in this bag one of Straker's shoes, one of Fitzroy Simpson's shoes,and one of Silver Blaze's horseshoes.""My dear inspector, well done!" Holmes was very pleased, "You'll think of everything for some minutes."Holmes looked carefully at the ground, his eyes only centimeters away from the mud."Hello," he said suddenly, "What's this from out of the mud?"He took a match, or a small piece of one."Now why didn't I find that?" said the inspector."I knew it was there, you see." said Holmes."You knew, but how could you know that?"Holmes smiled, but did not answer.He then took the shoes, got down on the ground, and began to look at all the tracks in the mud.We stood and watched, but after five minutes Mr. Ross looked at his watch."This is very interesting, Mr. Holmes," he said, "But is it going to take a long time?""No."said Holmes, he got to his feet."I don't need to do any more here. Watson and I are going to take a little walk across the moor now with the horse shoe."Mr.Ross looked at the Inspector."Can we go back to the house and talk? I must take Silver Blaze's name out of the Wessex Cup race, and do it today, I think.""Don't do that," cried Holmes. "No, no, you must leave the horse's name in for the race.""But…"Mr. Ross began, then he laughed a little angrily, "Well, thank you, Mr.Holmes, thank you for your help. See you later then at the house."And he and the inspector walked away.翻译第三章：约翰·斯特雷克的口袋"嗯，很有意思，"我说。我把卷案还给福尔摩斯，他将它们收了起来。"那么，华生，你有什么看法?"他问。我想了想。"斯特雷克腿上的那个伤口没准是他自己的刀划的。如果有什么东西猛撞你的头，你手上又正好拿着把刀......你知道，很有可能。""很好，华生。这对菲茨罗伊·辛普森来说可不是个好消息。""那你觉得是辛普森干的吗?"我问道。"有可能。"福尔摩斯说，"让我们想想，辛普森在那个小马倌的晚餐里下了鸦片。他先离开，夜里晚些时候又回来，进入马厩，把马牵出来，然后逃走。但那时驯马师刚好赶到，看见了他，并紧追不舍。两个人打了起来，辛普森用手杖把斯特雷克的头打开了花。然后辛普森带走了那匹马--但带到哪里去了?还是马自己跑了?它是不是还在高沼地里?还有，辛普森怎么进到上了锁的马厩里的?我不知道，华生，我不知道。我们必须等等看。"我们到塔维斯托克车站时，有两个人来接我们。格雷戈里巡官个子高高的，动作缓慢，有一双蓝色的眼睛。罗斯先生是小个子，性子很急。他首先开口。"福尔摩斯先生，很高兴见到你。这位巡官很卖力，但我们需要帮助。我们必须找出杀害可怜的斯特雷克的凶手，我还想找到我的马。""有什么新的消息吗?"福尔摩斯问道。"我们在路上说吧，"巡官说，"我想让你趁白天看看所有的情况。"我们很快就出了小镇，到了沼泽地里的棕色小山上。格雷戈里巡官认为凶手就是菲茨罗伊·辛普森。"那天晚上下雨的时候辛普森在外面。他的外套到星期二还是湿的，"他说，"他有一根粗大的手杖，他的围巾又在死者手里。看上去不妙，福尔摩斯先生，非常不妙。"福尔摩斯笑了笑。"你还需要更多证据，巡官。那个佣人，伊迪丝，提到了一个信封。辛普森对此说了什么吗?""说了，他说里边有钱--一张十英镑的钞票，给小马倌的。""卡普莱顿的另一个训练马厩情形怎么样?"福尔摩斯问道，"辛普森在那儿有没有什么朋友?""没有，我们以为没有。当然，我们也去了卡普莱顿。他们的马，德斯伯勒，是韦塞克斯杯的第二大热门，驯马师赛拉斯·布朗跟斯特雷克关系不好。但我们没发现什么。"我们到达金斯皮兰以后，格雷戈里巡官把我们带到驯马师的家里。"斯特雷克的尸体在楼上，"他说，"但我们把他口袋里的东西，还有在他身边地上找到的东西放在这儿。你想看看吗，福尔摩斯先生?""很想。"福尔摩斯说。我们走进前厅，巡官打开一个盒子，把里边的东西放到一张桌子上。有一盒火柴，一小段蜡烛，一些钱，一块表，几张纸，还有一把很薄的小刀。"这把刀很奇怪，"福尔摩斯说。他仔细地看了看，然后把刀递给我。"这是什么，华生?""这是一把眼科手术刀，"我说，"医生给眼睛动手术的时候就用这样的刀。一般在医院外面见不到这样的刀。""嗯，"福尔摩斯说，"那斯特雷克拿这刀做什么呢?它并不适合打斗。""他妻子说这把刀在卧室里已经放了一段时间了，"格雷戈里巡官说，"也许只是因为它在桌子上，他就顺手拿了。""也许，"福尔摩斯说，"那些纸是什么?""一张是罗斯先生的信，其他的是账单，"巡官说，"其中有三张是马饲料的账单，这张是伦敦的一个裁缝寄来的账单，是给一个名叫威廉·达比希雷的人的。斯特雷克的妻子告诉我们，他是斯特雷克的朋友。有时他的信会寄到这儿，斯特雷克再转寄出去。""威廉·达比希雷夫人是位出手阔绰的女士，"福尔摩斯看着账单说，"一件衣服和一顶帽子就花了25英镑，这可是一大笔钱呢。"他放下账单，走到窗户边。"巡官，趁着天色还没暗下去，我们能现在去高沼地吗?"我们离开了房间。在大门口，我们看见一个女人。她走向格雷戈里巡官，拉住他的手臂。"有什么消息吗?"她问。"没有，斯特雷克夫人，不过福尔摩斯先生在这儿，他是伦敦来的著名侦探。我们现在有他帮忙了。""我想一两个月前我曾经见过你，斯特雷克夫人。"福尔摩斯说，"让我想想......对，是在普利茅斯的一个游园会上。你还记得吗?""没有，先生，那不是我。""但我记得很清楚......你穿着蓝色的衣服，戴着一顶深蓝色的帽子，上面有白色的花。""我没有上面带花的帽子，先生。"斯特雷克夫人说。"哦，那是我记错了。对不起。"福尔摩斯说着，跟着巡官出了门。然后，我们四个人经过马厩，走到高沼地上。十分钟后，格雷戈里巡官停了下来。"就是这儿，"他说，"斯特雷克的尸体就在这儿，他的外套在这边，挂在这棵小树上。""在树上?不在地上?"福尔摩斯问道。"哦，不是。是在树上，小心地避开了地上的泥泞。""嗯，真有意思，"福尔摩斯说，"现在，我必须看看那边的泥地。""啊，"格雷戈里巡官说，"为了协助你，我在这个包里装了一只斯特雷克的鞋，一只菲茨罗伊的鞋，还有一只'银光'的蹄铁。""亲爱的巡官，太棒了!"福尔摩斯非常高兴。"你考虑得真周到。"福尔摩斯仔细地检查了地面足足几分钟，他的眼睛离泥地只有几厘米。"噢!"他突然说道，"这是什么?"他从泥里捡起一根火柴，或者说是一小截火柴棍。"我怎么就没发现呢?"巡官说。"我知道它会在这儿，你瞧。"福尔摩斯说。"你知道?但你怎么可能知道呢?"福尔摩斯笑了笑，但没回答。然后他拿起那些鞋，趴在地上，开始查看地上所有的痕迹。我们站在那儿看着他，但五分钟后，罗斯先生看了看表。"呃，这很有意思，福尔摩斯先生，"他说，"但是不是还要很长时间?""不会。"福尔摩斯说。他站了起来。"我不用再在这儿做什么了。现在华生和我要在高沼地里走走，带着这块马蹄铁。"罗斯先生看着巡官，"我们能回房子里谈谈吗?我得把'银光'的名字从韦塞克斯杯的参赛名单里撤下来--我想，今天就得这么做。""别那么做!"福尔摩斯叫道，"不，不，你必须把马的名字留在参赛名单里。""但是......"罗斯先生开了个头，然后有点儿恼火地笑了起来。"啊，谢谢，福尔摩斯先生。谢谢你的帮助。那就过一会儿在家里见。"然后他跟巡官一起走了。

Grüße gehen raus, nicht nur an den Ermittler unseres Vertrauens, Inspector Zende, sondern an alle Menschen in der Sonne (Mennesker i Solen), die unseren Podcast hören und natürlich fleißig für den anstehenden Triathlon trainieren, der hoffentlich ein Krimi wird, wie wir ihn diese Folge prognostizieren, mit der einzig relevanten Frage: Der Ironman, Der Titelverteidiger oder Der Notar?

What if the parable of the sower isn't really about where the seeds land after all? In this episode, Jesus turns our attention away from measuring our faith, improving our hearts, or worrying about how much fruit we're producing, and instead points us to the God who alone gives ears to hear and makes good soil out of sinners. It's a freeing conversation for anyone who's ever wondered why the same Gospel lands so differently from one person to the next—or worried whether they're producing enough to prove they're really a Christian.GOSPEL Matthew 13:1-23 1 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. 2 Such great crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat there, while the whole crowd stood on the beach. 3 And he told them many things in parables, saying: "Listen! A sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seeds fell on the path, and the birds came and ate them up. 5 Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and they sprang up quickly, since they had no depth of soil. 6 But when the sun rose, they were scorched; and since they had no root, they withered away. 7 Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. 8 Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 Let anyone with ears listen!" (10 Then the disciples came and asked him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" 11 He answered, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 13 The reason I speak to them in parables is that 'seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.' 14 With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that says: 'You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive. 15  For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn -- and I would heal them.' 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. 17 Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.) 18 "Hear then the parable of the sower. 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in the heart; this is what was sown on the path. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet such a person has no root, but endures only for a while, and when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, that person immediately falls away. 22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the lure of wealth choke the word, and it yields nothing. 23 But as for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty." CARE OF SOULS: DEATHIn Care of Souls, a special mini-series podcast from Luther House of Study, Lutheran pastors and theologians come together to explore the deeply personal and pastoral task of preaching to and caring for those facing death, grief, and loss.Rooted in the theology of the cross and the Lutheran tradition of radical grace, this series offers both theological depth and practical guidance for pastors, church workers, and lay leaders.Across five episodes, the hosts tackle tough but essential questions on death:How does Lutheran theology speak uniquely to death and grief?What does faithful pastoral care look like when walking alongside those who mourn?How can pastors offer both honesty and hope in the face of tragedy and loss?What does ministry look like when death impacts the pastor as well as the congregation?Why do funerals matter, and what is God giving through them?With conversations, real-life stories, and reflections from the front lines of ministry, Care of Souls equips listeners to enter the sorrow of death not with easy answers, but with the crucified and risen Christ.Because in the end, it's not about avoiding death—it's about hearing the Gospel from the One who has passed through death and opened the way to life.Listen to Care of Souls wherever you listen to podcasts or on the Luther House website: Care of SoulsSupport the showInterested in sponsoring an episode of Scripture First?Email Sarah at sarah@lhos.org or visit our donation page: lutherhouseofstudy.org/donate

Are the British Police really so inept? – with Inspector Phil (Part 2) Black Spy Podcast number 254, Season 26, Episode 0002   Are Britain's police really as ineffective as headlines, politicians and sections of the public would have us believe? Or has policing become an easy target for criticism in an age of social media, 24-hour news and intense public scrutiny? Every mistake is broadcast nationally, while thousands of professional interventions that prevent crime, protect the vulnerable and save lives rarely make the news. The reality is more nuanced. British policing faces unprecedented challenges: So listen now to The Black Spy Podcast and be entertained whilst simultaneously learning.   Moreover, if you wish to discuss this episode or any other with Carlton, or  other members of the regular Black Spy Podcast team, feel free to do so, Please don't forget to subscribe in order to never miss another episode.   To contact Firgas Esack of the DAPS Agency go to Linked In To contact Dr Rchel Taylor go to Substackany To contact Carlton King utilise any of the following: To donate - Patreon.com/TheBlackSpyPodcast Email: carltonking2003@gmail.com Facebook: The Black Spy Podcast Facebook: Carlton King Author Twitter@Carlton_King Instagram@carltonkingauthor   To read Carlton's Autobiography: "Black Ops – The incredible true story of a (Black) British secret agent" Click the link below: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/BO1MTV2GDF/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_WNZ5MT89T9C14CB53651 If you are interested to know about the Male Menopause or fear you or a loved one is suffering for unknown reasons please consider reading Dr Rachel's & Carlton's book on the how the Menopause effects men - search Amazon Books for:  The Male Menopause - The Hidden Crisis  (ASIN: B0G5M78PSZ)

This episode we talk about the 2026 National Electrical Code and the major changes in Article 300 from the 2023 NEC to the 2026 edition of the National Electrical Code. Listen as Paul breaks down some of the changes, renumbering, and subtle changes that all electricians need to be aware of as they venture into the last published edition of the National Electrical Code.Listen as Paul Abernathy, CEO, and Founder of Electrical Code Academy, Inc., the leading electrical educator in the country, discusses electrical code, electrical trade, and electrical business-related topics to help electricians maximize their knowledge and industry investment.If you are looking to learn more about the National Electrical Code, for electrical exam preparation, or to better your knowledge of the NEC then visits https://fasttraxsystem.com for all the electrical code training you will ever need by the leading electrical educator in the country with the best NEC learning program on the planet.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/ask-paul-national-electrical-code--4971115/support.

Sherlock Holmes and the Sport of Kings by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle单词提示1.curry 咖喱2.stick 手杖3.opium 鸦片原文Chapter 2: Monday night at King's PylandNotes by Inspector Gregory, after talking to Edith Baxter, Ned Hunter, Mrs. John Straker and Mr. Fitzroy Simpson.On Monday evening, Straker locked the stables at nine o'clock the usual time.Two of the boys then walked up to the trainer's house for their dinner.But the third boy, Ned Hunter, stayed in the stables to watch the horses.At five past nine, the Strakers' servant, a girl called Edith Baxter, carried Ned Hunter's dinner down to the stables.The dinner that night was a hot meat curry.Edith was nearly at the stables, when a man called out to her.He came up to her, and she saw a tall man in a gray suit and a hat, and a red and black scarf.He carried a big walking stick, and Edith felt afraid of him."Where am I?" the man asked, "What is this place?""This is King's Pyland, training stables." she said."Good," said the man, "Now, a stable boy sleeps here every night, is that right? And I think you're taking his dinner to him now."He took an envelope out of his pocket."Please give the boy this and you can have some money for a beautiful new dress."Edith did not take the envelope.She ran past the man to the stables and up to a small open window.She always put the boy's dinner through this window, and Ned Hunter was there,ready to take it."Oh, Ned!" Edith cried, but before she could say any more, the stranger came up behind her."Good evening," he said through the window to the boy, "I want to talk to you.""Who are you, what do you want?" Ned Hunter said."I want to make you rich, boy," the stranger said, "You help me and I help you. You have two horses in for the Wessex Cup- silver Blaze and Bayard. I hear that Bayard is the better horse and that you stable boys are putting your bets on him to win, am I right?" "I'm not saying anything," cried Ned Hunter, "We don't talk about our horses at King's Pyland. So get out, I'm getting the dog now." Ned ran across the stables to get the dog, and Edith began to run back to the house.But she looked back after about 30 meters and saw the man at the little window with his head and one arm inside the room.Edith ran on, and a minute later, Ned came out of the building and locked the door behind him.He ran all-round the stables with the dog, but the man was gone.Ned Hunter told the trainer and the other boys about the stranger, but no one saw him again.The next thing happened at one o'clock in the morning, when John Straker got out of bed."What's the matter," said his wife, "Where are you going?" "To the stables," Straker said, "I can't stop thinking about that stranger, I just want to have a look around." "But it's raining, wait until the rain stops." she said."No,no," Straker said, "I want to go now." He left the house and Mrs. Straker went back to sleep.At seven in the morning, she woke up, but her husband was not there.She quickly got up, called the servant-Edith, and they ran down to the stables.They found the stables unlocked, Straker was not there.And inside on a chair, Ned Hunter slept like a dead man.Silver Blaze was gone and his stable door was open.They called the other two boys from the room over the stables.They were good sleepers and heard nothing in the night.Nobody could wake Ned Hunter, so the two women and the boys ran out to look for the trainer and the horse.Five hundred from the stables, they saw Straker's coat on a small tree.Down the hill, just past the tree, they found the trainer. He was dead.There was a long cut in his leg, and his head was broken in three places.In his right hand, he had a small knife with blood all over it.And in his left hand, he had a red and black scarf.Edith Baxter knew the scarf at once, and later so did Ned Hunter."It's the strangest scarf," he told us, "When I went to get the dog, that stranger was still at the stable window. He put something in my meat curry to make me sleep, I know he did.Edith saw him with his arm through the window."Ned Hunter was right about his meat curry.There were some of his dinner left, and we found a lot of opium in it, that's why Ned slept like a dead man.What about the horse?We found his tracks in the mud next to Straker's dead body.But what happened then?Someone hit streak on the head and killed him.Did that person take the horse away? Did the horse run away?Everybody on Dartmoor is looking for Silver Blaze, but there is no news of him.When I began work on the case on Tuesday, we looked for the stranger.He was in Tavistock and we found him easily.His name is Fitzroy Simpson, he lives mostly in London and makes his money at the races taking bets.We looked in his betting book and found a number of big bets, £5000 against the favorite for the Wessex Cup.These were his answers to my questions."Why did you come down to Dartmoor?""I'm a betting man, Inspector. I need to know about the horses for the Wessex Cupsilver blaze, Bayard, and Desborough-the horse at Silas Brown's stables. He is the second favorite for the race, you see.""Did you go to the King's Pyland stables late on Monday evening?""Yes,I did. I just wanted to ask the stable boys some questions; they know the horses better than anyone.""And is this your scarf?""Yes,yes, it is.""And how did it get into the dead man's hand? Mr. Simpson, can you tell us that?""I don't know, Inspector, I don't know, I never saw the man. I lost my scarf in the dark. It wasn't me, Inspector, it wasn't me."We asked many more questions, but Fitzroy Simpson did not change his story.He was out at King's Pyland that night, his suit was still wet from the rain, and his big walking stick could break a man's head open, but there were no cuts on his body.So where did the blood on Straker's knife come from? And where is the horse?翻译第二章：周一晚上的金斯皮兰格雷戈里巡官与伊道丝·巴克斯特、内德·亨特、约翰·斯特雷克夫人以及菲茨罗伊·辛普森先生谈话以后的记录。星期一晚上，斯特雷克跟平常一样9点就锁了马厩。然后有两个小马倌走到驯马师家里吃晚餐，而第三个小马倌内德·亨特留在马厩照看马匹。9点5分，斯特雷克的佣人，一个名叫伊迪丝·巴克斯特的女孩子把内德·亨特的晚餐送到马厩。那天晚上的晚餐是热的咖哩烧肉。伊迪丝快到马厩的时候，一个人向她打招呼。他走近她，伊迪丝看见一个高个子男人，穿着一件灰色外套，戴着帽子，围着一条黑红相间的围巾，手里拿着一根粗大的手杖。伊迪丝觉得有点儿害怕。"我这是在哪儿?"那个人问道，"这是什么地方?""这是金斯皮兰的训练马厩。"伊迪丝回答道。"太好了!"那个人说。"那么，一个小马倌每天晚上睡在这儿--对吗?我猜你这是要去给他送晚餐吧。"他从口袋里掏出一个信封。"请把这个交给那个男孩儿，你就可以得到一笔钱买身漂亮衣服了。"伊迪丝没拿那个信封。她从那个人身旁跑过去，跑到马厩那儿的一扇开着的小窗前。她一般都从这扇窗户将小马倌的晚餐递进去，内德·亨特已经在那儿准备取饭了。"噢，内德!"伊迪丝叫道，但她还没来得及说别的，那个陌生人已经来到了她身后。"晚上好，"他隔着窗户对那个男孩说，"我想跟你谈谈。""你是谁?你想干什么?"内德·亨特说。"我想让你发财，孩子，"那个陌生人说，"你要是帮我，我就会帮你。你们有两匹马要参加韦塞克斯杯--'银光'和贝亚德。我听说贝亚德更好，你们这帮小马倌都在它身上下了注。对吗?""我不会透露任何事!"内德·亨特叫道，"我们不会在金斯皮兰谈论自己的马，快走开!我要放狗了!"内德穿过马厩去牵狗，伊迪丝开始回头往房子里跑。但她跑了大约30米后，回头看见那个人站在那扇小窗子边，头和一只胳膊伸进了房间里。伊迪丝继续往回跑，很快内德就出来了，顺手锁了门。他带着狗绕马厩跑了一圈，但那个人已经不见了。内德·亨特跟驯马师和其他的马倌说了那个陌生人的事，但再没人看到那个人。第二件事发生在凌晨1点。约翰·斯特雷克从床上爬了起来。"怎么了?"他妻子说，"你要去哪儿?""去马厩看看，"斯特雷克说，"我老想着那个陌生人。我想去看看。""可天在下雨呢。等雨停了再去吧。"她说。"不，不，"斯特雷克说，"我就想现在去。"他离开了房子，斯特雷克夫人接着睡觉。早上7点，她醒了过来，但她丈夫不在。她马上起床，叫来了佣人伊迪丝，一起往马厩跑去。她们发现马厩没锁。斯特雷克不在，内德·亨特在里边一张椅子上睡得跟死人一样。"银光"也不见了，它所在的马厩开着门。她们叫醒了睡在马厩顶上房间里的另外两个小马倌。他俩都睡得很死，没听见夜里有任何动静。没人能叫醒内德·亨特，于是那两个女人和两个小马倌跑出去找驯马师和那匹马。在离马厩500米的地方，他们看见斯特雷克的外套挂在一棵小树上。就在树边的山脚下，他们找到了驯马师。他死了。他腿上有一道长长的伤口，脑袋有三处破了。他右手拿着一把小刀，上面满是血，左手拽着一条黑红相间的围巾。伊迪丝·巴克斯特马上就认出了那条围巾，后来，内德·亨德也认出来了。"是那个陌生人的围巾，"他告诉我们，"我去牵狗的时候，那个人还在马厩的窗户边。他放了什么东西在我的咖哩烧肉里，让我昏昏入睡--我知道一定是他。伊迪丝看见他了，他的手伸进了窗户里。"内德·亨特关于他的咖哩烧肉的判断是对的。他的晚餐还剩下一点儿，我们在里边发现大量的鸦片。这就是内德睡得那么死的原因。那匹马呢?我们在泥地里发现了它的脚印，就在斯特雷克的尸体旁边。但是随后发生了什么事?有人打中了斯特雷克的头，杀死了他。那个人把马带走了吗?还是马自己跑了?达特穆尔的每个人都在找"银光"，但没有关于它的任何消息。星期二我开始调查这个案子，我们就着手寻找那个陌生人。他在塔维斯托克，我们轻而易举地找到了他。他名叫菲茨罗伊·辛普森。他大部分时间住在伦敦，靠在赛马中赌马赚钱。我们查看了他的赌金簿，发现他在韦塞克斯杯上下了重注--5000英镑--买"银光"输。以下是他回答我的问题的记录。"你为什么去达特穆尔?""巡官，我是个赌徒。我得了解参加韦塞克斯杯的马--'银光'、贝亚德，还有德斯伯勒——赛拉斯·布朗家的马。你知道，那是这次比赛的第二大热门。""星期一晚上你是不是去了金斯皮兰的马厩?""对。我只想向着马厩的马倌打听点儿事情。他们比任何人都了解马的状况。""这是你的围巾吗?""对......是我的。""那它是怎么到被害人的手里的，辛普森先生?你能向我们解释一下吗?""我不知道，巡官，我不知道!我从来没见过那个人，那天夜里我的围巾丢了。不是我干的，巡官，不是我!"我们还问了很多问题，但菲茨罗伊·辛普森坚持他的说法。他那天晚上确实在金斯皮兰，他的外套淋了雨，还是湿的，他那条粗大的手杖足以打破人的脑袋。但他身上没有伤口，那斯特雷克手里那把刀上的血迹又是从哪儿来的呢?还有，那匹马哪儿去了?

Eddy Tsai from Jim's Building Inspections Box Hills shares his best business advice for home buyers and what people need to look out for when purchasing a home. To learn more about Jim's visit www.jims.net

Do frogs actually have long tongues? And do they really ribbit? We're unveiling the truth behind some froggy myths and discovering God's designs in these amazing jumpers!Here's our trail map:How Do Frogs Hop?How Long Is a Frog's Tongue?How Do Frogs Ribbit?How Does Singing Worship Bless God and Us?Download this lesson's free coloring sheet: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/how-long-is-a-frogs-tongue/Related Lessons to listen to next:How Do Tadpoles Turn Into Toads? Lesson 78: https://player.captivate.fm/episode/e80566db-d48a-48f1-a0ab-2be21ac6d9d2/Why Are Dart Frogs Poisonous? Episode 37: https://player.captivate.fm/episode/3ba7565f-379e-4a12-9c58-ad94a62b4ec0/Why Do Axolotls Never Grow Up? Lesson 106: https://player.captivate.fm/episode/72d70dc4-7555-4eab-962f-e1adf4659c10/Eryn's Books:Where Wonder Leads: An Adventure in God's Wild and Wonderful World: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/wonderMade to Marvel: 52 Family Devotions Exploring the Wild Wonders of God's Creation: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/marvelThe Nature of Rest: What the Bible and Creation Teach Us About Sabbath Living: https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Rest-Creation-Sabbath-Living/dp/0825448891Rooted in Wonder: Nurturing Your Family's Faith Through God's Creation: https://www.amazon.com/Rooted-Wonder-Nurturing-Familys-Creation/dp/0825447615936 Pennies: Discovering the Joy of Intentional Parenting: https://www.amazon.com/936-Pennies-Discovering-Intentional-Parenting/dp/0764219782Episode Links:Explore all of Apologia's award-winning curriculum and courses: https://www.apologia.com/Nat Theo Club Bonus Video: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/memberGet full lesson guides in the Nat Theo Club: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/clubFree Frog Coloring Sheet: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/how-long-is-a-frogs-tongue/Ask your nature question: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/askScriptures Referenced in This Episode:“How many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.” Psalm 104:24 (NIV)“Shout to the Lord, all the earth. Serve the Lord with joy; come before him with singing.” Psalm 100:1-2 (NCV)“Let the teaching of Christ live in you richly. Use all wisdom to teach and instruct each other by singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” Colossians 3:16 (NCV)“Praise the Lord from the earth, you large sea animals and all the oceans,lightning and hail, snow and mist, and stormy winds that obey him,mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars,wild animals and all cattle, crawling animals and birds,kings of the earth and all nations, princes and all rulers of the earth,young men and women, old people and children.Praise the Lord, because he alone is great. He is more wonderful than heaven and earth.” Psalm 148:7-13 (NCV) Terms Learned in This Episode:Saltation: Moving by jumps or hops instead of walking.Catapult: A machine that stores energy and then releases it all at once to fling something through the air.Tendon: Strong, stretchy cords made from collagen that connect muscles to bones.Viscosity: Describes how thick or runny a liquid is.Buccal Cavity: The space inside a frog's mouth and throat where air can move in and out.Vocal Sacs: Stretchy pouches of skin that some frogs use to make their calls louder.Frog recording credits: Pacific treefrog “ribbit” recordings: https://californiaherps.com/Spring peepers recording: JohnDziak, CC0, via Wikimedia CommonsWood frogs: Ryan Hodnett, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia CommonsBanded bullfrog: Inspector, CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia CommonsGrey treefrog: llap, CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia CommonsThis podcast episode contains paid advertisements.

Patrick Rea is a prolific, award-winning independent filmmaker recognized for his innovative storytelling and creative directing style in horror and suspense. His feature film, "Nailbiter", won Best Director and/or Best Feature Film awards in several film festivals in 2012, "Nailbiter" was released on May 28, 2013 through Lionsgate Home Entertainment on DVD/VOD, Redbox and Digital Downloads. It has since aired on FearNet, the Chiller Network and The Horror Channel in the UK.Rea's stylized short films have screened in over a hundred film festivals around the world. In the summer of 2008, Rea's short film "Woman's Intuition" won a Heartland Emmy Award. In 2009, Rea was co-director on the "Jake Johanssen, I Love You" comedy special, which aired on Showtime throughout 2010. Rea won his second Heartland Emmy Award with the short "Get Off My Porch". He has also been nominated for two Mid-America Emmy Awards.Other directorial efforts include the recent 6 part docu-series on Kansas City's Children's Mercy Hospital titled "Inside Pediatrics" narrated by Paul Rudd, which received a 2015 Mid-America Emmy Award. His 2010 short film "Do Not Disturb" was featured in the "The Invoking 2" which was released in the Redbox on Oct 6th, 2015 through Image Entertainment.Rea's latest horror feature "Arbor Demon" (formally "Enclosure") executive produced by Warren Ostergard and Marcel Sarmiento, and starring Fiona Dourif and Jake Busey had its World Premiere at FrightFest in the UK and was released on February 3rd, 2017 in North America through Gravitas Ventures and is currently available on platforms such as Redbox On Demand, Amazon, iTunes, Vudu.In 2017, Rea co-wrote 7 episodes for Seasons 3 and 4 of CBS's Daytime Emmy Winning show "The Inspectors". He also directed two episodes for Season 3 which both aired in the spring of 2018.Rea's recent feature, the family drama, "Belong to Us" was released on DVD in Walmart nationwide and on Video on Demand, August 6, 2019 from Archstone Distribution. His current horror feature, "I Am Lisa" is in post-production with an expected 2020 release.

Send us Fan MailNaatak Radio presents Munshi Premchand's acclaimed "Namak Ka Daroga" adapted into a play for stage and radio by Manish Sabu.An honest salt inspector is swept into the morally flexible world of a powerful businessman. Will he give in to the temptation or pay the price of his honesty?Namak Ka Daroga was staged as a part of Naatak's TALES OF RESISTANCE in April 2026 at the Starbright Theater in Campbell. The Naatak team got together to specifically stage this radio version of the play for Naatak Radio!Voice Actors: Jay Ruparel, Dinesh Rao, Rohit Chouray,  Namita Vakil, Ravishankar Alladi, Puru Pahuja, Omkar Paranjape, M Zishan, Anitha Dixit, and Richa Pareek. Post production by Anitha Dixit and Rishabh Sabu.  Support the showSubscribe to Naatak Radio on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Jio Saavn or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also listen to our library of over 100 episodes on our website at naatak.org/naatakradio/Love the show? Consider supporting the show here. 

It's a special “Management Matters with James-Christian Blockwood” episode featuring highlights from the Academy's Celebration of the American Public Servant 250 Gala at the Library of Congress during America's 250th anniversary, including a Future of Public Service panel with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, retired Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Joanne Bass, and remarks from Senator Tammy DuckworthSen. Duckworth shares a combat story about a young door gunner, Kurt, using it as a metaphor for public servants who “stand the perimeter” by showing up daily despite limited glamour or pay. Mayor Bowser discusses serving D.C.'s residents and improving the city through neighborhood-level engagement and school recovery outcomes. Chief Bass calls for earlier character and citizenship education, a national effort to improve the narrative of service, and broader support for military recruitment. IG Horowitz describes motivation rooted in immigrant family history, rule of law, prosecuting police corruption, and nonpartisan oversight.01:12 Sen. Duckworth and the "Standing the Perimeter" Message05:41 Panel Begins and Introductions06:02 Mayor Bowser on Why She Serves07:45 Chief Bass on Why She Served09:46 IG Horowitz Why Accountability Matters13:48 Mayor Bowser on Trust and Community Change17:10 Making Service Appeal to Youth20:26 Next 250 Years Takeaways

On this week's edition of Le Show, Harry brings us regular features like ICE, ICE Baby, News of Inspector's General, News of the Warm, News of the Godly, News of the Olympic Movement, News of A.I., Nixon in Heaven, and The Apologies of the Week. And this week's music? Let's just say, “It's hot.”

Are the British Police really so inept? – with Inspector Phil (Part 1) Black Spy Podcast number 253, Season 26, Episode 0001 Are Britain's police really as ineffective as headlines, politicians and sections of the public would have us believe? Or has policing become an easy target for criticism in an age of social media, 24-hour news and intense public scrutiny?  Every mistake is broadcast nationally, while thousands of professional interventions that prevent crime, protect the vulnerable and save lives rarely make the news. The reality is more nuanced. British policing faces unprecedented challenges: So listen now to The Black Spy Podcast and be entertained whilst simultaneously learning. Moreover, if you wish to discuss this episode or any other with Carlton, or  other members of the regular Black Spy Podcast team, feel free to do so, Please don't forget to subscribe in order to never miss another episode.   To contact Firgas Esack of the DAPS Agency go to Linked In To contact Dr Rchel Taylor go to Substackany To contact Carlton King utilise any of the following: To donate - Patreon.com/TheBlackSpyPodcast Email: carltonking2003@gmail.com Facebook: The Black Spy Podcast Facebook: Carlton King Author Twitter@Carlton_King Instagram@carltonkingauthor   To read Carlton's Autobiography: "Black Ops – The incredible true story of a (Black) British secret agent" Click the link below: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/BO1MTV2GDF/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_WNZ5MT89T9C14CB53651  If you are interested to know about the Male Menopause or fear you or a loved one is suffering for unknown reasons please consider reading Dr Rachel's & Carlton's book on the how the Menopause effects men - search Amazon Books for:  The Male Menopause - The Hidden Crisis  (ASIN: B0G5M78PSZ)

Are the British Police really so inept? – with Inspector Phil (Part 1) Black Spy Podcast number 253, Season 26, Episode 0001 Are Britain's police really as ineffective as headlines, politicians and sections of the public would have us believe? Or has policing become an easy target for criticism in an age of social media, 24-hour news and intense public scrutiny?  Every mistake is broadcast nationally, while thousands of professional interventions that prevent crime, protect the vulnerable and save lives rarely make the news. The reality is more nuanced. British policing faces unprecedented challenges: So listen now to The Black Spy Podcast and be entertained whilst simultaneously learning. Moreover, if you wish to discuss this episode or any other with Carlton, or  other members of the regular Black Spy Podcast team, feel free to do so, Please don't forget to subscribe in order to never miss another episode.   To contact Firgas Esack of the DAPS Agency go to Linked In To contact Dr Rchel Taylor go to Substackany To contact Carlton King utilise any of the following: To donate - Patreon.com/TheBlackSpyPodcast Email: carltonking2003@gmail.com Facebook: The Black Spy Podcast Facebook: Carlton King Author Twitter@Carlton_King Instagram@carltonkingauthor   To read Carlton's Autobiography: "Black Ops – The incredible true story of a (Black) British secret agent" Click the link below: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/BO1MTV2GDF/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_WNZ5MT89T9C14CB53651  If you are interested to know about the Male Menopause or fear you or a loved one is suffering for unknown reasons please consider reading Dr Rachel's & Carlton's book on the how the Menopause effects men - search Amazon Books for:  The Male Menopause - The Hidden Crisis  (ASIN: B0G5M78PSZ)

Are the British Police really so inept? – with Inspector Phil (Part 1) Black Spy Podcast number 253, Season 26, Episode 0001 Are Britain's police really as ineffective as headlines, politicians and sections of the public would have us believe? Or has policing become an easy target for criticism in an age of social media, 24-hour news and intense public scrutiny?  Every mistake is broadcast nationally, while thousands of professional interventions that prevent crime, protect the vulnerable and save lives rarely make the news. The reality is more nuanced. British policing faces unprecedented challenges: So listen now to The Black Spy Podcast and be entertained whilst simultaneously learning. Moreover, if you wish to discuss this episode or any other with Carlton, or  other members of the regular Black Spy Podcast team, feel free to do so, Please don't forget to subscribe in order to never miss another episode.   To contact Firgas Esack of the DAPS Agency go to Linked In To contact Dr Rchel Taylor go to Substackany To contact Carlton King utilise any of the following: To donate - Patreon.com/TheBlackSpyPodcast Email: carltonking2003@gmail.com Facebook: The Black Spy Podcast Facebook: Carlton King Author Twitter@Carlton_King Instagram@carltonkingauthor   To read Carlton's Autobiography: "Black Ops – The incredible true story of a (Black) British secret agent" Click the link below: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/BO1MTV2GDF/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_WNZ5MT89T9C14CB53651  If you are interested to know about the Male Menopause or fear you or a loved one is suffering for unknown reasons please consider reading Dr Rachel's & Carlton's book on the how the Menopause effects men - search Amazon Books for:  The Male Menopause - The Hidden Crisis  (ASIN: B0G5M78PSZ)

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

US Vice President JD Vance said Tehran agreed to admit nuclear monitors into the country after negotiations in Switzerland. Iran denied making any new commitments. Meanwhile, President Trump said preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon outweighs the potential economic consequences of prolonged military action. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Andy Burnham was sworn in as an MP. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

June 23, 2026 - 5am:  Iran is reportedly prepared to allow UN nuclear inspectors back into the country Trump reflecting pool vandalism 'conspiracy' NY Primary preview Pentagon looks to request an $80B supplemental request for Iran war costs The House could meet today to vote on a bipartisan bill aimed at lowering housing costs   To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

Starmer Resigns, Replaced By Fellow Pedo Protector! Trump Rating Sinks To All-Time Low 30%! Vance Scores Victory, Iran Agrees To Outside Nuclear Inspectors, NASA Warns Of City-Killing Asteroids

Vice President Vance says peace talks with Iran set "a good foundation;" The Senate prepares to pass a bipartisan affordable housing bill; and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer resigns. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf