Word processor developed by Microsoft
POPULARITY
Categories
38 episodes with Microsoft Word
28 episodes with Microsoft Word
20 episodes with Microsoft Word
22 episodes with Microsoft Word
48 episodes with Microsoft Word
9 episodes with Microsoft Word
7 episodes with Microsoft Word
6 episodes with Microsoft Word
6 episodes with Microsoft Word
4 episodes with Microsoft Word
5 episodes with Microsoft Word
5 episodes with Microsoft Word
8 episodes with Microsoft Word
6 episodes with Microsoft Word
4 episodes with Microsoft Word
3 episodes with Microsoft Word
5 episodes with Microsoft Word
3 episodes with Microsoft Word
3 episodes with Microsoft Word
5 episodes with Microsoft Word
4 episodes with Microsoft Word
3 episodes with Microsoft Word
5 episodes with Microsoft Word
6 episodes with Microsoft Word
4 episodes with Microsoft Word
5 episodes with Microsoft Word
3 episodes with Microsoft Word
3 episodes with Microsoft Word
6 episodes with Microsoft Word
3 episodes with Microsoft Word
4 episodes with Microsoft Word
2 episodes with Microsoft Word
4 episodes with Microsoft Word
5 episodes with Microsoft Word
2 episodes with Microsoft Word
3 episodes with Microsoft Word
5 episodes with Microsoft Word
5 episodes with Microsoft Word
2 episodes with Microsoft Word
3 episodes with Microsoft Word
2 episodes with Microsoft Word
3 episodes with Microsoft Word
4 episodes with Microsoft Word
4 episodes with Microsoft Word
2 episodes with Microsoft Word
2 episodes with Microsoft Word
2 episodes with Microsoft Word
2 episodes with Microsoft Word
10 episodes with Microsoft Word
2 episodes with Microsoft Word
3 episodes with Microsoft Word
5 episodes with Microsoft Word
3 episodes with Microsoft Word
2 episodes with Microsoft Word
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
It's been too long. The twins decided to change that by showing up for episode 93 and diving into a conversation about one long summer on Tigertail Court in Coconut Grove before the third grade when they moved back to Miami from Crestline, California. They discovered boxes of old castoff records in their room and started playing them on the big Zenith console they rememered from the time they were toddlers. Also - a recent series of gigs at House of Blues Myrtle Beach, chatter about audio interfaces, remote recording, the difference in the vibe when they shut off the video in Zoom and didn't have to stare at each other. SHOW NOTES: 0:00 - Interlude by Chris - sounds like a drug commercial. 1:15 - Greetings - Been a while / Our recent shows at House of Blues Myrtle Beach / Electro-Voice EVOLVE 30M (P.A.) 2:31 - Chris' upcoming trip to Walt Disney World - "I go where I'm told." / Universal Orlando / The Wizarding World of Harry Potter / The Tree of Life - Disney World 3:54 - More EVOLVE 30M / Powered monitor vs. power amp for existing passive monitor 5:26 - Discovering cast-off records as children in Miami / Ancient Zenith console / "Higher and Higher," Jackie Wilson / "Wipe Out," Surfaris / "Leader of the Laundromat," The Detergents / "Daydream Believer," Monkees / "They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa!," Napoleon XIV, "Green Tambourine," Lemon Pipers / "Monster Mash," Bobby "Boris" Pickett & The Crypt Kickers / "Next Door to an Angel," Neil Sedaka / "Funny Face," Frankie Valli / Beach Boys Concert LP / "Papa Was a Rollin' Stone," The Temptations / Florida Room / "For Once in My Life," Stevie Wonder / Longines Symphonette Society / K-Tel / Buddha Records / No rock in there / Them - Van Morrison / "Summer in the City," The Lovin' Spoonful / "Groovin," The Rascals 10:38 - Trying to remember Glendale 12:04 - More about the summer before third grade / Weird organ instrumental song we can't place / More about the Zenith 13:24 - Interfaces: Apogee Duet / PreSonus Quantum ES2 / ZOOM Livetrak L-8 / Behringer U-PHORIA UM2 / Podcast recording setups 15:06 - Roger using the L-8 for newspaper interviews / Microsoft Word transcription function / physical transcription vs. software 16:51 - About recording our sessions from Zoom calls / Jeffrey Toobin 19:07 - Chris' DAW work / Thoughts on DAW 21:05 - "My Life as a Rolling Stone" 21:57 - Chris riffing on his recent medical checkup 23:45 - Parting shots - Big Sur / Recording fears / Organizing audio files
How can you write science-based fiction without info-dumping your research? How can you use AI tools in a creative way, while still focusing on a human-first approach? Why is adapting to the fast pace of change so difficult and how can we make the most of this time? Jamie Metzl talks about Superconvergence and more. In the intro, How to avoid author scams [Written Word Media]; Spotify vs Audible audiobook strategy [The New Publishing Standard]; Thoughts on Author Nation and why constraints are important in your author life [Self-Publishing with ALLi]; Alchemical History And Beautiful Architecture: Prague with Lisa M Lilly on my Books and Travel Podcast. Today's show is sponsored by Draft2Digital, self-publishing with support, where you can get free formatting, free distribution to multiple stores, and a host of other benefits. Just go to www.draft2digital.com to get started. This show is also supported by my Patrons. Join my Community at Patreon.com/thecreativepenn Jamie Metzl is a technology futurist, professional speaker, entrepreneur, and the author of sci-fi thrillers and futurist nonfiction books, including the revised and updated edition of Superconvergence: How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World. You can listen above or on your favorite podcast app or read the notes and links below. Here are the highlights and the full transcript is below. Show Notes How personal history shaped Jamie's fiction writing Writing science-based fiction without info-dumping The super convergence of three revolutions (genetics, biotech, AI) and why we need to understand them holistically Using fiction to explore the human side of genetic engineering, life extension, and robotics Collaborating with GPT-5 as a named co-author How to be a first-rate human rather than a second-rate machine You can find Jamie at JamieMetzl.com. Transcript of interview with Jamie Metzl Jo: Jamie Metzl is a technology futurist, professional speaker, entrepreneur, and the author of sci-fi thrillers and futurist nonfiction books, including the revised and updated edition of Superconvergence: How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World. So welcome, Jamie. Jamie: Thank you so much, Jo. Very happy to be here with you. Jo: There is so much we could talk about, but let's start with you telling us a bit more about you and how you got into writing. From History PhD to First Novel Jamie: Well, I think like a lot of writers, I didn't know I was a writer. I was just a kid who loved writing. Actually, just last week I was going through a bunch of boxes from my parents' house and I found my autobiography, which I wrote when I was nine years old. So I've been writing my whole life and loving it. It was always something that was very important to me. When I finished my DPhil, my PhD at Oxford, and my dissertation came out, it just got scooped up by Macmillan in like two minutes. And I thought, “God, that was easy.” That got me started thinking about writing books. I wanted to write a novel based on the same historical period – my PhD was in Southeast Asian history – and I wanted to write a historical novel set in the same period as my dissertation, because I felt like the dissertation had missed the human element of the story I was telling, which was related to the Cambodian genocide and its aftermath. So I wrote what became my first novel, and I thought, “Wow, now I'm a writer.” I thought, “All right, I've already published one book. I'm gonna get this other book out into the world.” And then I ran into the brick wall of: it's really hard to be a writer. It's almost easier to write something than to get it published. I had to learn a ton, and it took nine years from when I started writing that first novel, The Depths of the Sea, to when it finally came out. But it was such a positive experience, especially to have something so personal to me as that story. I'd lived in Cambodia for two years, I'd worked on the Thai-Cambodian border, and I'm the child of a Holocaust survivor. So there was a whole lot that was very emotional for me. That set a pattern for the rest of my life as a writer, at least where, in my nonfiction books, I'm thinking about whatever the issues are that are most important to me. Whether it was that historical book, which was my first book, or Hacking Darwin on the future of human genetic engineering, which was my last book, or Superconvergence, which, as you mentioned in the intro, is my current book. But in every one of those stories, the human element is so deep and so profound. You can get at some of that in nonfiction, but I've also loved exploring those issues in deeper ways in my fiction. So in my more recent novels, Genesis Code and Eternal Sonata, I've looked at the human side of the story of genetic engineering and human life extension. And now my agent has just submitted my new novel, Virtuoso, about the intersection of AI, robotics, and classical music. With all of this, who knows what's the real difference between fiction and nonfiction? We're all humans trying to figure things out on many different levels. Shifting from History to Future Tech Jo: I knew that you were a polymath, someone who's interested in so many things, but the music angle with robotics and AI is fascinating. I do just want to ask you, because I was also at Oxford – what college were you at? Jamie: I was in St. Antony's. Jo: I was at Mansfield, so we were in that slightly smaller, less famous college group, if people don't know. Jamie: You know, but we're small but proud. Jo: Exactly. That's fantastic. You mentioned that you were on the historical side of things at the beginning and now you've moved into technology and also science, because this book Superconvergence has a lot of science. So how did you go from history and the past into science and the future? Biology and Seeing the Future Coming Jamie: It's a great question. I'll start at the end and then back up. A few years ago I was speaking at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which is one of the big scientific labs here in the United States. I was a guest of the director and I was speaking to their 300 top scientists. I said to them, “I'm here to speak with you about the future of biology at the invitation of your director, and I'm really excited. But if you hear something wrong, please raise your hand and let me know, because I'm entirely self-taught. The last biology course I took was in 11th grade of high school in Kansas City.” Of course I wouldn't say that if I didn't have a lot of confidence in my process. But in many ways I'm self-taught in the sciences. As you know, Jo, and as all of your listeners know, the foundation of everything is curiosity and then a disciplined process for learning. Even our greatest super-specialists in the world now – whatever their background – the world is changing so fast that if anyone says, “Oh, I have a PhD in physics/chemistry/biology from 30 years ago,” the exact topic they learned 30 years ago is less significant than their process for continuous learning. More specifically, in the 1990s I was working on the National Security Council for President Clinton, which is the president's foreign policy staff. My then boss and now close friend, Richard Clarke – who became famous as the guy who had tragically predicted 9/11 – used to say that the key to efficacy in Washington and in life is to try to solve problems that other people can't see. For me, almost 30 years ago, I felt to my bones that this intersection of what we now call AI and the nascent genetics revolution and the nascent biotechnology revolution was going to have profound implications for humanity. So I just started obsessively educating myself. When I was ready, I started writing obscure national security articles. Those got a decent amount of attention, so I was invited to testify before the United States Congress. I was speaking out a lot, saying, “Hey, this is a really important story. A lot of people are missing it. Here are the things we should be thinking about for the future.” I wasn't getting the kind of traction that I wanted. I mentioned before that my first book had been this dry Oxford PhD dissertation, and that had led to my first novel. So I thought, why don't I try the same approach again – writing novels to tell this story about the genetics, biotech, and what later became known popularly as the AI revolution? That led to my two near-term sci-fi novels, Genesis Code and Eternal Sonata. On my book tours for those novels, when I explained the underlying science to people in my way, as someone who taught myself, I could see in their eyes that they were recognizing not just that something big was happening, but that they could understand it and feel like they were part of that story. That's what led me to write Hacking Darwin, as I mentioned. That book really unlocked a lot of things. I had essentially predicted the CRISPR babies that were born in China before it happened – down to the specific gene I thought would be targeted, which in fact was the case. After that book was published, Dr. Tedros, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, invited me to join the WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Human Genome Editing, which I did. It was a really great experience and got me thinking a lot about the upside of this revolution and the downside. The Birth of Superconvergence Jamie: I get a lot of wonderful invitations to speak, and I have two basic rules for speaking: Never use notes. Never ever. Never stand behind a podium. Never ever. Because of that, when I speak, my talks tend to migrate. I'd be speaking with people about the genetics revolution as it applied to humans, and I'd say, “Well, this is just a little piece of a much bigger story.” The bigger story is that after nearly four billion years of life on Earth, our one species has the increasing ability to engineer novel intelligence and re-engineer life. The big question for us, and frankly for the world, is whether we're going to be able to use that almost godlike superpower wisely. As that idea got bigger and bigger, it became this inevitable force. You write so many books, Jo, that I think it's second nature for you. Every time I finish a book, I think, “Wow, that was really hard. I'm never doing that again.” And then the books creep up on you. They call to you. At some point you say, “All right, now I'm going to do it.” So that was my current book, Superconvergence. Like everything, every journey you take a step, and that step inspires another step and another. That's why writing and living creatively is such a wonderfully exciting thing – there's always more to learn and always great opportunities to push ourselves in new ways. Balancing Deep Research with Good Storytelling Jo: Yeah, absolutely. I love that you've followed your curiosity and then done this disciplined process for learning. I completely understand that. But one of the big issues with people like us who love the research – and having read your Superconvergence, I know how deeply you go into this and how deeply you care that it's correct – is that with fiction, one of the big problems with too much research is the danger of brain-dumping. Readers go to fiction for escapism. They want the interesting side of it, but they want a story first. What are your tips for authors who might feel like, “Where's the line between putting in my research so that it's interesting for readers, but not going too far and turning it into a textbook?” How do you find that balance? Jamie: It's such a great question. I live in New York now, but I used to live in Washington when I was working for the U.S. government, and there were a number of people I served with who later wrote novels. Some of those novels felt like policy memos with a few sex scenes – and that's not what to do. To write something that's informed by science or really by anything, everything needs to be subservient to the story and the characters. The question is: what is the essential piece of information that can convey something that's both important to your story and your character development, and is also an accurate representation of the world as you want it to be? I certainly write novels that are set in the future – although some of them were a future that's now already happened because I wrote them a long time ago. You can make stuff up, but as an author you have to decide what your connection to existing science and existing technology and the existing world is going to be. I come at it from two angles. One: I read a huge number of scientific papers and think, “What does this mean for now, and if you extrapolate into the future, where might that go?” Two: I think about how to condense things. We've all read books where you're humming along because people read fiction for story and emotional connection, and then you hit a bit like: “I sat down in front of the president, and the president said, ‘Tell me what I need to know about the nuclear threat.'” And then it's like: insert memo. That's a deal-killer. It's like all things – how do you have a meaningful relationship with another person? It's not by just telling them your story. Even when you're telling them something about you, you need to be imagining yourself sitting in their shoes, hearing you. These are very different disciplines, fiction and nonfiction. But for the speculative nonfiction I write – “here's where things are now, and here's where the world is heading” – there's a lot of imagination that goes into that too. It feels in many ways like we're living in a sci-fi world because the rate of technological change has been accelerating continuously, certainly for the last 12,000 years since the dawn of agriculture. It's a balance. For me, I feel like I'm a better fiction writer because I write nonfiction, and I'm a better nonfiction writer because I write fiction. When I'm writing nonfiction, I don't want it to be boring either – I want people to feel like there's a story and characters and that they can feel themselves inside that story. Jo: Yeah, definitely. I think having some distance helps as well. If you're really deep into your topics, as you are, you have to leave that manuscript a little bit so you can go back with the eyes of the reader as opposed to your eyes as the expert. Then you can get their experience, which is great. Looking Beyond Author-Focused AI Fears Jo: I want to come to your technical knowledge, because AI is a big thing in the author and creative community, like everywhere else. One of the issues is that creators are focusing on just this tiny part of the impact of AI, and there's a much bigger picture. For example, in 2024, Demis Hassabis from Google DeepMind and his collaborative partner John Jumper won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry with AlphaFold. It feels to me like there's this massive world of what's happening with AI in health, climate, and other areas, and yet we are so focused on a lot of the negative stuff. Maybe you could give us a couple of things about what there is to be excited and optimistic about in terms of AI-powered science? Jamie: Sure. I'm so excited about all of the new opportunities that AI creates. But I also think there's a reason why evolution has preserved this very human feeling of anxiety: because there are real dangers. Anybody who's Pollyanna-ish and says, “Oh, the AI story is inevitably positive,” I'd be distrustful. And anyone who says, “We're absolutely doomed, this is the end of humanity,” I'd also be distrustful. So let me tell you the positives and the negatives, and maybe some thoughts about how we navigate toward the former and away from the latter. AI as the New Electricity Jamie: When people think of AI right now, they're thinking very narrowly about these AI tools and ChatGPT. But we don't think of electricity that way. Nobody says, “I know electricity – electricity is what happens at the power station.” We've internalised the idea that electricity is woven into not just our communication systems or our houses, but into our clothes, our glasses – it's woven into everything and has super-empowered almost everything in our modern lives. That's what AI is. In Superconvergence, the majority of the book is about positive opportunities: In healthcare, moving from generalised healthcare based on population averages to personalised or precision healthcare based on a molecular understanding of each person's individual biology. As we build these massive datasets like the UK Biobank, we can take a next jump toward predictive and preventive healthcare, where we're able to address health issues far earlier in the process, when interventions can be far more benign. I'm really excited about that, not to mention the incredible new kinds of treatments – gene therapies, or pharmaceuticals based on genetics and systems-biology analyses of patients. Then there's agriculture. Over the last hundred years, because of the technologies of the Green Revolution and synthetic fertilisers, we've had an incredible increase in agricultural productivity. That's what's allowed us to quadruple the global population. But if we just continue agriculture as it is, as we get towards ten billion wealthier, more empowered people wanting to eat like we eat, we're going to have to wipe out all the wild spaces on Earth to feed them. These technologies help provide different paths toward increasing agricultural productivity with fewer inputs of land, water, fertiliser, insecticides, and pesticides. That's really positive. I could go on and on about these positives – and I do – but there are very real negatives. I was a member of the WHO Expert Advisory Committee on Human Genome Editing after the first CRISPR babies were very unethically created in China. I'm extremely aware that these same capabilities have potentially incredible upsides and very real downsides. That's the same as every technology in the past, but this is happening so quickly that it's triggering a lot of anxieties. Governance, Responsibility, and Why Everyone Has a Role Jamie: The question now is: how do we optimise the benefits and minimise the harms? The short, unsexy word for that is governance. Governance is not just what governments do; it's what all of us do. That's why I try to write books, both fiction and nonfiction, to bring people into this story. If people “other” this story – if they say, “There's a technology revolution, it has nothing to do with me, I'm going to keep my head down” – I think that's dangerous. The way we're going to handle this as responsibly as possible is if everybody says, “I have some role. Maybe it's small, maybe it's big. The first step is I need to educate myself. Then I need to have conversations with people around me. I need to express my desires, wishes, and thoughts – with political leaders, organisations I'm part of, businesses.” That has to happen at every level. You're in the UK – you know the anti-slavery movement started with a handful of people in Cambridge and grew into a global movement. I really believe in the power of ideas, but ideas don't spread on their own. These are very human networks, and that's why writing, speaking, communicating – probably for every single person listening to this podcast – is so important. Jo: Mm, yeah. Fiction Like AI 2041 and Thinking Through the Issues Jo: Have you read AI 2041 by Kai-Fu Lee and Chen Qiufan? Jamie: No. I heard a bunch of their interviews when the book came out, but I haven't read it. Jo: I think that's another good one because it's fiction – a whole load of short stories. It came out a few years ago now, but the issues they cover in the stories, about different people in different countries – I remember one about deepfakes – make you think more about the topics and help you figure out where you stand. I think that's the issue right now: it's so complex, there are so many things. I'm generally positive about AI, but of course I don't want autonomous drone weapons, you know? The Messy Reality of “Bad” Technologies Jamie: Can I ask you about that? Because this is why it's so complicated. Like you, I think nobody wants autonomous killer drones anywhere in the world. But if you right now were the defence minister of Ukraine, and your children are being kidnapped, your country is being destroyed, you're fighting for your survival, you're getting attacked every night – and you're getting attacked by the Russians, who are investing more and more in autonomous killer robots – you kind of have two choices. You can say, “I'm going to surrender,” or, “I'm going to use what technology I have available to defend myself, and hopefully fight to either victory or some kind of stand-off.” That's what our societies did with nuclear weapons. Maybe not every American recognises that Churchill gave Britain's nuclear secrets to America as a way of greasing the wheels of the Anglo-American alliance during the Second World War – but that was our programme: we couldn't afford to lose that war, and we couldn't afford to let the Nazis get nuclear weapons before we did. So there's the abstract feeling of, “I'm against all war in the abstract. I'm against autonomous killer robots in the abstract.” But if I were the defence minister of Ukraine, I would say, “What will it take for us to build the weapons we can use to defend ourselves?” That's why all this stuff gets so complicated. And frankly, it's why the relationship between fiction and nonfiction is so important. If every novel had a situation where every character said, “Oh, I know exactly the right answer,” and then they just did the right answer and it was obviously right, it wouldn't make for great fiction. We're dealing with really complex humans. We have conflicting impulses. We're not perfect. Maybe there are no perfect answers – but how do we strive toward better rather than worse? That's the question. Jo: Absolutely. I don't want to get too political on things. How AI Is Changing the Writing Life Jo: Let's come back to authors. In terms of the creative process, the writing process, the research process, and the business of being an author – what are some of the ways that you already use AI tools, and some of the ways, given your futurist brain, that you think things are going to change for us? Jamie: Great question. I'll start with a little middle piece. I found you, Jo, through GPT-5. I asked ChatGPT, “I'm coming out with this book and I want to connect with podcasters who are a little different from the ones I've done in the past. I've been a guest on Joe Rogan twice and some of the bigger podcasts. Make me a list of really interesting people I can have great conversations with.” That's how I found you. So this is one reward of that process. Let me say that in the last year I've worked on three books, and I'll explain how my relationship with AI has changed over those books. Cleaning Up Citations (and Getting Burned) Jamie: First is the highly revised paperback edition of Superconvergence. When the hardback came out, I had – I don't normally work with research assistants because I like to dig into everything myself – but the one thing I do use a research assistant for is that I can't be bothered, when I'm writing something, to do the full Chicago-style footnote if I'm already referencing an academic paper. So I'd just put the URL as the footnote and then hire a research assistant and say, “Go to this URL and change it into a Chicago-style citation. That's it.” Unfortunately, my research assistant on the hardback used early-days ChatGPT for that work. He did the whole thing, came back, everything looked perfect. I said, “Wow, amazing job.” It was only later, as I was going through them, that I realised something like 50% of them were invented footnotes. It was very painful to go back and fix, and it took ten times more time. With the paperback edition, I didn't use AI that much, but I did say things like, “Here's all the information – generate a Chicago-style citation.” That was better. I noticed there were a few things where I stopped using the thesaurus function on Microsoft Word because I'd just put the whole paragraph into the AI and say, “Give me ten other options for this one word,” and it would be like a contextual thesaurus. That was pretty good. Talking to a Robot Pianist Character Jamie: Then, for my new novel Virtuoso, I was writing a character who is a futurist robot that plays the piano very beautifully – not just humanly, but almost finding new things in the music we've written and composing music that resonates with us. I described the actions of that robot in the novel, but I didn't describe the inner workings of the robot's mind. In thinking about that character, I realised I was the first science-fiction writer in history who could interrogate a machine about what it was “thinking” in a particular context. I had the most beautiful conversations with ChatGPT, where I would give scenarios and ask, “What are you thinking? What are you feeling in this context?” It was all background for that character, but it was truly profound. Co-Authoring The AI Ten Commandments with GPT-5 Jamie: Third, I have another book coming out in May in the United States. I gave a talk this summer at the Chautauqua Institution in upstate New York about AI and spirituality. I talked about the history of our human relationship with our technology, about how all our religious and spiritual traditions have deep technological underpinnings – certainly our Abrahamic religions are deeply connected to farming, and Protestantism to the printing press. Then I had a section about the role of AI in generating moral codes that would resonate with humans. Everybody went nuts for this talk, and I thought, “I think I'm going to write a book.” I decided to write it differently, with GPT-5 as my named co-author. The first thing I did was outline the entire book based on the talk, which I'd already spent a huge amount of time thinking about and organising. Then I did a full outline of the arguments and structures. Then I trained GPT-5 on my writing style. The way I did it – which I fully describe in the introduction to the book – was that I'd handle all the framing: the full introduction, the argument, the structure. But if there was a section where, for a few paragraphs, I was summarising a huge field of data, even something I knew well, I'd give GPT-5 the intro sentence and say, “In my writing style, prepare four paragraphs on this.” For example, I might write: “AI has the potential to see us humans like we humans see ant colonies.” Then I'd say, “Give me four paragraphs on the relationship between the individual and the collective in ant colonies.” I could have written those four paragraphs myself, but it would've taken a month to read the life's work of E.O. Wilson and then write them. GPT-5 wrote them in seconds or minutes, in its thinking mode. I'd then say, “It's not quite right – change this, change that,” and we'd go back and forth three or four times. Then I'd edit the whole thing and put it into the text. So this book that I could have written on my own in a year, I wrote a first draft of with GPT-5 as my named co-author in two days. The whole project will take about six months from start to finish, and I'm having massive human editing – multiple edits from me, plus a professional editor. It's not a magic AI button. But I feel strongly about listing GPT-5 as a co-author because I've written it differently than previous books. I'm a huge believer in the old-fashioned lone author struggling and suffering – that's in my novels, and in Virtuoso I explore that. But other forms are going to emerge, just like video games are a creative, artistic form deeply connected to technology. The novel hasn't been around forever – the current format is only a few centuries old – and forms are always changing. There are real opportunities for authors, and there will be so much crap flooding the market because everybody can write something and put it up on Amazon. But I think there will be a very special place for thoughtful human authors who have an idea of what humans do at our best, and who translate that into content other humans can enjoy. Traditional vs Indie: Why This Book Will Be Self-Published Jo: I'm interested – you mentioned that it's your named co-author. Is this book going through a traditional publisher, and what do they think about that? Or are you going to publish it yourself? Jamie: It's such a smart question. What I found quickly is that when you get to be an author later in your career, you have all the infrastructure – a track record, a fantastic agent, all of that. But there were two things that were really important to me here: I wanted to get this book out really fast – six months instead of a year and a half. It was essential to me to have GPT-5 listed as my co-author, because if it were just my name, I feel like it would be dishonest. Readers who are used to reading my books – I didn't want to present something different than what it was. I spoke with my agent, who I absolutely love, and she said that for this particular project it was going to be really hard in traditional publishing. So I did a huge amount of research, because I'd never done anything in the self-publishing world before. I looked at different models. There was one hybrid model that's basically the same as traditional, but you pay for the things the publisher would normally pay for. I ended up not doing that. Instead, I decided on a self-publishing route where I disaggregated the publishing process. I found three teams: one for producing the book, one for getting the book out into the world, and a smaller one for the audiobook. I still believe in traditional publishing – there's a lot of wonderful human value-add. But some works just don't lend themselves to traditional publishing. For this book, which is called The AI Ten Commandments, that's the path I've chosen. Jo: And when's that out? I think people will be interested. Jamie: April 26th. Those of us used to traditional publishing think, “I've finished the book, sold the proposal, it'll be out any day now,” and then it can be a year and a half. It's frustrating. With this, the process can be much faster because it's possible to control more of the variables. But the key – as I was saying – is to make sure it's as good a book as everything else you've written. It's great to speed up, but you don't want to compromise on quality. The Coming Flood of Excellent AI-Generated Work Jo: Yeah, absolutely. We're almost out of time, but I want to come back to your “flood of crap” and the “AI slop” idea that's going around. Because you are working with GPT-5 – and I do as well, and I work with Claude and Gemini – and right now there are still issues. Like you said about referencing, there are still hallucinations, though fewer. But fast-forward two, five years: it's not a flood of crap. It's a flood of excellent. It's a flood of stuff that's better than us. Jamie: We're humans. It's better than us in certain ways. If you have farm machinery, it's better than us at certain aspects of farming. I'm a true humanist. I think there will be lots of things machines do better than us, but there will be tons of things we do better than them. There's a reason humans still care about chess, even though machines can beat humans at chess. Some people are saying things I fully disagree with, like this concept of AGI – artificial general intelligence – where machines do everything better than humans. I've summarised my position in seven letters: “AGI is BS.” The only way you can believe in AGI in that sense is if your concept of what a human is and what a human mind is is so narrow that you think it's just a narrow range of analytical skills. We are so much more than that. Humans represent almost four billion years of embodied evolution. There's so much about ourselves that we don't know. As incredible as these machines are and will become, there will always be wonderful things humans can do that are different from machines. What I always tell people is: whatever you're doing, don't be a second-rate machine. Be a first-rate human. If you're doing something and a machine is doing that thing much better than you, then shift to something where your unique capacities as a human give you the opportunity to do something better. So yes, I totally agree that the quality of AI-generated stuff will get better. But I think the most creative and successful humans will be the ones who say, “I recognise that this is creating new opportunities, and I'm going to insert my core humanity to do something magical and new.” People are “othering” these technologies, but the technologies themselves are magnificent human-generated artefacts. They're not alien UFOs that landed here. It's a scary moment for creatives, no doubt, because there are things all of us did in the past that machines can now do really well. But this is the moment where the most creative people ask themselves, “What does it mean for me to be a great human?” The pat answers won't apply. In my Virtuoso novel I explore that a lot. The idea that “machines don't do creativity” – they will do incredible creativity; it just won't be exactly human creativity. We will be potentially huge beneficiaries of these capabilities, but we really have to believe in and invest in the magic of our core humanity. Where to Find Jamie and His Books Jo: Brilliant. So where can people find you and your books online? Jamie: Thank you so much for asking. My website is jamiemetzl.com – and my books are available everywhere. Jo: Fantastic. Thanks so much for your time, Jamie. That was great. Jamie: Thank you, Joanna.The post Writing The Future, And Being More Human In An Age of AI With Jamie Metzl first appeared on The Creative Penn.
ServiceNow, the AI platform for business transformation, has announced a set of new and forthcoming integrations with Microsoft, including an integration with Microsoft Agent 365, that deliver seamless agentic AI orchestration and governance capabilities for joint customers. By uniting workflow intelligence, trusted cloud, and AI governance, the companies will connect copilots, agents, and data seamlessly across Microsoft 365 and the ServiceNow AI Platform, to enable comprehensive visibility, compliance, and control over AI agents, setting a new standard for enterprise AI. The new capabilities meet users where they work across the Microsoft 365 environment, turning insight into action instantly. From conversations in Microsoft Teams, to meetings scheduled in Microsoft Outlook, to documents created in Microsoft Word, ServiceNow is uniting agentic AI capabilities across systems - with trust, control, and measurable business outcomes built in.?The combined capabilities of ServiceNow and Microsoft allow businesses to effectively manage teams of AI agents that work together to accomplish tasks autonomously and deliver real business outcomes. "ServiceNow is enabling a new era of autonomous workflows where the power of AI is multiplied using deterministic workflows - putting AI to work for people in the most demanding global enterprises," said Jon Sigler, executive vice president and general manager, AI Platform at ServiceNow. "By seamlessly connecting agentic orchestration and governance across ServiceNow and Microsoft, we're giving organisations the power to manage and monitor intelligent agents that deliver real work and real impact - safely and at scale. This is how we move from isolated AI experiences to enterprise-wide automation, delivering trust, control, and ROI" "Agent 365 gives organisations a simple, secure way to bring agents under control, extending the same infrastructure, apps, and protections they already trust for users," said Nirav Shah, corporate vice president, Microsoft Agent 365 at Microsoft. "Through this integration with ServiceNow, customers can accelerate and scale their AI transformation while staying safe, with built-in security and governance capabilities that support confident innovation." Deliver visibility, compliance, and trust at enterprise scale The ServiceNow AI Control Tower will integrate with Microsoft Foundry and Copilot Studio to provide full oversight for agents deployed on Microsoft platforms. This integration lets organisations apply consistent policies and controls across platforms, ensuring secure and accountable innovation. Enterprises can automatically discover and manage Microsoft Foundry and Copilot Studio agents within the ServiceNow AI Platform. ServiceNow's Configuration Management Database (CMDB) underpins AI Control Tower, unifying information from both internal and external sources to provide AI Control Tower with continuous, context-rich visibility across systems, ensuring agents operate with the most current, cross-platform data within clearly defined governance parameters. Additionally, the AI Control Tower Value Dashboard monitors AI adoption, performance, and ROI - helping quantify business impact. Real-time monitoring provides visibility into security, governance, and risk, boosting confidence, ensuring compliance, and enabling organisations to scale AI investments responsibly. Unlock AI for developers ServiceNow Build Agent and GitHub now work together to securely share context and capabilities. With GitHub's Model Context Protocol (MCP) Server, ServiceNow Build Agent can securely access GitHub issues, pull requests and discussions, and automate repetitive tasks while keeping developers in control. The result is a frictionless, AI-assisted development experience where business and code workflows converge, eliminating context switching and boosting focus. This ability to use GitHub's MCP server with ServiceNow Build Agent marks a major step toward agentic systems that ...
Law Enforcement Life Coach / Sometimes Heroes Need Help Podcast
This week I had the pleasure of sitting down with retired Leo, author, and Boulder Crest Struggle Well guide, JP McMichael. JP and I discuss his passion for helping those that have experienced trauma find a way forward. We discussed his line of children books as well as his role as a Struggle Well Guide for the Boulder Crest Foundation. Sit back and give this episode a listen and If you or somebody you love is struggling with trauma, contact JP and the Boulder Crest Foundation to find out more about post traumatic growth. Jmcmichael0621@outlook.comhttps://bouldercrest.org/research-resources/what-is-posttraumatic-growth-ptg/https://www.linkedin.com/in/j-p-mcmichael-ma-ba-cpt-44b62344/http://www.catalystofchangeassociates.com/https://www.amazon.com/Why-Wont-You-Play-Responders/dp/1792922981/ref=sr_1_8?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.f7Y7i2xyvpkwxpyM2bCv26wyVrqAppqh22Hj5mdLhfD-t_4QdLjJd8XPX-vF4Rn7U9HczexGarYZSRvgMmSIcKsvjRN5A6I1nKVJp8F9_u7OGQ5tBh12M9u6vYpAW_S9.C__SPT5AjpbelcxxeGpamxD7cPiIQOFTNNhR8deqhfk&dib_tag=se&qid=1762023234&refinements=p_27%3AJ.P.+McMichael&s=books&sr=1-8Public Speaker. Experienced Incident Coordinator with a demonstrated history of working in the government administration industry. Skilled in Crisis Management, Criminal Intelligence, Nonprofit Organizations, Intelligence Analysis, and Microsoft Word. Strong support professional with a Master's degree focused in Counseling Psychology from Liberty University.Thank you for taking the time to give this podcast a listen. If you would like more information on other Law enforcement Life Coach initiatives, our "Sometimes Heroes Need Help" wellness seminar or our One-On-One life coaching please visit :www.lawenforcementlifecoach.comJohn@lawenforcementlifecoach.comAnd if you would like to watch the interview you can view it in it's entirety on the Law Enforcement Life Coach YouTube Channel : https://studio.youtube.com/channel/UCib6HRqAFO08gAkZQ-B9Ajw/videos/upload?filter=%5B%5D&sort=%7B%22columnType%22%3A%22date%22%2C%22sortOrder%22%3A%22DESCENDING%22%7D
Welcome to the episode that gave Microsoft Word's spellchecker a stroke. Hey gang, for our last episode of October, we're going to have a little group therapy with Phobia Trivia. All sorts of fears are going to be popping up today. Connect with the show: DorkyGeekyNerdy.com Patreon BlueSky Facebook Spotify Discord Reddit
Welcome to the episode that gave Microsoft Word's spellchecker a stroke. Hey gang, for our last episode of October, we're going to have a little group therapy with Phobia Trivia. All sorts of fears are going to be popping up today. Connect with the show: DorkyGeekyNerdy.com Patreon BlueSky Facebook Spotify Discord Reddit
Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)
InDesign 2026 is here—and so are David and Anne-Marie! In this episode of The CreativePro Podcast, David Blatner and Anne-Marie Concepción bring back InDesign Secrets and dig into the newest release of Adobe InDesign (v21). They explore what's fresh, and what's just plain weird. From the new Flex Layout feature to live text editing in the browser, they unpack the good, the bad, and the future potential of InDesign's next chapter. Along the way, they share favorite finds, event updates, and a few classic "InDesign Secrets" throwbacks—complete with the return of the Obscure InDesign Feature of the Week (-eek!). Highlights: Who are David and Anne-Marie? Anne-Marie's LinkedIn Learning courses David's LinkedIn Learning courses InDesign User Group: 20th Anniversary Adobe MAX Obscure Feature of the Week: Emit CSS InDesign 2026: Flex Layout makes its debut (similar to CSS Flex Layout) David explains how Flex Containers let designers control spacing, alignment, and relationships among multiple objects. InDesign's "InCopy on the Web" (beta) Despite the confusing name, this new feature introduces true browser-based text editing for clients and collaborators. Cloud collaboration Cloud Documents Cloud documents now autosave, sync live edits, and support share-for-text-editing links. Math Expressions evolve Math Expressions MathML integration improves with a dedicated panel and the long-awaited ability to copy equations directly from Microsoft Word into InDesign. Jean-Claude's script to convert math expressions to RGB to CMYK Context Bar gets smarter (and slightly more confusing) The floating context menu now includes quick access to paragraph and character styles. Adobe Express template integration The new "Templates" option on InDesign's Home screen opens the Express web app, not native templates—an unexpected (and debatable) choice. Links & Resources Free Webinar: Bullets and Numbering in InDesign – Now available on demand Design + AI Summit – November 13–14, 2025 CreativePro Week – Coming to Nashville, June 29–July 3, home of Hatch Show Print Listeners can save $100 on any CreativePro event with the discount code: PODCAST CreativePro Membership – Unlock the magazine, downloads, and exclusive resources
Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)
Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)
Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)
Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate's affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein's estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate's affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate's value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims' Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein's victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate's assets and the status of the victims' claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein's Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein's estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate's management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein's criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein's estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims' Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein's abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In this episode, Liz and Rachel walk you through how to proofread documents more efficiently in Microsoft Word using the Microsoft Editor alongside JAWS. Learn how to access the Editor with keyboard commands, check spelling and grammar, and put clarity and conciseness tools to work. They also cover how to: Navigate spelling and grammar suggestions using JAWS-specific keystrokes Understand and improve your Editor Score and readability statistics Select writing style settings like Casual, Professional, or Formal Add words to custom dictionaries and manage dictionary settings Re-run Editor after ignoring suggestions or completing a review Use quick navigation keys to jump to spelling and grammar errors directly in your document Whether you're writing professionally, drafting emails, or creating documents for personal use, this episode is packed with practical tips to make your writing clearer, more accurate, and easier to manage with screen reader tools.
What did you think of this episode?Submitting work to agents and editors can be financially rewarding. Do you know that a submission can be rejected without even being read? Learn more in this episode.Welcome to Your Best Writing Life, an extension of the Blue Ridge Mountains Christian Writers Conference held in the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains of NC. I'm your host, Linda Goldfarb. Each week, I bring tips and strategies from writing and publishing industry experts to help you excel in your craft. I'm so glad you're listening in. During this encore episode, you'll learn guidelines to help your manuscripts avoid rejection.Rhonda is a multimedia creative who treasures her fairy tale life in Central Kentucky, insisting her home is her castle, even if her prince refuses to dig a moat. She has published works in several anthologies and periodicals, winning numerous awards for her historical romance books. LINKSRhonda Dragomir Proposal Template DownloadFree Writing Resource ClassesDetails for checking the reading grade level of your WORD document Hint for Mac users - To check Readability, (you do not have "Options" - instead, click Word, then Preferences, then Grammar & Spelling. From there, turn on "Show readability stats" - hitting OK is not required).To view the readability level, click the Editor icon, then select Document Stats under Insights. Tada! Grammarly AI-Powered writing enhancement toolChristian Writers Market GuideVisit Your Best Writing Life website.Join our Facebook group, Your Best Writing LifeYour host - Linda Goldfarb#1 Podcast in the "Top 50+ Must-Have Tools and Resources for Christian Writers in 2024". Awarded the Spark Media 2022 Most Binge-Worthy PodcastAwarded the Spark Media 2023 Fan Favorites Best Solo Podcast
This Day in Legal History: John Marshall Harlan DiesOn October 14, 1911, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan I died, closing the chapter on one of the Court's most powerful voices of dissent. Appointed in 1877 by President Rutherford B. Hayes, Harlan served for 34 years and left an indelible mark on constitutional law—not through majority opinions, but through unwavering dissents that often read as moral indictments of the Court's direction.Most famously, Harlan stood alone in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), rejecting the Court's embrace of “separate but equal” and warning that the Constitution is “color-blind.” At a time when the legal system was ratifying segregation, Harlan insisted that racial classifications violated both the spirit and letter of the Fourteenth Amendment. His lone dissent—widely criticized at the time—would later become foundational to the Court's reversal in Brown v. Board of Education more than half a century later.But Harlan's commitment to constitutional principles extended beyond race. He defended civil liberties in United States v. E.C. Knight Co., supported expansive readings of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and warned against unchecked corporate power. His approach was rooted in a belief that the Reconstruction Amendments were designed not just to end slavery, but to secure full legal equality.Though his views often put him in the minority, time has proven Harlan prophetic. His jurisprudence helped shift the constitutional center of gravity in the 20th century, as future courts took up the causes he championed alone. Remarkably, his grandson, John Marshall Harlan II, would go on to sit on the Court as well, carving out his own legacy in cases like Katz v. United States and Reynolds v. Sims.Justice Harlan I's death marked the loss of a constitutional conscience—one that held firm against the tide of his era. His dissents remain a blueprint for principled judging, reminding us that sometimes the most enduring legal influence comes not from prevailing, but from refusing to go along.In a massive trial that began this week in London's High Court, over 1.6 million claimants are suing several major carmakers—including Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Nissan, Renault, Peugeot, and Citroën—over allegations that they used illegal “defeat devices” to cheat diesel emissions tests. The lawsuit, one of the largest in UK legal history, follows in the wake of Volkswagen's 2015 “dieselgate” scandal and targets vehicles manufactured between 2012 and 2017.Claimants argue that these manufacturers deliberately programmed cars to meet legal nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions standards only under lab testing, while on-the-road emissions were allegedly up to 12 times higher—harming the environment and misleading consumers. They seek compensation for what they claim was a systemic, industry-wide choice to cheat rather than comply with the law.The defendants deny any wrongdoing, rejecting comparisons to VW and maintaining that emissions systems are legally and justifiably calibrated to function differently under certain conditions for technical and safety reasons. A central point of contention is whether the sample vehicles in the case contain prohibited defeat devices.The trial currently focuses on 20 vehicles, but its outcome will set a precedent for nearly 850,000 claims and influence another 800,000 similar suits against other carmakers, including Vauxhall/Opel and BMW. The court's decision on liability is expected by mid-2026, with damages to be determined separately.Carmakers accused in huge UK lawsuits of cheating diesel emissions tests | ReutersVisa and Mastercard have agreed to a $199.5 million settlement to resolve a class action brought by merchants who alleged the companies colluded to shift fraud-related costs onto businesses. Filed in federal court in Brooklyn, the settlement—still awaiting judicial approval—stems from a lawsuit first initiated in 2016, challenging rule changes that made merchants liable for chargebacks when they hadn't upgraded to chip-enabled point-of-sale systems.The plaintiffs argued this policy shift violated antitrust laws, claiming Visa and Mastercard moved in parallel to implement changes that benefited the networks while leaving merchants exposed to fraud losses without any offsetting fee reductions. According to the proposed agreement, Visa will pay $119.7 million and Mastercard will contribute $79.8 million. Discover and American Express, also named in the litigation, previously agreed to a $32.2 million settlement.While all four companies deny wrongdoing, plaintiffs' lawyers praised the deal, saying it recovers around 13% of the best-case damages scenario and over half of a more conservative estimate. Mastercard stated the settlement supports its broader efforts to increase security through technological upgrades, while Visa and the plaintiffs' counsel did not comment.This case is separate from the larger $5 billion settlement Visa and Mastercard reached in 2019 over allegations of fixing credit and debit card fees.Visa, Mastercard agree to $199.5 million settlement in merchants' class action | ReutersFederal courts in California and Alabama recently fined two attorneys thousands of dollars for submitting legal filings that contained fake case citations generated by AI. These sanctions highlight a persistent problem: despite repeated warnings, some lawyers continue to rely uncritically on generative AI tools that produce fictitious case law, a phenomenon known as “hallucination.” Judges in both cases criticized the attorneys for failing to verify the AI-generated content, calling the misconduct more serious than simple oversight.In Alabama, Judge Terry F. Moorer imposed a $5,000 sanction on James A. Johnson, a court-appointed criminal defense attorney, who filed a motion containing fabricated citations. The judge noted that Johnson used a Microsoft Word plugin called Ghostwriter Legal and submitted the motion during a holiday weekend while caring for a relative, but emphasized that such explanations do not excuse the lack of basic diligence. Johnson must now disclose the sanctions order in all cases he handles for the next year, and his client—visibly upset in court—requested new counsel, delaying the case.In California, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín fined attorney Edward A. Quesada $1,000 after his civil filing contained at least three false citations. Quesada admitted he had run out of time and may have accidentally copied one fake citation from an AI-generated web summary. He was also ordered to complete a CLE course on responsible AI use, with the judge citing his failure to stay informed about relevant legal technologies as a violation of professional conduct rules.Fake AI Citations Produce Fines for California, Alabama LawyersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I examine the property rights implications at the heart of Pung v. Isabella County, a case the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear. I argue that when the government seizes and sells property for unpaid taxes, “just compensation” shouldn't be defined by whatever price the property fetches at a government-run auction. That process—entirely designed and controlled by local officials—often prioritizes administrative efficiency over fair market value, turning tax sales into what I describe as “clearance rack” events.The problem is structural. Local treasurers are incentivized to close the books quickly rather than ensure former owners recover equity. That means the government may undersell a home, pay itself the back taxes, and call it a day—leaving the former owner uncompensated for the true value of what they lost. Worse, when courts treat the auction price as constitutionally adequate, they allow the taker to set the value of what it took.I draw a comparison to Tyler v. Hennepin County, where the Court ruled the government can't pocket surplus proceeds from a tax sale. Pung asks the natural follow-up: what rules apply when determining how much surplus exists? If courts accept fire-sale auction prices as “just compensation,” they effectively endorse an end-run around the Fifth Amendment.As a compromise, I propose a clear rule: auction prices should only be presumed fair if they fall within 10% of an appraised value. Outside that range, the burden should shift to the government to prove the sale was legitimate. After all, if local governments want the legitimacy of a market sale, they need to run a sale that looks like one. Otherwise, taxpayers are left holding the bag—punished not for failing to pay taxes, but for the government's indifference to recovering real value from their property. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
In this powerful episode, bestselling author T L Swan shares her incredible journey from financial ruin to literary success. After losing everything in a failed business venture, T L discovered a box of stories she'd written as a teenager and made a life-changing decision: she would write a book using a free 30-day trial of Microsoft Word because she couldn't afford to buy the program.That single decision led to a career that's produced 25 novels, millions of copies sold worldwide, and bestseller status in multiple countries. But T L's story goes beyond the numbers. She opens up about the mindset shifts that transformed her life, including how reading "The Secret" became a turning point during her darkest days.We also dive into a topic that affects countless women but rarely gets discussed openly: how perimenopause and menopause can derail careers and creativity. TL shares her two-year struggle with what doctors called "burnout" but was actually hormonal changes, and how finding the right treatment brought her back to full creative power.Whether you're facing your own challenges, curious about the publishing world, or navigating midlife changes, T L's story of resilience, reinvention, and taking control will leave you inspired. Plus, find out about her latest release, the Miles High Club Deluxe Edition, and why she made the bold move to buy back her rights from Amazon.This is a conversation about second chances, trusting your instincts, and never giving up on your dreams.Connect with T L Swan:https://tlswanauthor.com/T L on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tlswanauthor/T L on Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/tlswanauthorLink to pre-order the Miles High Club Series Deluxe Editions:https://tlswanauthor.com/coming-soon/Connect with Sabrina:https://www.instagram.com/Sabrina_Soto/www.SabrinaSoto.com
In July 2019, federal prosecutors filed a response to Jeffrey Epstein's motion for pretrial release in the criminal case United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB). The government's letter, addressed to Judge Richard Berman, opposed Epstein's request for release on bail. Prosecutors emphasized that Epstein's motion, dated July 11, 2019, did not mitigate the serious concerns already raised in their earlier memorandum supporting detention, submitted to Magistrate Judge Pitman on July 8. They argued that Epstein's wealth, private island, multiple residences, and access to international connections made him an extraordinary flight risk if he were released pending trial.The filing also stressed the severity of the charges—sex trafficking and conspiracy involving underage victims—as well as the strength of the evidence against Epstein, which they said made him highly likely to flee rather than face trial. By attaching and incorporating their original Detention Memo, prosecutors reinforced their position that only pretrial detention could ensure Epstein's presence in court and the safety of the community. In sum, the government urged Judge Berman to deny Epstein's release motion and keep him in custody while awaiting trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2019-07-12, JE, response to bail release request, final.docxBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Protesters take over Microsoft's Building 34, objecting to the company's technology being allegedly used by Israel. Is it more than simply cybersecurity usage, and how is Microsoft handling employee activism? In other news, Gemini suddenly vaults to the front of AI image editing capability, and the OG Gears of War has been remastered at least twice (but now it's cross-platform). Windows 11 Resume from your (Android) phone in testing in Dev and Beta channels Copilot app gets semantic search and new home page across all Insider channels 25H2 feature focus: Administrator Protection probably works but it's more disruptive than even UAC was Windows 11 gets a nice Bluetooth quality update Parallels Desktop 26 for Mac is out, but it's a minor update for individuals Microsoft 365 Microsoft to fix one of the biggest issues with Word Reminder: OneNote for Windows 10 hits EOL in October AI Apple's AI floundering continues as it considers a Perplexity or Mistral acquisition And tests a Gemini AI model for Siri in-house Perplexity offers a $5 per month Comet Plus subscription that pays content makers Anthropic sort of brings Claude extension to Chrome NotebookLM audio and video overviews are now available in over 80 languages And AI Mode is now available in Search in over 180 countries Norton's AI web browser gets off to a rough start Proton Lumo gets a big update Rant: The real problem with the Windows 2030 talk, and why everyone (on both sides) is wrong about AI Dev Microsoft lets Visual Studio devs tune-down GitHub Copilot, finally Microsoft makes some progress with improving Windows App SDK, supposedly Xbox and gaming Xbox Cloud Gaming expands to Xbox Game Pass Core Standard, adds PC games for the first time Steam and other stores come to Xbox app on PC Activision says it will reverse some of the stupidity it introduced in Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Nintendo invented the 30 percent fee that's still common today in digital app/game stores, but when it did so, the fee actually made sense... and it still does today, but only for the videogame industry Tips & Picks Tip of the week: Edit images with Gemini Tip of the week: Subscribe to Chris's new newsletter, The Windows ReadMe App pick of the week: Gears of War App pick of the week: NVIDIA Broadcast app Hosts: Leo Laporte and Paul Thurrott Guest: Chris Hoffman Download or subscribe to Windows Weekly at https://twit.tv/shows/windows-weekly Check out Paul's blog at thurrott.com The Windows Weekly theme music is courtesy of Carl Franklin. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsor: cachefly.com/twit
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
