Podcasts about opr

O último semestre de 2025 trouxe a São Tomé e Príncipe a qualificação de todo o seu território como reserva da Biosfera e ainda a classificação da representação teatral Tchiloli como Património Cultural Imaterial da Humanidade. No entanto, o país continua a enfrentar desafios entre a vaga de emigração e o mistério à volta do desaparecimento do processo do 25 de Novembro de 2022.   São Tomé e Príncipe celebrou este ano os 50 anos da sua independência. A RFI esteve em São Tomé e Príncipe para falar com os são-tomenses sobre este meio século de autonomia, as conquistas, mas também o que ficou por realizar.  Em Julho de 2025 emitimos nas nossas antenas, e pode também ainda ouvir na internet, um especial sobre os 500 anos da história deste arquipélago, assim como o domínio colonial e a passagem à constituição de um Estado são-tomense. Alguns meses depois destas emissões, vamos revisitar alguns dos temas desse especial e dar conta do que se passou entretanto. O primeiro país reserva da biosfera da UNESCO Entre florestas verdejantes, rotas de nidificação de tartarugas e paraíso dos ornitólogos, a beleza e riqueza natural de São Tomé e Príncipe não é nenhum segredo, mas até agora só uma parte - a ilha do Príncipe - era reconhecida pela UNESCO como reserva da biosfera. Em Setembro, e após uma candidatura de vários anos, também a ilha de São Tomé, especialmente a grande floresta chamada Ôbo, foi reconhecida como reserva da biosfera, transformando o país no primeiro Estado no Mundo a ser completamente abrangido por esta denominação. Algo inédito, mas impulsionado pelo "trabalho exemplar" feito no Príncipe, como explicou António Abreu, director da Divisão de Ciências Ecológicas e da Terra na UNESCO, disse em entrevista à RFI no mês de Setembro. "É algo inédito, mas muito interessante. Durante 12, 13 anos, era apenas a ilha do Príncipe, que é de facto uma reserva da biosfera exemplar e onde, apesar dos problemas estruturais e de ser uma região ultraperiférica marítima num país em vias de desenvolvimento. Há um sucesso não só ao nível da conservação da natureza, mas também o impacto que teve na promoção do crescimento económico, da demonstração de que há alternativas viáveis em relação à exploração e utilização sustentável dos recursos naturais fez com que a ilha maior, São Tomé, também encarasse essa perspectiva. Teremos o primeiro país, mesmo sendo pequeno, integralmente reserva da Biosfera. O que demonstra que o modelo das reservas da biosfera não tem limites exclusivamente nas reservas da biosfera", disse o alto funcionário da UNESCO. Este alargamento da reserva da biosfera a São Tomé vem estabelecer uma escolha estratégica do país para o seu desenvolvimento futuro, preferindo a conservação do património natural à destruição da floresta. No Sul da ilha de São Tomé instalaram-se há alguns anos plantações de palmeiras tendo como intuito a extração do óleo de palma, uma tendência que deve agora parar de forma a honrar esta distinção da UNESCO. "Em 2008, 2009, a opção do povo do Príncipe, do Governo Regional do Príncipe, em concertação com o Governo nacional, foi optar por uma via alternativa à da monocultura do óleo de palma. Porque a monocultura do óleo de palma tem uma dimensão inicial que pode proporcionar algum rendimento, mas ao fim de alguns anos o ciclo produtivo esgota se. Entretanto, a monocultura ajudou a destruir o potencial, a diversidade ecológica e, portanto, os serviços dos ecossistemas que proporcionam água, que proporcionam abrigo, proporcionam cultura e identidade ao território, acabam por destruir. E, portanto, neste caso, na ilha de São Tomé, o que se espera que possa haver então? Aquilo que nós chamamos uma restauração ecológica, que é uma das funções que as reservas da biosfera também promovem em alguns sítios, tem promovido com muito sucesso e que permitem recuperar alguns erros e algumas decisões que não foram bem apoiadas do ponto técnico e de sustentabilidade", disse António Abreu. O país espera agora a classificação das roças São João, Água-Izé, Monte Café e Diogo Vaz na Ilha de São Tomé e Belo Monte e Sundy, na Ilha do Príncipe, como Património Mundial da UNESCO. A historiadora Nazaré Ceita, que participa neste processo de classificação, considera que mais do que o património, está a salvaguardar-se a memória de todos os são-tomenses. “Quer dizer que há qualquer coisa que se está a passar que é uma valorização da memória? Na verdade, a memória colectiva sobre as roças, que é tão grande que não será apenas para São Tomé e Príncipe, será uma memória coletiva de Cabo Verde, de Moçambique, de Angola e quiçá de outros espaços que nós falamos menos. E a valorização da memória colectiva é muito necessária para a perpetuação da história. E eu acredito que o monumento mais visível que temos para esse efeito é precisamente o conjunto das roças. Será uma forma de criar uma exceção para São Tomé e Príncipe em termos históricos. Hoje é como na UNESCO se diz, quando nós falamos da questão da autenticidade, da exclusividade, do valor universal excepcional, vários países podem ter tudo, mas para São Tomé e Príncipe eu acredito que o valor universal excepcional está precisamente nas roças que nós temos que na candidatura. Aliás, já temos a candidatura preliminar, mas é preciso agora todo um trabalho para a classificação que leva às vezes um tempo. Estamos esperançados. Apesar dos meus 60 anos, eu acredito que eu ainda consiga ver esta classificação mundial” Já no final do ano, também o Tchiloli, uma encenação teatral e musical representada há centenas de anos nas ilhas foi oficialmente inscrita no Património Cultural Imaterial da Humanidade. Emir Boa Morte, director-geral da Cultura e secretário da comissão nacional da UNESCO, lembra que “mais importante que o prémio, é a preservação do Tchiloli” e prometeu uma estratégia de salvaguarda desta tradição. "Nós recebemos este prémio, mas, no entanto, o que é mais importante agora é nós preservarmos. Vai haver aqui uma estratégia para a preservação desse mesmo património cultural imaterial", garantiram as autoridades. Impasse no sector do turismo Com o reconhecimento internacional na conservação da natureza e do património histórico, São Tomé e Príncipe tem todas as potencialidades para uma aposta no turismo que respeite e ajude a conservar o ambiente, mas também seja fonte de rendimento para o país como explicou António Abreu, director da Divisão de Ciências Ecológicas e da Terra na UNESCO. "Outra área também que é demonstrativa é, digamos, o investimento na área do turismo sustentável, em que o modelo que se pratica nas reservas da biosfera é o exemplo e o Príncipe é um exemplo disso. É um modelo de qualidade que oferece uma experiência única e, portanto, oferecendo uma experiência única, baseada nos valores naturais e culturais, o visitante não vai apenas pelo sol e pela praia, mas vai porque vai vivenciar e vai ter a oportunidade de ter uma experiência que é única. E isso em termos de competitividade no mercado do turismo, naquilo que é o mercado global, dá uma vantagem comparativa a estes sítios", explicou António Abreu. No entanto, para ter um turismo sustentável e de qualidade, não aderindo à moda do turismo de massas, são necessários operadores turísticos por um lado capazes de proporcionar estadias e experiências extraordinárias aos turistas e, por outro, que respeitem e preservem a natureza das ilhas. Até agora, o maior operador no país era o grupo HBD, do multimilionário Mark Shuttleworth, sendo também o maior empregador da ilha Príncipe.  Este grupo que gere actualmente a Roça Sundy, a Roça Paciência e os resorts Sundy Praia e Bombom, entre outros investimentos também em São Tomé, instalou-se no país no início dos anos 2010 e desde lá promove também acções a nível social. Entretanto, em Outubro deste ano, após disputas com o governo regional do Príncipe e desacordos com o Governo central, especialmente porque o HBD queria cobrar o acesso dos habitantes locais a praias dos seus resorts, o grupo anunciou que iria abandonar as ilhas. Mark Shuttleworth disse numa carta dirigida ao governo regional do Príncipe que se uma parte das lideranças políticas da ilha pensa que o trabalho do seu grupo é, e passo a citar, “feito de má-fé, com intenções neocoloniais”, o grupo iria retirar-se do país. Em entrevista à RFI, em Julho de 2025, o presidente da região autónoma do Príncipe, Filipe Nascimento, reconheceu o perigo de um possível monopólio e disse, já nessa altura, querer aposta na diversificação de investidores. "Como tudo na vida, temos sempre que lidar com os temas, com todos os cuidados, as cautelas, mas considerar que devemos trabalhar com confiança. E é isso que trabalhamos diariamente para estabelecer a confiança em toda a sociedade ou em todo o mercado, que é na relação, os poderes democráticos e os investimentos, nomeadamente dos empresários estrangeiros, mas também com uma componente muito importante que é a população. Criar as condições políticas para o ambiente de negócio, isto é, o sucesso dos investimentos e, ao mesmo tempo, que haja este benefício para todas as partes, sobretudo para a população, para as metas que as autoridades pretendem almejar. Em que é importante as receitas, a população, o emprego, mas também criar um quadro jurídico legal que regule de forma harmoniosa e equilibrada todas estas relações, que dê, por um lado, garantia de proteção dos investimentos, mas, por outro lado, respeito para não só as regras do mercado funcionarem, como também o respeito da cultura, o ambiente, as pessoas de um modo geral existe, embora no dia a dia aspectos que vão surgindo que é preciso gerir na base de um diálogo que temos feito com muita responsabilidade e continuaremos a fazer. Os riscos há em qualquer mercado, mas sim, no caso do Príncipe, uma economia pequena numa ilha. Há, portanto, necessidade de continuarmos a trabalhar para a diversificação dos subsectores da economia, mas também dos intervenientes. Isto é, mais empresários, mais investidores", disse Filipe Nascimento. Após um mês de impasse e negociações, o desfecho deste imbróglio ainda não é conhecido, com as autoridades a assegurar que querem que o grupo permaneça e manifestações da sociedade civil a favor do HBD. A imigração são-tomense face às novas regras sem Portugal Este é um grupo que se tornou essencial nas ilhas, já que emprega quase mil pessoas, num território onde é difícil encontrar trabalho qualificado, o que nos últimos anos tem levado muitos jovens e menos jovens a procurar emprego fora do país, especialmente desde 2023, altura em que a CPLP abriu portas à mobilidade dos seus cidadãos. Assim, São Tomé terá perdido nos últimos três anos cerca de 10% da sua população, com grande incidência na faixa etária dos 18 aos 35 anos. Mais de metade escolhe Portugal para viver e partem à procura de melhores condições económicas. Este é um movimento que a historiadora e professora universitária Nazaré Ceita identificou nas salas de aula do ensino superior no país e que tem já fortes impactos no dia a dia de quem vive nas ilhas. Esta académica espera que também venha a haver impactos positivos. "Hoje, quando eu procuro um canalizador que não encontro, eu procuro um eletricista que não encontro. E muitos deles são levados por empresas portuguesas organizadas. Quer dizer que há qualquer coisa que está a escapar. Então eu vejo isto com preocupação, mas a minha preocupação ao mesmo tempo é levada para o outro lado, porque há muitos países em que são as remessas dos emigrantes é que desenvolvem o país. Pode ser que as pessoas que estejam fora estejam a criar condições para ajudarem a desenvolver São Tomé e Príncipe. Uns podem continuar lá, mas pode ser que outros regressem. Só me preocupa o facto de muitos deles, caso dos alunos daqui da faculdade, que às vezes não terminam a sua monografia e vão para lá fazer trabalhos completamente humildes. Quando eu acho que houve um investimento bastante grande e nós estamos com salas vazias, às vezes de alunos que dizem eu vou me embora. Quer dizer que há qualquer coisa que se está a passar", declarou a docente universitária. O primeiro-ministro de São Tomé e Príncipe, Américo Ramos, deplorou em Agosto a saída dos jovens o estrangeiro e disse querer implementar uma “emigração consciente”, que permita aos são-tomenses terem boas condições de vida nos países de destino. A gestão dos fluxos migratórios é uma das prioridades do seu Governo, segundo afirmou em Agosto. "Enquanto não atingimos o nível de desenvolvimento desejado, devemos saber gerir os fenómenos migratórios com responsabilidade. A migração está, por isso, na agenda política deste Governo, através do programa de envolvimento da diáspora no desenvolvimento nacional. Foram já definidas políticas públicas com acções concretas, algumas das quais já em curso desde o início do ano de 2025. Entre estas acções destacam-se a criação do Gabinete das Comunidades, com o objectivo de acompanhar e implementar políticas públicas direccionadas à nossa diáspora. O reforço da protecção consular através da CPLP, sobretudo em países sem representação diplomática directa. A ampliação da rede diplomática. A facilitação do acesso a documentos oficiais essenciais para legalização e integração. A criação de incentivos fiscais e aduaneiros, nomeadamente através de regime simplificado de pequenas remessas e do Regime Especial para bens Essenciais", detalhou o líder do Governo. Desde lá, as regras da imigração para Portugal mudaram, com os portugueses a endurecerem os critérios para quem se pode instalar no seu território. Tendo em conta este acordo, os fluxos migratórios dos países lusófonos não foram completamente travados, mas quem se quiser estabelecer em Portugal vindo de um país da CPLP terá agora de passar pelo crivo da unidade de coordenação de fronteiras do sistema de segurança interno, isto é, da verificação dos sistemas de segurança. É este órgão que atribui depois um parecer para obter o visto de residência, deixando assim de ser possível pedir em Portugal autorizações de residência CPLP apenas com vistos de turismo ou com isenção de visto. Assim, com a nova lei de estrangeiros quem queira imigrar para Portugal terá primeiro de obter um visto consular e depois pedir uma autorização de residência. Nas ilhas, pouco a pouco, verifica-se também o fenómeno inverso, com alguns jovens, desiludidos com o projecto de se mudarem para a Europa, regressam e reinstalam-se nas suas comunidades, como relatou Filipe Nascimento, presidente da região autónoma do Príncipe, tendo ele próprio vivido e estudado em Portugal antes de ter regressado às suas origens, assumindo o comando do governo regional a partir de 2020.  “Estamos a perder os nossos jovens e isso preocupa sempre, tratando-se particularmente de quadros e talentos. Temos pessoas a sair, seja professores, enfermeiros, pessoas empregadas no sector do turismo que está em crescimento e sentimos dos empregadores esse desafio de continuidade, de formação, capacitação, de novos quadros. Mas, como tudo na vida, devemos olhar por um lado, com preocupação, mas não com drama. Temos que continuar a fazer o nosso trabalho e interessa ver que mesmo se olharmos para os dois últimos anos em que saiu um maior número de jovens como nunca saiu, fruto desta evolução da legislação de migração de Portugal enquanto parte do Tratado da CPLP para a mobilidade das pessoas, mas respeitar porque subscrevemos esse tratado. Mas, por outro lado, dizer que muitos jovens que saíram reconheceram que afinal não é tão mau estar no Príncipe. Eu sei de quatro jovens que já estavam lá há alguns meses e já regressaram e mais que lá estão, estão a preparar o seu regresso. E sei de muitos que também vão em jeito de férias para explorar, chegam lá e respeitam o tempo de férias de um mês ou 15 dias e regressam ao perceberem que é um bom país. O Príncipe oferece tudo para se ser feliz, constituir família, realizar sonhos cá com o que temos. Então isto também nos orgulha, mas é um desafio para nós. Criar um ambiente melhor, dar mais terrenos aos jovens para a construção de casa, oferecer e já temos feito também uma trajetória interessante. Fizemos parceria com universidades e temos centenas de pessoas hoje a frequentar o ensino superior à distância. Continuamos a trabalhar para baixar o custo de vida, continuarmos a oferecer uma saúde de mais qualidade” O roubo do processo do 25 de Novembro Se a imigração tem contribuído para desgastar o capital social do país, o caso do 25 de Novembro de 2022 tem assombrado a política são-tomense. Este ataque ao quartel fez quatro mortos e foi qualificado pelas autoridades nessa altura como uma tentativa de golpe de Estado, com a Comunidade Económica dos Estados da África Central (CEEAC) a ter dito em 2025 que “não existem provas sérias e convincentes” de que o grupo quisesse tomar o poder. Foi o próprio Presidente, Carlos Vilas Novas, a pedir no dia 12 de Julho deste ano que a situação real daquele dia fosse esclarecida o mais rapidamente possível. "Aproveito a ocasião para exortar as autoridades competentes e de uma vez por todas, a darem o respetivo seguimento à conclusão do processo da morte de quatro cidadãos, na sequência da invasão do quartel das Forças Armadas, em 25 de Novembro de 2022. As autoridades devem o desfecho deste caso as vítimas aos seus familiares e à sociedade. A vida é o bem jurídico supremo e é a todos os títulos inadmissível que os que contra ela atentam fora das causas de justificação previstas na lei, saiam impunes. É necessário que a verdade seja conhecida e a justiça seja feita em conformidade com as leis em vigor na nossa República", declarou o chefe de Estado. No entanto, o processo do julgamento da alegada tentativa de golpe de Estado de 25 de Novembro de 2022 que resultou na morte de quatro homens no quartel militar de São Tomé, desapareceu das instalações do Estado-Maior das Forças Armadas no final de Outubro.  Mais de vinte militares, nomeadamente altas patentes, foram acusados pelo Ministério Público de estarem envolvidos na morte e tortura dos quatro homens, mas até ao momento não foram julgados porque o Tribunal Civil se declarou incompetente e remeteu o processo para o Tribunal Militar que, por sua vez, refere não dispor de meios para este julgamento. No terceiro aniversário deste acontecimento, a ministra da Justiça são-tomense, Vera Cravid, considerou que este acontecimento permanece "na memória colectiva como um dos momentos mais sombrios da história recente” do país. Já para Filinto Costa Alegre, membro da Associação Cívica e que lutou pela independência do país, o esclarecimento do que se passou naquele dia é essencial para que os jovens voltem a acreditar no país e para construir um futuro colectivo. “Há que fazer um trabalho que leve as pessoas a paulatinamente irem Acreditando que há vida para além da emigração. Há vida para além da emigração? Há futuro para além da emigração? Então, mas é preciso demonstrar isso? Isso não é com discursos, é na prática. E então, do meu ponto de vista, há matérias que podem servir como rampa de lançamento para essa nova fase para os próximos 50 anos. Mobilizar as pessoas, as pessoas de boa vontade, as pessoas que ainda acreditam que querem regenerar.  Então vamos construir grupos de trabalho para diversos assuntos. Mas os mais prioritários são o combate ao 25 de novembro. Esta, esta política, essa estratégia de intentonas, inventonas para para resolver problemas. Por isso tem que acabar” Se, como o Presidente Carlos Vila Nova expressou no seu discurso dos 50 anos de independência do país, o país não está onde gostaria de estar, há também motivos de regozijo e de esperança de um futuro melhor para São Tomé e Príncipe. "Mas se nem tudo são rosas, nem tudo são espinhos, não podemos ignorar as conquistas alcançadas ao longo destes 50 anos, apesar das dificuldades económicas. Os sucessivos governos de São Tomé e Príncipe fizeram importantes avanços no campo da educação, da saúde e dos direitos humanos. A escolarização foi uma prioridade nas primeiras décadas da independência. O governo procurou formar uma nova geração de líderes e técnicos que pudessem colaborar na edificação de uma sociedade mais justa e igualitária. A inclusão social também foi um ponto chave das políticas públicas, com ênfase na redução das desigualdades, na garantia do acesso à saúde e à educação para todos os cidadãos, especialmente em áreas rurais e isoladas. As políticas de educação foram conduzidas no sentido de promover maior equidade e um maior acesso à formação profissional essencial para o desenvolvimento do país no cenário global. As universidades e centros de formação técnica. Entretanto, surgidos a desempenhar um papel cada vez mais importante na capacitação da população e no desenvolvimento do capital humano, As dificuldades com que nos temos debatido não podem desbotar ganhos como o aumento da taxa de escolarização e a consequente redução da analfabetização a níveis residuais. A construção de um grande número de jardins de infância, de escolas primárias e secundárias em todos os distritos do país e na região Autónoma não podem desbotar ganhos como a construção de vários liceus que visam juntar se ao antigo e único. A data da independência, integrado na antiga Escola Técnica Silva Cunha, não podem desbotar ganhos como o surgimento de instituições de ensino superior privadas no país e a criação da Universidade de São Tomé e Príncipe e dos seus diversos pólos, traduzida na possibilidade de formar mais homens e mulheres que melhor sirvam o país e o mundo. hoje convertido em aldeia global. As dificuldades com que nos debatemos não podem anular ganhos, como a redução significativa das taxas da mortalidade materna e infantil, o aumento da cobertura vacinal, o aumento da esperança média de vida ou a erradicação do paludismo não podem anular ganhos como o aumento exponencial da construção de novos centros de tratamento de água potável, bem como o aumento da cobertura do fornecimento de água potável e da eletricidade a quase toda a população do país", concluiu o Presidente são-tomense.

Kari Goldyn znajdziesz tu:- Insta - https://www.instagram.com/kari.goldyn/?hl=pl- Podcast - https://open.spotify.com/show/51hKeiW2Hkf6YrrYeSfG1c?si=06e16af9043645d4- LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/karigoldyn/Czym jest profil kolczasty? Jak lepiej używać swoich mocnych stron? Jak się nie zaciąć przy dołkach? Jak dbać o swoje zasoby? No i w skrócie: jak sobie zbudować wygodne i elastyczne życie przy neuroatypowości, spektrum autyzmu, ADHD?Przekonajmy się!_____Cześć! PRZEKONAJMY SIĘ to podcast dla osób wysokosprawczych, twórczych i odważnych! Służy do walki z ironią, cynizmem, apatią i wszystkim innym, co nam wjeżdża na banie. Full hopecore i sporo rozkminek

​ @igrejakyrios  | Igreja Evangélica Kyrios - Série: Presença de Deus - VIICulto do dia 07.12.2025 - Ezequiel 2:1-8A mensagem de hoje encerra a série “A Presença de Deus” com um chamado direto: a presença do Espírito Santo é o que nos coloca de pé quando tudo em volta diz que já acabou. O Pr. Klaus compartilha experiências reais de quase desistência e mostra como Deus age primeiro no coração antes de mudar qualquer circunstância.Nesta palavra você vai entender que não é a força, a disciplina ou a motivação humana que nos sustentam, mas o Espírito Santo que invade a nossa vida e nos reposiciona. Assim como Ezequiel no exílio, Deus vai te levantar no lugar onde você caiu, para que você declare com fé: “Este não é meu fim.”Volte a crer, posicione-se e receba a graça de permanecer firme, mesmo diante dos “coveiros”, dos “escorpiões” e das vozes pessimistas.A presença que nos põe de pé está aqui!Compartilhe com alguém que precisa de uma palavra... Ouça nossas músicas autorais!Meu Lugar - https://youtu.be/htZ9wZZryaMMinha Adoração - https://youtu.be/6kQtwF0m67kSe conecte conosco!https://portal.igrejakyrios.com.br/fale-conosco/Inscreva-se no nosso canal: www.youtube.com/@igrejakyrios Nosso Site: http://www.igrejakyrios.com.brInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/igrejakyrios/

In the second part of our two-part pod series on tokenization of equities, the conversation with our special guest Brett Redfearn, Founder and CEO of Panorama Financial Markets Advisory, moves from the basics of tokenization to the implications of this major market structure change. Brett discusses current token activity, the role of the issuer in the move to decentralized trading of equity tokens, the debate over OPR and whether it is relevant to the token movement and how sandbox experiments will work. In the latter part of the discussion, Brett opines on potential threats to traditional financial institutions such as exchanges and transfer agents and he provides advice to regulators and his crystal ball on the end state for equity market structure in 5-10 years. This podcast was recorded on November 26, 2025. Chapter Headings:               00:39    Current Tokenization Activity08:38    Issuer Involvement in Token Activity11:23    Is the Elimination of OPR Essential to the Token Movement?18:39    The Sandbox Experiments and Litigation26:33    Threat to Trad-Fi Infrastructure31:02    Advice to Regulators36:06    Brett's Crystal Ball on Market Structure 5-10 years from now38:47    How to Learn More About Tokenization For relevant disclosures, visit: tdsecurities.com/ca/en/legal#PodcastDisclosure. To learn more about TD Securities, visit us at tdsecurities.com or follow us on LinkedIn @tdsecurities. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Juliusz Woźny przytacza opowieści i legendy otaczające postać szczególnie dziś ważną: św. Mikołaja. Oprócz tego zdaje relacje z wystawy Gdzie król chodzi piechotą, nietypowej ekspozycji w Muzeum Miejskim we Wrocławiu prezentującej naczynia nocne, czyli tzw. nocniki! Następnie łączymy się z Ryszardem Derdzińskim. W kolejnym odcinku Tolkieniady, nasz śródziemski ekspert przybliża postać zwaną Father Christmas, w którą brytyjski pisarz wcielał się w listach do swoich dzieci. Ze Śródziemia kierujemy się do Chicago, skąd prof. Mira Modelska-Creech przekazuje życzenia dla wszystkich słuchaczy Radia Wnet, nie tylko te mikołajowe. Sięga też do celebracji, która odbyła się tydzień temu w USA — Święta Dziękczynienia. Wyjaśnia skąd się ono wzięło i co znaczy dla Amerykanów. W drugiej godzinie audycji, prof. Jerzy Miziołek zanurza się w fascynującym wykładzie o pomnikach Adama Mickiewicza na całym świecie. Na koniec audycji rozmawiamy z antykwariuszem  Bogusławem Szostkiewiczem. Bookinista kontynuuje punktowanie literackiego mainstreamu, przypominając, którym polskim autorom warto poświęcić swój czas. 

Sociální sítě jako Facebook, X nebo TikTok mají být zodpovědné za internetové podvody, které nebudou schopné odstranit ze svých stránek. Předpokládá to návrh nové evropské směrnice a nařízení proti finančním podvodům na internetu, na jejichž textu se shodli vyjednavači Evropského parlamentu a Rady Evropské unie. „Je to vůči těm platformám náročný požadavek. Oprávněný, spravedlivý, ale náročný,“ uznává v pořadu Online Plus vědecký redaktor Deníku N Petr Koubský.

Sociální sítě jako Facebook, X nebo TikTok mají být zodpovědné za internetové podvody, které nebudou schopné odstranit ze svých stránek. Předpokládá to návrh nové evropské směrnice a nařízení proti finančním podvodům na internetu, na jejichž textu se shodli vyjednavači Evropského parlamentu a Rady Evropské unie. „Je to vůči těm platformám náročný požadavek. Oprávněný, spravedlivý, ale náročný,“ uznává v pořadu Online Plus vědecký redaktor Deníku N Petr Koubský. Všechny díly podcastu Online Plus můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

Sylwię Czubkowską znajdziesz tu:- Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/sylv_czubkowska/- Podcast - https://audycje.tokfm.pl/prowadzacy/319,Sylwia-Czubkowska- Książki - https://www.znak.com.pl/autorzy/sylwia-czubkowska-11711Czy do technologii można jeszcze mieć jakikolwiek optymizm? Czym zastąpić Google'a? Dlaczego ważne jest wspieranie lokalnych inicjatyw? Przekonajmy się!_____Cześć! PRZEKONAJMY SIĘ to podcast dla osób wysokosprawczych, twórczych i odważnych! Służy do walki z ironią, cynizmem, apatią i wszystkim innym, co nam wjeżdża na banie. Full hopecore i sporo rozkminek

00:00 A sua casa está te roubando01:11 Regra 1: Minimalismo não é Pobreza02:44 Regra 2: O Filtro do "Sim Óbvio"04:02 Regra 3: A Moeda da Hora-Vida05:36 Regra 4: A Estratégia da Qualidade Brutal07:08 Regra 5: Identidade Desvinculada (O Ego)08:45 Regra 6: JOMO vs FOMO10:49 Regra 7: O Corte Final (Relacionamentos)12:04 O Próximo Passo: Onde colocar seu dinheiro (RC Wealth)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Paulinę Danielak znajdziesz tu:- Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/paulinadanielak.psycholog/- Podcast - https://www.youtube.com/@danielak.lukowska- Strona - https://paulinadanielak.pl/Co można zrobić, gdy nas wymroziło emocjonalnie i potem nie wiemy jak wrócić do znanej wcześniej normalności?Przekonajmy się!_____Cześć! PRZEKONAJMY SIĘ to podcast dla osób wysokosprawczych, twórczych i odważnych! Służy do walki z ironią, cynizmem, apatią i wszystkim innym, co nam wjeżdża na banie. Full hopecore i sporo rozkminek

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (NPA) of 2007-08, reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), detailed how federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida negotiated a deal that effectively ended an active federal investigation into Epstein's alleged trafficking and abuse of underage girls. The agreement granted broad immunity to Epstein and unnamed “potential co-conspirators,” allowed him to plead guilty to state charges instead of facing major federal sex-trafficking counts, and did so without informing or consulting the victims before the deal was executed. The OPR found that while no evidence of corruption or impermissible influence was uncovered, the decision represented “poor judgment” by the prosecutors.Further, the report underscored significant procedural deficiencies: victims were not made aware of the NPA, the USAO did not meaningfully engage with them in accordance with the Crime Victims' Rights Act's principles, and the immunity granted in the NPA curtailed future federal prosecution of Epstein's associates—even as investigation into other victims and broader criminal conduct may have persisted. In short, the OPR concluded that the case resolution was legally within the prosecutors' discretion, but deeply flawed in its execution and fairness to those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)