Podcasts about rights act

Florida officials conducted an internal review into the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) after years of public outrage over how the deal was reached and why it so dramatically undercut federal sex-trafficking charges. The review focused primarily on the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, which allowed Epstein to plead guilty to minor state charges despite overwhelming evidence of serial sexual abuse of minors. Prosecutors concluded that while the outcome was deeply troubling, they found no prosecutable misconduct by state attorneys involved at the time. The internal findings leaned heavily on procedural defenses, arguing that decisions fell within prosecutorial discretion, even as the deal allowed Epstein to serve minimal jail time with work release and avoid federal indictment altogether.Critics have long argued that the Florida review was structurally designed to absolve the system rather than interrogate it, narrowly framing the inquiry to avoid confronting how extraordinary the Epstein deal truly was. The investigation did not meaningfully examine coordination with federal prosecutors, political pressure, or the extent to which Epstein's wealth and legal firepower distorted the process from the outset. Nor did it grapple with the fact that victims were never notified of the deal, a violation later confirmed by a federal judge under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. In practice, the Florida internal investigation functioned less as a reckoning and more as institutional damage control—acknowledging public anger while insulating decision-makers and leaving the central question unanswered: how one of the most notorious sex-trafficking cases in modern U.S. history was quietly neutralized before it ever reached open court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Florida officials conducted an internal review into the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) after years of public outrage over how the deal was reached and why it so dramatically undercut federal sex-trafficking charges. The review focused primarily on the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, which allowed Epstein to plead guilty to minor state charges despite overwhelming evidence of serial sexual abuse of minors. Prosecutors concluded that while the outcome was deeply troubling, they found no prosecutable misconduct by state attorneys involved at the time. The internal findings leaned heavily on procedural defenses, arguing that decisions fell within prosecutorial discretion, even as the deal allowed Epstein to serve minimal jail time with work release and avoid federal indictment altogether.Critics have long argued that the Florida review was structurally designed to absolve the system rather than interrogate it, narrowly framing the inquiry to avoid confronting how extraordinary the Epstein deal truly was. The investigation did not meaningfully examine coordination with federal prosecutors, political pressure, or the extent to which Epstein's wealth and legal firepower distorted the process from the outset. Nor did it grapple with the fact that victims were never notified of the deal, a violation later confirmed by a federal judge under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. In practice, the Florida internal investigation functioned less as a reckoning and more as institutional damage control—acknowledging public anger while insulating decision-makers and leaving the central question unanswered: how one of the most notorious sex-trafficking cases in modern U.S. history was quietly neutralized before it ever reached open court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Florida officials conducted an internal review into the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) after years of public outrage over how the deal was reached and why it so dramatically undercut federal sex-trafficking charges. The review focused primarily on the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office, which allowed Epstein to plead guilty to minor state charges despite overwhelming evidence of serial sexual abuse of minors. Prosecutors concluded that while the outcome was deeply troubling, they found no prosecutable misconduct by state attorneys involved at the time. The internal findings leaned heavily on procedural defenses, arguing that decisions fell within prosecutorial discretion, even as the deal allowed Epstein to serve minimal jail time with work release and avoid federal indictment altogether.Critics have long argued that the Florida review was structurally designed to absolve the system rather than interrogate it, narrowly framing the inquiry to avoid confronting how extraordinary the Epstein deal truly was. The investigation did not meaningfully examine coordination with federal prosecutors, political pressure, or the extent to which Epstein's wealth and legal firepower distorted the process from the outset. Nor did it grapple with the fact that victims were never notified of the deal, a violation later confirmed by a federal judge under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. In practice, the Florida internal investigation functioned less as a reckoning and more as institutional damage control—acknowledging public anger while insulating decision-makers and leaving the central question unanswered: how one of the most notorious sex-trafficking cases in modern U.S. history was quietly neutralized before it ever reached open court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Clare Fletcher and Philippa O'Malley sit down to discuss the government's roadmap for implementing the Employment Rights Act, giving you a steer on what your immediate priorities should be and what to look out for on the horizon. 

Episode 1: Introducing the Employment Rights Act 2025 Speakers: Nick Marshall, Kloe Halls, Julie Toal In our podcast, we discuss the changes affecting employers in the following areas and how to prepare:  >    Unfair dismissal  >    Contractual variations  >    Workplace harassment  >    Collective redundancy   >    The Fair Work Agency 

In this extra seasonally jolly episode Simon talks through six reasons to like the new Renters' Rights Act. This podcast is produced in association with PaTMa (https://www.patma.co.uk/), the leading application for self managing landlords who want to save time and stay compliant. Easily track properties, tenancies, tenants, repairs, rent, mortgage payments and safety certificates. Get your FREE account today (https://www.patma.co.uk/). Episode links: * Start preparing for the Renters' Rigths Act with PaTMa Property Manager (https://www.patma.co.uk/property-manager/). * Get your free weekly property market stats from PaTMa (https://www.patma.co.uk/property-market-updates/). * Find us on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRfrbvIJfodFK8tikisCjVw) or LinkedIn: Simon (https://www.linkedin.com/in/simonpither/). Subscribe to The Business of Property podcast on Spotify (https://open.spotify.com/show/73chI0Nqi9eRFUM7tkHc6r), Apple (https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-business-of-property/id1495635728), and all podcast platforms (https://www.thebusinessofproperty.com/subscribe). Please leave a rating and review if you're enjoying the show.

Boni sous la Workers Rights Act : les règles, les calculs et les recours expliqués par Juhi Desai by TOPFM MAURITIUS

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Send us a textThe Renters' Rights Act is here, and the rulebook for landlords and tenants is changing fast. We brought in Alice and Anthony McMullen of Homemaker Properties to translate the legal shifts into practical steps you can take today—and a timeline you can actually plan around.We start with what lands first: new council investigatory powers this December and the end of Section 21 by May 1, 2026. Possession doesn't vanish, it moves to Section 8—with specific grounds for selling or moving back in, tougher notice periods, and a higher bar for evidence. We dig into how to document conversations, serve notices you can prove, and avoid courtroom surprises. Then we unpack the big structural shift: all tenancies become periodic in 2026. That means flexible exits for tenants, and more methodical processes for landlords who want stability. Student lets and HMOs are a special case; Article 4 areas, seasonal gaps, and planning constraints demand sharper strategy, from joint and several agreements to mixing professionals with students to reduce voids.Money and mechanics get a reboot too. Annual rent increases must run through Section 13 with defined notice periods. Advance rent requirements are curbed, while guarantors and insurance‑backed options step in for international or credit‑thin applicants. Discrimination against families and benefits claimants is out; affordability criteria, fairly applied, keep you compliant. Pet requests shift to case‑by‑case judgment, with property suitability and impact on other occupants as key tests. On enforcement, fines rise and rent repayment orders stretch to 24 months. From late 2026, the landlord database arrives, with safety certificates, property details, and public access to enforcement history—nudging the market toward transparency and professional standards.We also look ahead: a private‑sector Decent Homes Standard, updated HHSRS rules, damp and mold timeframes, and the likely EPC C requirement by 2030. The path is clear even if dates slide. Our take: tighten your systems, audit compliance, price fairly with evidence, and communicate clearly. If management admin is eating your week, consider professional help; your time has value. If your portfolio leans heavily on marginal HMOs, model family lets in strong locations where tenants stay longer and voids shrink. Want the immediate pVALUABLE RESOURCES: Let me help you build your property business, Check out how I can support your investing now. Visit https://www.thepropertyunleashed.com/home My Property Investing Community called Property Education To Action, This is the best place to achieve your property goals and build the life you desire. https://educationtoaction.com You can learn and take action on your property goals for just £1 Visit www.educationtoaction.com to explore free Property Ebooks and guides in Rent-to-Rent, Serviced Accommodation, Deal Sourcing, PLOs and more and also our FREE training masterclasses to help you generating a sustainable income through property. https://www.facebook.com/groups/816926952556608 to meet like-minded property investors and be a part of the community. CONNECT WITH ME: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.fitzgerald.7921Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/markfitzgeraldentrepreneur/Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-fitzge...

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA's protections did not attach until formal federal charges were filed. DOJ lawyers maintained that during the pre-charge negotiation phase, federal prosecutors were operating within their lawful discretion to decline prosecution and enter into a resolution without notifying potential victims. According to this position, because Epstein was never federally charged at the time the agreement was reached, the government contended there were no legally recognized “crime victims” under the CVRA to notify, consult, or confer with during the negotiations.The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ's defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims' rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government's reading of federal law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Title

The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA's protections did not attach until formal federal charges were filed. DOJ lawyers maintained that during the pre-charge negotiation phase, federal prosecutors were operating within their lawful discretion to decline prosecution and enter into a resolution without notifying potential victims. According to this position, because Epstein was never federally charged at the time the agreement was reached, the government contended there were no legally recognized “crime victims” under the CVRA to notify, consult, or confer with during the negotiations.The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ's defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims' rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government's reading of federal law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Title

The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA's protections did not attach until formal federal charges were filed. DOJ lawyers maintained that during the pre-charge negotiation phase, federal prosecutors were operating within their lawful discretion to decline prosecution and enter into a resolution without notifying potential victims. According to this position, because Epstein was never federally charged at the time the agreement was reached, the government contended there were no legally recognized “crime victims” under the CVRA to notify, consult, or confer with during the negotiations.The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ's defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims' rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government's reading of federal law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Title

The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA's protections did not attach until formal federal charges were filed. DOJ lawyers maintained that during the pre-charge negotiation phase, federal prosecutors were operating within their lawful discretion to decline prosecution and enter into a resolution without notifying potential victims. According to this position, because Epstein was never federally charged at the time the agreement was reached, the government contended there were no legally recognized “crime victims” under the CVRA to notify, consult, or confer with during the negotiations.The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ's defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims' rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government's reading of federal law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:TitleBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA's protections did not attach until formal federal charges were filed. DOJ lawyers maintained that during the pre-charge negotiation phase, federal prosecutors were operating within their lawful discretion to decline prosecution and enter into a resolution without notifying potential victims. According to this position, because Epstein was never federally charged at the time the agreement was reached, the government contended there were no legally recognized “crime victims” under the CVRA to notify, consult, or confer with during the negotiations.The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ's defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims' rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government's reading of federal law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:TitleBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA's protections did not attach until formal federal charges were filed. DOJ lawyers maintained that during the pre-charge negotiation phase, federal prosecutors were operating within their lawful discretion to decline prosecution and enter into a resolution without notifying potential victims. According to this position, because Epstein was never federally charged at the time the agreement was reached, the government contended there were no legally recognized “crime victims” under the CVRA to notify, consult, or confer with during the negotiations.The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ's defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims' rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government's reading of federal law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:TitleBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA's protections did not attach until formal federal charges were filed. DOJ lawyers maintained that during the pre-charge negotiation phase, federal prosecutors were operating within their lawful discretion to decline prosecution and enter into a resolution without notifying potential victims. According to this position, because Epstein was never federally charged at the time the agreement was reached, the government contended there were no legally recognized “crime victims” under the CVRA to notify, consult, or confer with during the negotiations.The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ's defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims' rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government's reading of federal law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:TitleBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA's protections did not attach until formal federal charges were filed. DOJ lawyers maintained that during the pre-charge negotiation phase, federal prosecutors were operating within their lawful discretion to decline prosecution and enter into a resolution without notifying potential victims. According to this position, because Epstein was never federally charged at the time the agreement was reached, the government contended there were no legally recognized “crime victims” under the CVRA to notify, consult, or confer with during the negotiations.The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ's defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims' rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government's reading of federal law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:TitleBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice has consistently argued that the controversial 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement did not violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act because, in its view, the CVRA's protections did not attach until formal federal charges were filed. DOJ lawyers maintained that during the pre-charge negotiation phase, federal prosecutors were operating within their lawful discretion to decline prosecution and enter into a resolution without notifying potential victims. According to this position, because Epstein was never federally charged at the time the agreement was reached, the government contended there were no legally recognized “crime victims” under the CVRA to notify, consult, or confer with during the negotiations.The government further argued that the plea deal itself was a lawful exercise of prosecutorial authority designed to secure accountability through a state-level conviction while conserving federal resources and avoiding litigation risks. DOJ filings emphasized that the CVRA was not intended to regulate prosecutorial decision-making before charges are brought, nor to force prosecutors to disclose or negotiate plea discussions with potential victims in advance. In short, the DOJ's defense rests on a narrow interpretation of when victims' rights legally begin, asserting that while the outcome may have been deeply troubling, it did not constitute a statutory violation under the government's reading of federal law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:TitleBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

All hail the Renters' Rights Act, the biggest shake-up to renting in England for more than 30 years, which officially comes into play next May. It's a bundle of positive news for tenants in private housing, not least the ditching of section 21 “no fault” evictions. So Mick got on the Zoom with Bismah Naqui from Generation Rent, an organisation that's been working tirelessly for the past decade to amplify the voices and concerns of private renters, to talk about why this is a big win for them and a big win for tenants.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

On 1 May 2026, the biggest shift in decades hits the rental market as the new Renters' Rights Act lands. With big changes coming, Rob & Rob break down what's happening, what to expect once the reform takes effect, and how you should be preparing.  (1:00) News story of the week.  (5:32) Renters Rights explained…  (6:40) What's happening with tenancies?  (11:20) What landlords need to know about rents.  (13:32) Other key changes.  (15:12) Next steps for landlords.  (18:30) Future outlook.  (19:15) Rob & Rob's final takeaways.  (23:43) Hub Extra.   Links mentioned:  Savills research article ‘UK mainstream housing market outlook'   Booksy here  Sand Dams Worldwide update video  Enjoy the show?  Leave us a review on Apple Podcasts - it really helps others find us!  Sign up for our free weekly newsletter, Property Pulse  Find out more about Property Hub Invest 

The final assembly rollout of the first Airbus A350F freighter, the ICAO-mandated emissions standards that take effect in 2027, flight delay compensation, a streaming data black box, IAE signals future GTF engine, and FAA flight restrictions end. Additionally, updates on Boeing's criminal and civil cases, the USS Forrestal aircraft carrier, and listener mail. Aviation News First A350F airframe rolled out from final assembly line The Airbus A350F freighter was launched in 2021 and originally scheduled to enter service in 2025, but Spirit AeroSystems' inability to deliver enough central fuselage sections prevented that. Spirit AeroSystems has experienced quality control and production output issues, compounded by financial challenges and a pending business restructuring involving both Airbus and Boeing.​ These issues affected both the freighter and passenger A350 production rates. The A350F is designed to meet the ICAO-mandated emissions standards taking effect in 2027. The standards also work in coordination with ICAO's CORSIA scheme, requiring carbon offsetting for most international flights from 2027–2035, with mandatory participation for most states.​ A350F rendering, courtesy Airbus. Trump Admin Blocks Plan to Force Airlines to Pay Customers for Delays Flight cancellations by US airlines result in refunds for passengers, but flight delays are not compensated. The Biden-era proposal would have required airlines to pay cash compensation to passengers when carriers are responsible for major flight delays. The FAA said the proposal would create “unnecessary regulatory burdens” and impose significant costs on airlines. The DOT said it preferred to “allow airlines to compete on the services and compensation they provide.” Black Box in the Sky Captures Data on the Fly Honeywell Aerospace is developing a system it calls “Black Box in the Sky” (BBITS). It replaces hardware-based recorders with streamed flight data in near real-time. BBITS streams data via a cloud-based portal, simplifying flight data collection, and is consistent with the ICAO Timely Recovery of Flight Data (TRFD) mandate.  The ICAO Timely Recovery of Flight Data (TRFD) technical standard, part of the Global Aeronautical Distress and Safety System (GADSS), requires that aircraft use technologies that ensure flight data is quickly and reliably accessible for investigators after an incident, without needing to physically recover the flight data recorder (FDR), particularly in cases such as accidents over water. TRFD applies to large commercial aircraft with type certification applications submitted after January 1, 2021. See: Honeywell to Connect 'Black Boxes' for Aviation Safety. IAE partners reaffirm GTF engine push for next-generation single-aisle jets International Aero Engines (IAE) is a joint venture formed in 1983 to develop the new V2500 engine for the 150-seat single-aisle aircraft market. The initial consortium was Pratt & Whitney (30%), Rolls-Royce (30%), Japanese Aero Engine Corporation (JAEC) (23%), MTU Aero Engines (11%), and Fiat (6%). Fiat later withdrew, and its share was taken over by Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney. Then Pratt bought out RR in 2012, making PW the majority shareholder. The V2500 powers the Airbus A320 family and the McDonnell Douglas MD-90. More than 7,800 engines have been sold. In a statement, (IAE international engine partnership marks key milestones and charts future propulsion path), the consortium said, “Together, the companies will evolve the required technologies for the development of the most advanced and efficient GTF engine technology for the next generation of commercial aircraft.” Aerotime comments that “IAE is signaling that an evolutionary path may offer lower risk than more disruptive architectures, such as open-rotor systems or hydrogen-powered solutions.” Shane Eddy, president, Pratt & Whitney, said, "As founding partners on some of the most critical engine technology and support in aerospace today, we remain fully committed to these engine programs and working together on the development of future commercial aircraft applications, particularly the next generation single aisle aircraft. As we work to chart IAE's future propulsion path, our performance on today's GTF program will remain our highest priority as we continue to focus on delivering to our customer commitments." Trump administration ends flight cuts at busy airports The FAA's flight cuts at 40 major airports ended, and the DOT emergency directive was cancelled. DOT pointed to a decline in air traffic controller-related staffing triggers. Controllers received 70 percent of the pay they were owed during the shutdown. FAA said staffing levels have continued to snap back into place since the end of the government shutdown. The current data aligns with staffing conditions before the shutdown.” Boeing Update Erin Applebaum, attorney at aviation accident law firm Kriendler & Kriendler, describes the latest developments in the Boeing criminal and civil lawsuits. First civil trial of 737 Max in Ethiopia begins as Boeing settles three more lawsuit Boeing has accepted liability for the crash, and the jury's task in this civil case was limited to setting damages for burial costs, lost income, and emotional suffering for the family of one victim. Boeing's liability had already been established and is the same for all victims. On the other hand, damages are assessed on a per-victim basis, taking into account the unique circumstances of each individual. Boeing settles with families of three 737 Max crash victims Boeing won't face criminal charge over 737 Max crashes that killed hundreds of people A federal judge in Texas granted the government's request to dismiss, and Boeing will not face a criminal conspiracy charge. Erin describes how the judge did not think dismissal was warranted, but his hands were tied as he would have had to find that the government was acting in bad faith. The families have filed an appeal under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Mentioned Video: MAINE | An Aviation Short Film https://youtu.be/H-JRkvfYBXY Hosts this Episode Max Flight, Rob Mark, our Main(e) Man Micah, and Erin Applebaum.

The report from the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility found that no prosecutors committed formal misconduct in approving Epstein's 2008 non-prosecution agreement, but condemned Alexander Acosta (then U.S. Attorney in Miami) for “poor judgment” in allowing the deal to proceed without full federal investigation, excluding key evidence, and failing to notify victims before the plea. It noted a troubling 11-month gap in Acosta's emailed records during the critical period when the federal indictment was being drafted and abandoned. The deal also included sweeping immunity for potential co-conspirators, negotiated with minimal transparency, while Epstein was allowed to escape what many considered imminent federal charges.Critically, the report drew fire for virtually ignoring the survivors themselves: meetings with victims, their input, and their statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act were treated superficially or bypassed entirely. One alleged victim called the report “another slap in the face,” arguing that it served more as a self-protective cover-up than a genuine reckoning of how power, money and institutional apathy let Epstein continue abusing minors. In failing to hold anyone accountable—despite what the survivors and victim-rights advocates say was extensive prosecutorial and institutional failure—the review leaves the deeper questions of enablement, institutional bias and justice for victims unanswered.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has defended Labour's controversial new asylum plans, with much of the opposition coming from within the party. Plus: The Renters' Rights Act is set to become law, Zack Polanski hits back at Labour, and we speak to British journalist Sami Hamdi about his detention by ICE. With Michael Walker, Freddie Feltham, […]

After Jeffrey Epstein's first arrest in 2008 on charges involving solicitation of a minor, he managed to escape serious consequences through an extraordinary plea agreement negotiated with federal prosecutors in Florida. Instead of facing federal sex-trafficking charges that could have resulted in decades behind bars, Epstein received an exceptionally lenient 13-month sentence in county jail—one that allowed him a controversial “work-release” privilege, enabling him to leave the facility for up to 12 hours a day, six days a week. The non-prosecution agreement also granted immunity to unnamed “co-conspirators,” shielding his network from accountability. The arrangement was conducted with secrecy so severe that it violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act, leaving survivors uninformed and stunned when the deal surfaced years later. It quickly became viewed as one of the most disturbing examples of preferential treatment ever afforded to a wealthy defendant.Even more alarming, multiple investigations later alleged that Epstein continued abusing underage girls even during his so-called incarceration, exploiting the freedoms granted under the work-release program. Reports asserted that he received visits from young women brought to his office while under state supervision, behavior witnesses described as continuing his sexual exploitation pipeline almost uninterrupted. Instead of being monitored closely, Epstein was allowed to travel extensively, meet with associates, conduct business, and maintain access to wealth, influence, and resources. His ability to continue predatory conduct while supposedly punished exposed the profound failure—and possible corruption—of the justice system tasked with restraining him, ultimately setting the stage for another decade of alleged abuse before his final arrest in 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

It's been confirmed that the long-awaited Renter's Rights Act will come into force next year on May 1, with the government setting out a staggered timeline for sweeping renters' reforms. As the biggest shake-up to private renting in a generation, the lobbying organisation Generation Rent described it as a “vital first step in righting the power imbalance between landlords and tenants”. But critics are concerned it will prompt more landlords to sell up. We're joined by Matt Hutchinson, Communications Director of flat-sharing site SpareRoom, who shares his perspective on the capital's housing market, whether landlords will be deterred by the new housing regulations, and what further action the government should take. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the majority ruling, the Eleventh Circuit denied Wild's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (“CVRA”) does not permit a crime-victim to initiate a freestanding civil lawsuit seeking judicial enforcement of her CVRA rights when no criminal prosecution has been formally commenced against the defendant. The court reasoned that the statute's wording in § 3771(b)(1) ties a court's obligation to “ensure” victims' rights to “any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim,” and thus the rights trigger only once a “preexisting proceeding” exists. Because in this matter the federal government never filed charges or otherwise commenced criminal proceedings against Jeffrey Epstein in the relevant jurisdiction and context, the court held the CVRA simply was not triggered and Wild could not enforce her rights via stand-alone litigation.In his dissent, Judge Hull strongly disagreed, arguing that the plain language of §§ 3771(a)(5) and (a)(8) grants victims a “reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government” and a “right to be treated with fairness,” and that § 3771(d)(3) explicitly authorizes a motion for relief “if no prosecution is underway”—which, in his view, means the CVRA does create a judicial enforcement mechanism even pre-charge. Hull asserted the majority's interpretation imposes a judicially created requirement—i.e., that an indictment or formal prosecution must be pending—when no such prerequisite appears in the statute's text. He warned that the decision unduly favors wealthy defendants and government actors who avoid formal charges, leaving victims of pre-charge misconduct with no remedy. He would have held that Wild's rights attached pre-charge, were violated, and that she is entitled to seek judicial enforcement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

After Jeffrey Epstein's first arrest in 2008 on charges involving solicitation of a minor, he managed to escape serious consequences through an extraordinary plea agreement negotiated with federal prosecutors in Florida. Instead of facing federal sex-trafficking charges that could have resulted in decades behind bars, Epstein received an exceptionally lenient 13-month sentence in county jail—one that allowed him a controversial “work-release” privilege, enabling him to leave the facility for up to 12 hours a day, six days a week. The non-prosecution agreement also granted immunity to unnamed “co-conspirators,” shielding his network from accountability. The arrangement was conducted with secrecy so severe that it violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act, leaving survivors uninformed and stunned when the deal surfaced years later. It quickly became viewed as one of the most disturbing examples of preferential treatment ever afforded to a wealthy defendant.Even more alarming, multiple investigations later alleged that Epstein continued abusing underage girls even during his so-called incarceration, exploiting the freedoms granted under the work-release program. Reports asserted that he received visits from young women brought to his office while under state supervision, behavior witnesses described as continuing his sexual exploitation pipeline almost uninterrupted. Instead of being monitored closely, Epstein was allowed to travel extensively, meet with associates, conduct business, and maintain access to wealth, influence, and resources. His ability to continue predatory conduct while supposedly punished exposed the profound failure—and possible corruption—of the justice system tasked with restraining him, ultimately setting the stage for another decade of alleged abuse before his final arrest in 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Brad Edwards, the attorney who represented many of Jeffrey Epstein's victims, has often spoken of Courtney Wild as one of the most courageous survivors he's ever known. He called her “an extraordinary person” who refused to be silenced, even when the entire system seemed designed to bury her voice. Wild was one of Epstein's earliest known victims, first identified by law enforcement back in 2005 when she was just a teenager living in Palm Beach. Despite that, she was never informed or consulted about the secret non-prosecution agreement that federal prosecutors granted Epstein in 2008—a deal that not only spared him federal charges but also protected his co-conspirators. Edwards said that what happened to Wild wasn't just an oversight—it was a deliberate betrayal, an intentional violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act that stripped her of the justice she was entitled to.He has repeatedly described Wild's determination as the backbone of the fight to expose the full scope of Epstein's corruption. It was her lawsuit—Wild v. United States—that forced the government to admit that victims had been deliberately kept in the dark while Epstein and his legal team struck their secret deal behind closed doors. Edwards praised her for standing up not just for herself but for every survivor who was silenced or dismissed. He noted that Wild endured years of retraumatization by the system, yet never gave up on seeking justice, even taking her case all the way to the Supreme Court. For Edwards, Wild became the moral center of the entire Epstein saga—a symbol of resilience in the face of institutional cowardice and proof that the voices of survivors, once ignored, could ultimately force the truth into the light.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the majority ruling, the Eleventh Circuit denied Wild's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (“CVRA”) does not permit a crime-victim to initiate a freestanding civil lawsuit seeking judicial enforcement of her CVRA rights when no criminal prosecution has been formally commenced against the defendant. The court reasoned that the statute's wording in § 3771(b)(1) ties a court's obligation to “ensure” victims' rights to “any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim,” and thus the rights trigger only once a “preexisting proceeding” exists. Because in this matter the federal government never filed charges or otherwise commenced criminal proceedings against Jeffrey Epstein in the relevant jurisdiction and context, the court held the CVRA simply was not triggered and Wild could not enforce her rights via stand-alone litigation.In his dissent, Judge Hull strongly disagreed, arguing that the plain language of §§ 3771(a)(5) and (a)(8) grants victims a “reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government” and a “right to be treated with fairness,” and that § 3771(d)(3) explicitly authorizes a motion for relief “if no prosecution is underway”—which, in his view, means the CVRA does create a judicial enforcement mechanism even pre-charge. Hull asserted the majority's interpretation imposes a judicially created requirement—i.e., that an indictment or formal prosecution must be pending—when no such prerequisite appears in the statute's text. He warned that the decision unduly favors wealthy defendants and government actors who avoid formal charges, leaving victims of pre-charge misconduct with no remedy. He would have held that Wild's rights attached pre-charge, were violated, and that she is entitled to seek judicial enforcement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome 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 court's apology to the Jeffrey Epstein survivors came as a long-overdue acknowledgment of how profoundly the justice system had failed them. In open court, federal judges conceded that the victims had been deliberately misled during the original 2008 non-prosecution deal—kept in the dark while prosecutors secretly negotiated Epstein's immunity and that of his co-conspirators. The apology recognized that these survivors were denied their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and that the system's betrayal compounded their trauma, allowing Epstein years of freedom to continue abusing others. While symbolic, the apology served as a public admission that the government's handling of the case was inexcusable, marking a rare moment of institutional accountability in a saga defined by corruption, influence, and silence.Meanwhile...Bruce Reinhart is a federal magistrate judge for the Southern District of Florida who became tied to the Jeffrey Epstein saga due to his career moves before taking the bench. Prior to becoming a judge, Reinhart served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the very office that was investigating Epstein during the 2006–2008 sex trafficking probe. In a move that raised serious ethical concerns, Reinhart abruptly resigned from the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2008—just as Epstein's sweetheart non-prosecution agreement was being finalized—and within days began representing several of Epstein's employees, including pilots and schedulers who were viewed as potential co-conspirators. That revolving-door transition, from prosecutor to defense lawyer for Epstein's inner circle, sparked outrage and remains one of the most glaring examples of the systemic coziness that surrounded Epstein's first case.Reinhart's actions were later cited in lawsuits accusing the Department of Justice of mishandling the Epstein investigation, with questions raised about conflicts of interest and whether his departure influenced prosecutorial leniency. Though Reinhart denied any wrongdoing, the optics were damaging—particularly as more details surfaced about how the 2008 non-prosecution deal effectively protected Epstein and his associates from serious federal charges. Years later, Reinhart reentered public controversy when he signed off on the search warrant for former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate, bringing renewed attention to his past ties to the Epstein affair. His name has since become emblematic of the quiet backroom dealings and blurred ethical lines that defined the first Epstein investigation and the broader failure of justice that followed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

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 court's apology to the Jeffrey Epstein survivors came as a long-overdue acknowledgment of how profoundly the justice system had failed them. In open court, federal judges conceded that the victims had been deliberately misled during the original 2008 non-prosecution deal—kept in the dark while prosecutors secretly negotiated Epstein's immunity and that of his co-conspirators. The apology recognized that these survivors were denied their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act and that the system's betrayal compounded their trauma, allowing Epstein years of freedom to continue abusing others. While symbolic, the apology served as a public admission that the government's handling of the case was inexcusable, marking a rare moment of institutional accountability in a saga defined by corruption, influence, and silence.Meanwhile...Bruce Reinhart is a federal magistrate judge for the Southern District of Florida who became tied to the Jeffrey Epstein saga due to his career moves before taking the bench. Prior to becoming a judge, Reinhart served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the very office that was investigating Epstein during the 2006–2008 sex trafficking probe. In a move that raised serious ethical concerns, Reinhart abruptly resigned from the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2008—just as Epstein's sweetheart non-prosecution agreement was being finalized—and within days began representing several of Epstein's employees, including pilots and schedulers who were viewed as potential co-conspirators. That revolving-door transition, from prosecutor to defense lawyer for Epstein's inner circle, sparked outrage and remains one of the most glaring examples of the systemic coziness that surrounded Epstein's first case.Reinhart's actions were later cited in lawsuits accusing the Department of Justice of mishandling the Epstein investigation, with questions raised about conflicts of interest and whether his departure influenced prosecutorial leniency. Though Reinhart denied any wrongdoing, the optics were damaging—particularly as more details surfaced about how the 2008 non-prosecution deal effectively protected Epstein and his associates from serious federal charges. Years later, Reinhart reentered public controversy when he signed off on the search warrant for former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate, bringing renewed attention to his past ties to the Epstein affair. His name has since become emblematic of the quiet backroom dealings and blurred ethical lines that defined the first Epstein investigation and the broader failure of justice that followed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome 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)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)

It's been a painful week for the government, with a migrant sex offender accidentally released from prison and a damning report on the spiralling costs of the asylum system. But is a plan to house asylum seekers on military sites really the answer?  Political journalist Zoë Grünewald - standing in for Coco as Nish's co-host this week - dives into how this re-hashed Conservative plan has managed to piss off, well, just about everyone.  In better news - it's curtains for the hated section 21 ‘no-fault evictions' notices. The long-awaited Renters' Rights Act has become law! Nish and Zoe talk to housing journalist Vicky Spratt about how big a deal this is for renters across England.  Plus - why Housing Secretary Steve Reed's Maga-style 'build, baby, build' crusade looks likely to end in affordable housing targets more pathetic than they are now.   Then later – from spending £75,000 on flags to their only black party chair quitting - is Reform out-reforming Reform? And why is Jeremy Corbyn swapping parliament for panto this Christmas. GUESTS Vicky Spratt USEFUL LINKS Peckham Not For Sale https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/acapeckham/ CREDITS Sky News X / Steve Reed  Talk TV LBC Reform UK ITV News IG / Pleasance Theatre  Pod Save the UK is a Reduced Listening production for Crooked Media. Contact us via email: PSUK@reducedlistening.co.uk BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/podsavetheuk.crooked.com Insta: https://instagram.com/podsavetheuk Twitter: https://twitter.com/podsavetheuk TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@podsavetheuk Facebook: https://facebook.com/podsavetheuk Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@PodSavetheUK Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices