Podcasts about SJC

On the evening of May 10, 1988, a passing driver on Howard Street in Brockton, MA, stopped to investigate something unusual on the side of the road. When the driver got closer to what they thought was a bag, they realized it was actually the body of twenty-four-year-old Anthony LoConte, bleeding badly from injuries to his face and head.Initially, investigators believed LoConte was the victim of a hit-and-run accident; however, when the coroner examined the body, he discovered a bullet hole in the back of LoConte's head, indicating that he'd been murdered.It took twelve years for investigators to track down LoConte's killer, but in the winter of 2000, California Highway Patrol arrested Robert Morganti on drug charges and a quick background check connected them to a 1988 warrant for Morganti for the murder of Anthony LoConte. Robert Morganti was extradited back to Massachusetts, where he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for LoConte's murder. However, due to a controversial 2024 law concerning life sentences for young offenders, Robert Morganti could be granted parole in the near future.Consider signing the petition by visiting https://www.change.org/p/help-uncle-tony-uphold-mandatory-life-sentences-in-massachusetts-bill-s942 .Thank you to the Incredible Dave White of Bring Me the Axe Podcast for research and Writing support!ReferencesBoston Globe. 1988. "Police believe drugs are linked to slaying of Brockton man." Boston Globe, May 12: 35.Boyle, Maureen. 2000. "Murder suspect caught in Calif." The Enterprise (Brockton, MA), March 21: 1.Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Robert J. Morganti. 2009. SJC-09830 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth, November 25).Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Robert J. Morganti. 2014. SJC-11281 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, February 12).Peterson, Dave. 2000. "Murder suspect's long flght ends in Modesto." Modesto Bee, March 21: 1.Stern, Amelia. 2025. 'No remorse': Taunton woman devastated by ruling that could free her brother's killer. April 25. Accessed May 04, 2025. https://www.tauntongazette.com/story/news/courts/2025/04/25/taunton-ma-brockton-anthony-loconte-murder-victim-sjc-robert-morganti-parole/83271252007/.Stay in the know - wondery.fm/morbid-wondery.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Tim Forson joins JMN to discuss his upcoming retirement from the SJC Superintendent office, and reflects on his career and accomplishments. Beyond that, he looks toward the future and continued growth and success for SJC schools, as final candidates to succeed him interview today.

Lt. Todd Boger & Director Russ Martin join JMN to discuss proposed E-bike speed limit modifications, and safety considerations for E-bike (and all bike-related) passengers. Several recent injuries in the SJC area, and an increase in injury incident frequency in Florida, have prompted considerations on how best to mitigate risk factors, as SJC commissioners discussed the topic at last night's meeting.

Finn reports on SJC commission interest in regulating and retricting speeds on E-bikes, following several injury incidents within the past week and a study showing the frequency of related injuries escalating annually in Florida.

Construction on King Street begins today, Florida lawmakers pass bill protecting firefighters, and SJC promotes Hurricane Preparedness Week

Florida law named after SJC teen killed heading to governor's desk, substitutes teachers are concerned about their pay, and Georgia-Pacific announces expansion in Palatka

SJC submits draft e-bike ordinance after crash, Florida Black History museum could be split in three locations, and the roundabout art has been cancelled.

Send us a textIn the first of a two-part conversation, we sit down with Chris (aka Dexta), co-founder of Planet Wax, a legendary record shop, bar, venue, and radio station in New Cross dedicated to underground dance music and its surrounding culture and community. This episode explores Dexta's journey through the UK music scene from the late 1990s to early 2010s. Growing up in North London, his musical passion began with compilation albums and cassette tapes, with a particular affinity for The Prodigy and UK garage. Dexta recalls his first production experiments using basic software that came free in a cereal box, before transitioning to DJing after acquiring a pair of belt-drive turntables. The conversation traces his evolution through various music scenes—from UK garage to grime, and eventually to drum and bass. He shares his experiences with pirate radio, first as a listener of Y2K Radio, then as a presenter hosting his own shows on stations like Rush FM, Elite Radio, and UK Bass Radio. These platforms allowed him to connect with fellow DJs and build an audience while honing his skills both as a DJ and presenter.Dexta recounts his early club experiences, including his first gig at age 16 where he played a 15-minute set as part of "Solid Jam Cartel" (SJC). He discusses frequenting iconic London venues like Fabric, The End, and Bar Rumba, where he discovered various subgenres of drum and bass. His musical tastes gradually shifted from "jump up" drum and bass to darker, more underground sounds.Throughout the episode, Dexta reflects on technological changes in music production and distribution—from early software like Mixman and Fruity Loops to the transition of record shops moving online. He also touches on his brief relocation to Bournemouth, where he discovered even darker drum and bass sounds, before returning to London with ambitions to launch his own record label.Support the showhttps://www.youtube.com/@ControlledWeirdnesshttps://open.spotify.com/artist/20nC7cQni8ZrvRC2REZjOIhttps://www.instagram.com/controlledweirdness/https://controlledweirdness.bandcamp.com/Theme song is Controlled Weirdness - Drifting in the Streetshttps://open.spotify.com/track/7GJfmYy4RjMyLIg9nffuktHosted from a South London tower block by Neil Keating aka Controlled Weirdness. Tales from a Disappearing City is a chance for Neil to tell some untold subcultural stories from past and present, joined by friends from his lifelong journey through subterranean London. Neil is a veteran producer and DJ and has been at the front line of all aspects of club and sound system culture since the mid 80's when he first began to go to nightclubs, gigs, and illegal parties. His musical CV includes playing everywhere from plush clubs to dirty warehouses as well as mixing tunes on a variety of iconic London pirate radio stations. He has released music on numerous underground record labels and was responsible for promoting and playing at a series of legendary early raves in the USA at the start of the 90's. He still DJ's in the UK and throu...

Your property taxes could go WAY down, and one SJC official says that will be bad. And judge throws out AI lawyer. by 904 Now

SJC has new tech to work shootings, and Hooters goes bust by 904 Now

This week on Autonomy Markets, Grayson Brulte and Walter Piecyk discuss Waymo's mapping expansion to San Francisco International Airport (SFO), their continued Bay Area expansion and Tesla's ambitious plans for launching a FSD Unsupervised. As Waymo begins mapping SFO, there are still hurdles that the company has to overcome before offering commercial service, as their current permit prohibits transporting commercial goods or passengers. When Waymo applies for their ground transportation operating permit, The Teamsters are expected to oppose Waymo's permit application it in an effort to block the service. Despite this potential challenge, we expect commercial operations at the airport to begin by this summer, as there is a clear economic benefit to San Francisco's economy. Down at Giga in Austin, Elon Musk held an all-hands meeting where he outlined his bold plans for FSD Unsupervised and the company's upcoming robotaxi service. At some point, Tesla will “crack” full self-driving and when they do, Waymo will have their first true competitor.Episode Chapters0:00 Waymo Begins Mapping SFO9:14 Waymo Airport Predictions (SFO, SJC, LAX)11:13 Waymo Nashville Prediction13:16 Waymo / Hyundai Prediction14:38 Waymo's Continued Bay Area Expansion 19:13 Uber, Lyft and the Growth of Waymo21:04 Waymo Zeekr Robotaxis26:43 Waymo on Uber in Austin30:59 Could Waymo be Expanding to the UK?34:16 Tesla Unsupervised 35:43 Tesla All-Hands Meeting37:36 Tesla CPUC Permit38:47 NVIDIA GTC42:04 Truck OEMs46:57 Unforced Error of The Week48:51 Next WeekRecorded on Friday, March 21, 2025--------About The Road to AutonomyThe Road to Autonomy® is a leading source of data, insight and commentary on autonomous vehicles/trucks and the emerging autonomy economy™.Autonomy is transforming industries and creating an entirely new economy that we call the autonomy economy™. The Road to Autonomy provides advisory and market intelligence services that helps you better understand the market and stay ahead of what's coming next. To learn more, say hello (at) roadtoautonomy.com.Sign up for This Week in The Autonomy Economy newsletter: https://www.roadtoautonomy.com/autonomy-economy/See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Bill Boxer, Photographer and Jeff Potts Executive Director of St Johns Cultural Council talk upcoming art in SJC! by 904 Now

JMN is live on location in advance of the Salute America: Remembering Rush Limbaugh event tomorrow! Action News Jax alumnus Marithza Ross, now the Executive Director for the St. Johns County Parks Foundation (SJCPF.ORG), joins JMN to share upcoming events on the SJC Parks & Rec calendar, and how SJC government, residents, and the Foundation collaborate to provide sites and resources for community enjoyment.

Rich Jones and Kristine Bellino discuss the recent SJC school terror threats, which fortunately proved to be hoaxes. You may ask "Why are you sharing interview clips from the alleged instigator?" - and we address that here.

Pete Melfi 7:58 AM (1 hour ago) to me “Massive” student data breach hits SJC, 6' ice chunk falls from the sky onto home, and community input wanted for School Superintendent by 904 Now

On today's program, we talk with Tim Cahill the new executive Director of the South Shore Chamber of Commerce. We're also joined my Don Seiffert managing editor the Boston Business Journal to talk about the recent ruling by the SJC and the MBTA communities act. Rob Collins of the American Heritage Museum in Hudson Massachusetts will join us. Maura Sullivan the CEO of the Arc of Massachusetts will talk about legislative priorities. And finally Mike Omenazu of Bos Nation of the national women's  soccer team will talk about the renovation of White Stadium.   

Today's podcast starts with hour two of BPR. The first part of the show was dedicated to live broadcast of former President Jimmy Carter's memorial service.Former secretary of public safety Andrea Cabral on Attorney General Merrick Garland's plans to release the final Jack Smith report about Trump's 2020 election subversion. She'll also talk about Trump asking for a delay in his hush-money sentencing, violent crime at Mass. shelters, and a state program that recruits and trains formerly incarcerated people to drive trucks.Former secretary of education Paul Reville reflects on Elon Musk's threats to cut the Department of Education through his DOGE program. He'll also talk about BPS recommending several school closures, state community colleges struggling with an influx of students and other education headlinesFor our text segment: People in positions of power who choose to close ranks when faced with public scrutiny. How much are we owed as members of the public? Do you assume, if they don't offer an explanation, they're guilty as charged? Boston Globe business columnist Shirley Leung talks about former Harvard president Claudine Gay and the future of DEI in higher ed. Plus, the latest on White Stadium and the SJC ruling against Milton.For Am I the A-hole day: what's the appropriate amount of time before someone can eat leftovers in the fridge? 

- Chủ trì Phiên họp thứ 27, Ban Chỉ đạo Trung ương về phòng, chống tham nhũng, lãng phí, tiêu cực, Tổng Bí thư Tô Lâm – Trưởng Ban Chỉ đạo yêu cầu triển khai quyết liệt các giải pháp tạo chuyển biến đột phá trong công tác phòng chống lãng phí- Dự hội nghị tổng kết công tác ngành nội chính Đảng, Tổng Bí thư nêu rõ, kiên quyết không để lọt vào cấp uỷ những cán bộ tham nhũng tiêu cực- Lần đầu tiên thu ngân sách đạt trên 2 triệu tỷ đồng, vượt thu 324 nghìn tỷ đồng, Thủ tướng Phạm Minh Chính giao nhiệm vụ cho ngành tài chính phấn đấu tăng trưởng cao hơn mục tiêu được Trung ương và Quốc hội đề ra là 8%- Thủ tướng chủ trì Hội nghị đối thoại với nông dân với chủ đề “Khơi dậy khát vọng làm giàu để phát triển đất nước phồn vinh, hạnh phúc; vững tin bước vào kỷ nguyên mới”- Bộ Công an thông tin danh tính 6 người thuộc Công ty Vàng bạc đá quý Sài Gòn SJC bị khởi tố- Không khí đón mừng năm mới 2025 bắt đầu sôi động trên khắp thế giới- Tổng thư ký Liên hợp quốc kêu gọi thế giới đoàn kết để biến năm 2025 trở thành điểm “khởi đầu mới” cho tương lai tốt đẹp hơn Chủ đề : khởi tố, sjs --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/vov1thoisu0/support

Logan reports on breaking news of a vehicle going into the water at the Vilano Boat Ramp. The driver was rescued and taken to a nearby hospital. SJC law enforcement says the ramp will likely be closed for the day as they recover the vehicle and investigate circumstances around the event.

Julie Corey had already had 5 children and had full custody of none of them. The 35 year old woman could feel the pressure of time, and was making one last chance to start a family, one that hopefully this time, she could keep. But sometimes, fate just has other plans. Sources: COMMONWEALTH vs. JULIE A. COREY. SJC-12100. Worcester. December 8, 2023. Julie Corey sobs as jury finds her guilty of first-degree murder in Worcester fetal abduction case. By John F. Hill - MassLive.com. February 12, 2014.Julie Corey fetal abduction trial: Defense rests, Corey doesn't take stand. By John F. Hill For MassLive.com. February 10, 2014.Closing arguments will be made Tuesday Feb. 11, 2014 in the Julie Corey fetal abduction murder trial, after the defense wrapped up its case Monday.Julie Corey trial: 11 things we learned in the first week. By John F. Hill For MassLive.com. February 3, 2014.Family believed baby cut from womb was theirs. Relatives of kidnapping suspect's boyfriend even held party for child's birth. NBCnews.com. July 31, 2009.Top Massachusetts court reinstates first-degree murder conviction in cut-from-womb killing. By Phil Tenser for wcvb.com. March 18, 2024. Court reinstates first-degree murder conviction for woman who killed former neighbor, ripped baby from womb. By David Harris for LawAndCrime.com. March 18, 2024.

Local wins 1M, and we're hearing more about teacher shortages. Is pay bad, or is SJC unaffordable, or both? by 904 Now

Kendell Hardwick and Capt. Larry Durden sit in to talk Diamond of Dreams and why special needs fields like this are desperately needed in SJC by 904 Now

Headlines from the week of December 4, 2024    - Orcas Vikings win soccer state championship; Lopez Lobos earn second place    - SJC celebrates completion of Lopez Skate Park and calls for inaugural skaters    - Lions Spree benefits winners and students    - plus excerpts from the Sheriff's Log

Brian shares thoughts on early voting (now active in Duval, SJC, and Clay), and the role Florida plays in Republican campaign strategies. He also plugs his upcoming Jacksonville event in February. Hear more on the Brian Kilmeade Show 10a-noon.

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the  Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the  Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the  Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the  Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Exciting new services for those of us who are lower income in SJC. Julie Wesling and Michelle Colee talk to us about exciting new developments at Wildflower Healthcare, and their upcoming mini golf tournament!

Voter registration deadline in SJC coming up quick, make sure you're registered! And new Amtrak routes coming to our area.

Karen Read has filed a Double Jeopardy appeal with Mass. SJC; Attorney Mark Bederow joins Grace to dissect the move.  Visit the Howie Carr Radio Network website to access columns, podcasts, and other exclusive content.

Suspicious package found on the beach in St. Augustine, and SJC giving out sandbags for hurricane prep

One person shot in Ponte Vedra, and SJC hires a consulting firm to "combat misinformation" causing concern among some

SJC athlete makes big moves and Ripley's unveils new vehicle that will visit St. Augustine.

Monday marks the 241st anniversary of the SJC decision ending slavery in Massachusetts. Lexington celebrated today by honoring Quock Walker, the slave who set that decision in motion. WBZ's Suzanne Sausville reports.For more, ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio.

Habitat for Humanity is a vital resource for many looking to own their own home in SJC. Malinda Everson sits in to tell us what's new!

1/4 of Americans are now food insecure, and you'll be astonished to hear the numbers of those who have to choose between food, rent, and medications in SJC. Sunny Mulford and Wendy Lantz with Epic Cure sit in and talk about how we can help.

She is Fierce Women's Wednesday has been changing lives for years now, making big impacts in SJC and beyond! Kelly Youngs and Letti Bozard sit in with us this afternoon to let you know how to be a part of this as well as powerful camps for young girls.

The "Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" refers to a legal document filed in Massachusetts under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3. This statute grants the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) broad discretionary authority to hear certain cases.Individuals or entities typically file such petitions when they believe they have been denied relief or treated unfairly by a lower court, and they seek the SJC's intervention. The petition, accompanied by a brief, outlines the legal arguments and factual basis for why the SJC should grant relief. This type of petition is often used as a last resort when there are no other adequate legal remedies available.The brief accompanying the petition presents the legal arguments in support of the petitioner's position, citing relevant case law, statutes, and constitutional provisions. It aims to persuade the court to exercise its discretionary authority to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.Where as:The "Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" is a legal document filed in response to a defendant's petition seeking relief under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3 in Massachusetts.When a defendant files a petition and brief seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, §3, claiming unfair treatment or seeking intervention by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the opposing party may file an opposition.The opposition typically presents counter-arguments to the defendant's claims, challenging the legal and factual basis for relief. It may also argue against the necessity or appropriateness of the SJC's intervention in the case. The opposition brief aims to persuade the court to deny the relief sought by the defendant and to uphold the decision or actions of the lower court. Like the original petition and brief, the opposition is crafted to provide legal reasoning, citing relevant statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions.In this episode, we begin our look at the currently available Karen Read trial court documents and to do that, we are starting with Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3.(commercial at 8:58)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The "Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" refers to a legal document filed in Massachusetts under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3. This statute grants the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) broad discretionary authority to hear certain cases.Individuals or entities typically file such petitions when they believe they have been denied relief or treated unfairly by a lower court, and they seek the SJC's intervention. The petition, accompanied by a brief, outlines the legal arguments and factual basis for why the SJC should grant relief. This type of petition is often used as a last resort when there are no other adequate legal remedies available.The brief accompanying the petition presents the legal arguments in support of the petitioner's position, citing relevant case law, statutes, and constitutional provisions. It aims to persuade the court to exercise its discretionary authority to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.Where as:The "Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" is a legal document filed in response to a defendant's petition seeking relief under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3 in Massachusetts.When a defendant files a petition and brief seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, §3, claiming unfair treatment or seeking intervention by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the opposing party may file an opposition.The opposition typically presents counter-arguments to the defendant's claims, challenging the legal and factual basis for relief. It may also argue against the necessity or appropriateness of the SJC's intervention in the case. The opposition brief aims to persuade the court to deny the relief sought by the defendant and to uphold the decision or actions of the lower court. Like the original petition and brief, the opposition is crafted to provide legal reasoning, citing relevant statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions.In this episode, we begin our look at the currently available Karen Read trial court documents and to do that, we are starting with Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3.(commercial at 9:15)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The "Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" refers to a legal document filed in Massachusetts under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3. This statute grants the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) broad discretionary authority to hear certain cases.Individuals or entities typically file such petitions when they believe they have been denied relief or treated unfairly by a lower court, and they seek the SJC's intervention. The petition, accompanied by a brief, outlines the legal arguments and factual basis for why the SJC should grant relief. This type of petition is often used as a last resort when there are no other adequate legal remedies available.The brief accompanying the petition presents the legal arguments in support of the petitioner's position, citing relevant case law, statutes, and constitutional provisions. It aims to persuade the court to exercise its discretionary authority to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.Where as:The "Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" is a legal document filed in response to a defendant's petition seeking relief under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3 in Massachusetts.When a defendant files a petition and brief seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, §3, claiming unfair treatment or seeking intervention by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the opposing party may file an opposition.The opposition typically presents counter-arguments to the defendant's claims, challenging the legal and factual basis for relief. It may also argue against the necessity or appropriateness of the SJC's intervention in the case. The opposition brief aims to persuade the court to deny the relief sought by the defendant and to uphold the decision or actions of the lower court. Like the original petition and brief, the opposition is crafted to provide legal reasoning, citing relevant statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions.In this episode, we begin our look at the currently available Karen Read trial court documents and to do that, we are starting with Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3.(commercial at 8:30)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The "Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" refers to a legal document filed in Massachusetts under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3. This statute grants the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) broad discretionary authority to hear certain cases.Individuals or entities typically file such petitions when they believe they have been denied relief or treated unfairly by a lower court, and they seek the SJC's intervention. The petition, accompanied by a brief, outlines the legal arguments and factual basis for why the SJC should grant relief. This type of petition is often used as a last resort when there are no other adequate legal remedies available.The brief accompanying the petition presents the legal arguments in support of the petitioner's position, citing relevant case law, statutes, and constitutional provisions. It aims to persuade the court to exercise its discretionary authority to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.Where as:The "Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" is a legal document filed in response to a defendant's petition seeking relief under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3 in Massachusetts.When a defendant files a petition and brief seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, §3, claiming unfair treatment or seeking intervention by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the opposing party may file an opposition.The opposition typically presents counter-arguments to the defendant's claims, challenging the legal and factual basis for relief. It may also argue against the necessity or appropriateness of the SJC's intervention in the case. The opposition brief aims to persuade the court to deny the relief sought by the defendant and to uphold the decision or actions of the lower court. Like the original petition and brief, the opposition is crafted to provide legal reasoning, citing relevant statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions.In this episode, we begin our look at the currently available Karen Read trial court documents and to do that, we are starting with Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3.(commercial at 9:15)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The "Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" refers to a legal document filed in Massachusetts under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3. This statute grants the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) broad discretionary authority to hear certain cases.Individuals or entities typically file such petitions when they believe they have been denied relief or treated unfairly by a lower court, and they seek the SJC's intervention. The petition, accompanied by a brief, outlines the legal arguments and factual basis for why the SJC should grant relief. This type of petition is often used as a last resort when there are no other adequate legal remedies available.The brief accompanying the petition presents the legal arguments in support of the petitioner's position, citing relevant case law, statutes, and constitutional provisions. It aims to persuade the court to exercise its discretionary authority to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.Where as:The "Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" is a legal document filed in response to a defendant's petition seeking relief under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3 in Massachusetts.When a defendant files a petition and brief seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, §3, claiming unfair treatment or seeking intervention by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the opposing party may file an opposition.The opposition typically presents counter-arguments to the defendant's claims, challenging the legal and factual basis for relief. It may also argue against the necessity or appropriateness of the SJC's intervention in the case. The opposition brief aims to persuade the court to deny the relief sought by the defendant and to uphold the decision or actions of the lower court. Like the original petition and brief, the opposition is crafted to provide legal reasoning, citing relevant statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions.In this episode, we begin our look at the currently available Karen Read trial court documents and to do that, we are starting with Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3.(commercial at 7:25)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The "Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" refers to a legal document filed in Massachusetts under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3. This statute grants the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) broad discretionary authority to hear certain cases.Individuals or entities typically file such petitions when they believe they have been denied relief or treated unfairly by a lower court, and they seek the SJC's intervention. The petition, accompanied by a brief, outlines the legal arguments and factual basis for why the SJC should grant relief. This type of petition is often used as a last resort when there are no other adequate legal remedies available.The brief accompanying the petition presents the legal arguments in support of the petitioner's position, citing relevant case law, statutes, and constitutional provisions. It aims to persuade the court to exercise its discretionary authority to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.Where as:The "Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" is a legal document filed in response to a defendant's petition seeking relief under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3 in Massachusetts.When a defendant files a petition and brief seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, §3, claiming unfair treatment or seeking intervention by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the opposing party may file an opposition.The opposition typically presents counter-arguments to the defendant's claims, challenging the legal and factual basis for relief. It may also argue against the necessity or appropriateness of the SJC's intervention in the case. The opposition brief aims to persuade the court to deny the relief sought by the defendant and to uphold the decision or actions of the lower court. Like the original petition and brief, the opposition is crafted to provide legal reasoning, citing relevant statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions.In this episode, we begin our look at the currently available Karen Read trial court documents and to do that, we are starting with Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3.(commercial at 12:50)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The "Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" refers to a legal document filed in Massachusetts under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3. This statute grants the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) broad discretionary authority to hear certain cases.Individuals or entities typically file such petitions when they believe they have been denied relief or treated unfairly by a lower court, and they seek the SJC's intervention. The petition, accompanied by a brief, outlines the legal arguments and factual basis for why the SJC should grant relief. This type of petition is often used as a last resort when there are no other adequate legal remedies available.The brief accompanying the petition presents the legal arguments in support of the petitioner's position, citing relevant case law, statutes, and constitutional provisions. It aims to persuade the court to exercise its discretionary authority to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.Where as:The "Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" is a legal document filed in response to a defendant's petition seeking relief under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3 in Massachusetts.When a defendant files a petition and brief seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, §3, claiming unfair treatment or seeking intervention by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the opposing party may file an opposition.The opposition typically presents counter-arguments to the defendant's claims, challenging the legal and factual basis for relief. It may also argue against the necessity or appropriateness of the SJC's intervention in the case. The opposition brief aims to persuade the court to deny the relief sought by the defendant and to uphold the decision or actions of the lower court. Like the original petition and brief, the opposition is crafted to provide legal reasoning, citing relevant statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions.In this episode, we begin our look at the currently available Karen Read trial court documents and to do that, we are starting with Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3.(commercial at 12:50)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The "Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" refers to a legal document filed in Massachusetts under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3. This statute grants the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) broad discretionary authority to hear certain cases.Individuals or entities typically file such petitions when they believe they have been denied relief or treated unfairly by a lower court, and they seek the SJC's intervention. The petition, accompanied by a brief, outlines the legal arguments and factual basis for why the SJC should grant relief. This type of petition is often used as a last resort when there are no other adequate legal remedies available.The brief accompanying the petition presents the legal arguments in support of the petitioner's position, citing relevant case law, statutes, and constitutional provisions. It aims to persuade the court to exercise its discretionary authority to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.Where as:The "Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" is a legal document filed in response to a defendant's petition seeking relief under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3 in Massachusetts.When a defendant files a petition and brief seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, §3, claiming unfair treatment or seeking intervention by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the opposing party may file an opposition.The opposition typically presents counter-arguments to the defendant's claims, challenging the legal and factual basis for relief. It may also argue against the necessity or appropriateness of the SJC's intervention in the case. The opposition brief aims to persuade the court to deny the relief sought by the defendant and to uphold the decision or actions of the lower court. Like the original petition and brief, the opposition is crafted to provide legal reasoning, citing relevant statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions.In this episode, we begin our look at the currently available Karen Read trial court documents and to do that, we are starting with Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3.(commercial at 7:32)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The "Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" refers to a legal document filed in Massachusetts under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3. This statute grants the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) broad discretionary authority to hear certain cases.Individuals or entities typically file such petitions when they believe they have been denied relief or treated unfairly by a lower court, and they seek the SJC's intervention. The petition, accompanied by a brief, outlines the legal arguments and factual basis for why the SJC should grant relief. This type of petition is often used as a last resort when there are no other adequate legal remedies available.The brief accompanying the petition presents the legal arguments in support of the petitioner's position, citing relevant case law, statutes, and constitutional provisions. It aims to persuade the court to exercise its discretionary authority to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.Where as:The "Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" is a legal document filed in response to a defendant's petition seeking relief under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3 in Massachusetts.When a defendant files a petition and brief seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, §3, claiming unfair treatment or seeking intervention by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the opposing party may file an opposition.The opposition typically presents counter-arguments to the defendant's claims, challenging the legal and factual basis for relief. It may also argue against the necessity or appropriateness of the SJC's intervention in the case. The opposition brief aims to persuade the court to deny the relief sought by the defendant and to uphold the decision or actions of the lower court. Like the original petition and brief, the opposition is crafted to provide legal reasoning, citing relevant statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions.In this episode, we begin our look at the currently available Karen Read trial court documents and to do that, we are starting with Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3.(commercial at 8:30)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The "Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" refers to a legal document filed in Massachusetts under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3. This statute grants the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) broad discretionary authority to hear certain cases.Individuals or entities typically file such petitions when they believe they have been denied relief or treated unfairly by a lower court, and they seek the SJC's intervention. The petition, accompanied by a brief, outlines the legal arguments and factual basis for why the SJC should grant relief. This type of petition is often used as a last resort when there are no other adequate legal remedies available.The brief accompanying the petition presents the legal arguments in support of the petitioner's position, citing relevant case law, statutes, and constitutional provisions. It aims to persuade the court to exercise its discretionary authority to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.Where as:The "Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3" is a legal document filed in response to a defendant's petition seeking relief under General Laws Chapter 211, Section 3 in Massachusetts.When a defendant files a petition and brief seeking relief under G. L. c. 211, §3, claiming unfair treatment or seeking intervention by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the opposing party may file an opposition.The opposition typically presents counter-arguments to the defendant's claims, challenging the legal and factual basis for relief. It may also argue against the necessity or appropriateness of the SJC's intervention in the case. The opposition brief aims to persuade the court to deny the relief sought by the defendant and to uphold the decision or actions of the lower court. Like the original petition and brief, the opposition is crafted to provide legal reasoning, citing relevant statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions.In this episode, we begin our look at the currently available Karen Read trial court documents and to do that, we are starting with Opposition to Defendant's Petition and Brief Seeking Relief Pursuant to G. L. c. 211, §3.(commercial at 12:50)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Reformed Forum exhibited at the Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary conference in Greer, SC. offers a deep dive into the Confessional Presbyterian Journal's latest issue, with a special focus on the 50th anniversary of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the historical development of the PCA's Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). Camden Bucey brings together Rev. Zachary Groff, pastor of Antioch Presbyterian Church, and Dr. Scott Cook, visiting professor of apologetics at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, both of whom are deeply involved in the Confessional Presbyterian Journal. The conversation starts with an exploration of the journal itself, highlighting its dedication to addressing pressing issues in the church through a blend of pastoral scholarship and rigorous theological analysis. The latest issue's theme revolves around the PCA's 50th anniversary, offering a collection of articles that reflect on the denomination's history, mission, and theological commitments. Zachary Groff provides an overview of the journal's contents, emphasizing the significance of the PCA's commitment to the Great Commission and its historical context. He mentions various contributions that examine the PCA's foundation, its growth, and its ongoing theological debates, particularly those concerning the church's mission and the inclusivity of nations in God's plan through Christ. Dr. Scott Cook focuses on the specific topic of the PCA's Standing Judicial Commission, outlining its origin and evolution. He describes the initial challenges faced by the PCA in maintaining discipline and order within its rapidly growing community. Cook traces the SJC's development back to the 1980s, a period marked by significant debate and eventual compromise within the denomination. He articulates the tension between the desire for a grassroots, decentralized approach to church governance and the practical need for an efficient, centralized judicial body to handle disciplinary cases. This part of the conversation sheds light on the broader issues of polity and ecclesiastical authority within the PCA and offers insights into how the denomination has navigated these challenges over the years. Throughout the episode, the guests underscore the Confessional Presbyterian Journal's role in fostering informed theological conversation and community engagement within the Reformed tradition. The discussion not only celebrates the PCA's past achievements but also critically examines its struggles and future directions, particularly in the realms of theological fidelity, church discipline, and mission​​. 00:00:07 - Introduction 00:03:38 - Guest Introductions: Rev. Zachary Groff and Dr. Scott Cook 00:07:35 - In-depth Look at the Confessional Presbyterian Journal 00:23:00 - The Formation and Significance of the PCA's Standing Judicial Commission 00:27:06 - Challenges and Future Directions for the PCA 00:56:35 - The Development of the SJC: From Concept to Reality 01:00:20 - The Challenges and Controversies of Implementing the SJC 01:04:26 - Reflecting on Growth and the Future of the PCA 01:12:23 - Reflecting on PCA's Place in the Reformed World This is Christ the Center episode 848 (https://www.reformedforum.org/ctc848)

Hillary and Tina cover the former speaker of the Massachusetts House Salvatore DiMasi. Salvatore DiMasi ascended to power in politics, reaching the esteemed position of Speaker of the Massachusetts House. BUT his downfall came swiftly when corruption charges led to incarceration. Sources Hillary's Story Boston Herald Sal DiMasi, other federal cons can't be automatically blocked from Beacon Hill lobbying, SJC rules (https://www.bostonherald.com/2023/01/05/sal-dimasi-other-federal-cons-cant-be-automatically-blocked-from-beacon-hill-lobbying-sjc-rules/) CBS News Former House Speaker Sal DiMasi Asks For 3-Year Sentence (https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/former-house-speaker-sal-dimasi-asks-for-3-year-sentence/) Sal DiMasi Appeals Conviction, Sentence (https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/ex-mass-speaker-appeals-conviction-sentence/) Courthouse News Service Corruption conviction is no bar to lobbying, ex-lawmaker tells Massachusetts high court (https://www.courthousenews.com/corruption-conviction-is-no-bar-to-lobbying-ex-lawmaker-tells-massachusetts-high-court/)--by Daniel Jackson The Daily Free Press Salvatore DiMasi will resign as Speaker (https://dailyfreepress.com/2009/01/26/salvatore-dimasi-will-resign-as-speaker/) FBI Boston Division Former Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives and Lobbyist Convicted on Corruption Charges (https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/boston/press-releases/2011/former-speaker-of-the-massachusetts-house-of-representatives-and-lobbyist-convicted-on-corruption-charges) The New York Times Massachusetts: Ex-Speaker of House Is Indicted (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/us/politics/03brfs-EXSPEAKEROFH_BRF.html)--by Katie Zezima The Sun Ex-Mass. Speaker Sal DiMasi, associates indicted (https://www.lowellsun.com/2009/06/02/ex-mass-speaker-sal-dimasi-associates-indicted/) WBUR Former Speaker DiMasi, 3 Associates Indicted On Federal Corruption Charges (https://www.wbur.org/news/2009/06/02/dimasi-ethics)--by Lisa Tobin Wikipedia Salvatore DiMasi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvatore_DiMasi#Corruption_case) Photos Salvatore DiMasi (https://www.capecodtimes.com/gcdn/authoring/2009/01/07/NCCT/ghows-CC-5e3ba38e-dd04-4a37-b990-cbd49770ee5f-fc9f8a1d.jpeg?width=600&height=474&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)--via Cape Cod Times DiMasi on the Mass. House Floor (https://www.capecodtimes.com/gcdn/authoring/2009/01/25/NCCT/ghows-CC-f3b55c19-2f41-456e-85b8-754e60390edc-977b9471.jpeg?width=512&height=430&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)--via Cape Cod Times DiMasi after leaving prison (https://images.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/45b8c0e608d04d858b65769e7470e3d1.jpg?d=1536x1031)--photo by Steven Senne via Seattle Times