Podcasts about Southern District

In this civil complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 allege that they were sexually abused and trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates while they were minors. The complaint is brought against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and a group of unidentified defendants labeled as “Sue Roe” and “Roes 2–10,” believed to have played roles in facilitating, enabling, or directly participating in the abuse. The plaintiffs claim that Epstein used his wealth, power, and network of co-conspirators to lure them into environments where they were manipulated and coerced into sexual acts, often under false pretenses such as employment or mentorship opportunities.The complaint outlines how Epstein's trafficking scheme functioned through a coordinated network that exploited young and vulnerable girls, with the plaintiffs seeking damages for the severe psychological, emotional, and physical harm they endured. It alleges that Epstein's associates—including unnamed individuals still unknown to the plaintiffs—helped maintain this system and continued to shield his conduct even after his 2008 conviction. The lawsuit demands a jury trial and aims to hold not only Epstein's estate accountable but also the living enablers who allegedly perpetuated or benefited from the abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.1.0.pdf

In this civil complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 allege that they were sexually abused and trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates while they were minors. The complaint is brought against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and a group of unidentified defendants labeled as “Sue Roe” and “Roes 2–10,” believed to have played roles in facilitating, enabling, or directly participating in the abuse. The plaintiffs claim that Epstein used his wealth, power, and network of co-conspirators to lure them into environments where they were manipulated and coerced into sexual acts, often under false pretenses such as employment or mentorship opportunities.The complaint outlines how Epstein's trafficking scheme functioned through a coordinated network that exploited young and vulnerable girls, with the plaintiffs seeking damages for the severe psychological, emotional, and physical harm they endured. It alleges that Epstein's associates—including unnamed individuals still unknown to the plaintiffs—helped maintain this system and continued to shield his conduct even after his 2008 conviction. The lawsuit demands a jury trial and aims to hold not only Epstein's estate accountable but also the living enablers who allegedly perpetuated or benefited from the abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.1.0.pdf

In this civil complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 allege that they were sexually abused and trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates while they were minors. The complaint is brought against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein and a group of unidentified defendants labeled as “Sue Roe” and “Roes 2–10,” believed to have played roles in facilitating, enabling, or directly participating in the abuse. The plaintiffs claim that Epstein used his wealth, power, and network of co-conspirators to lure them into environments where they were manipulated and coerced into sexual acts, often under false pretenses such as employment or mentorship opportunities.The complaint outlines how Epstein's trafficking scheme functioned through a coordinated network that exploited young and vulnerable girls, with the plaintiffs seeking damages for the severe psychological, emotional, and physical harm they endured. It alleges that Epstein's associates—including unnamed individuals still unknown to the plaintiffs—helped maintain this system and continued to shield his conduct even after his 2008 conviction. The lawsuit demands a jury trial and aims to hold not only Epstein's estate accountable but also the living enablers who allegedly perpetuated or benefited from the abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida was crafted in secret and gave Epstein sweeping immunity from federal prosecution—but it did not extend to Ghislaine Maxwell. Despite vague language suggesting that certain unnamed “potential co-conspirators” might be shielded, legal analysts and federal prosecutors later determined that Maxwell was not formally included in the immunity provisions. The agreement never named her directly, nor was it legally binding on jurisdictions outside of Florida. When Maxwell was eventually arrested and prosecuted in the Southern District of New York, the court found that the NPA's protections did not apply to her crimes, which included trafficking minors across state lines, perjury, and conspiracy.Moreover, the very structure of the NPA—which was widely criticized for being unethical and potentially illegal—left room for re-interpretation once Epstein was no longer alive to contest it. The deal, brokered by then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta and approved at higher levels of the Bush administration, was never disclosed to Epstein's victims until after the fact, violating federal law. That procedural failure opened the door for later prosecutions of his associates, including Maxwell. Her legal team tried to argue that she was a covered co-conspirator, but the court rejected that position outright. In the end, the same secrecy and ambiguity that allowed Epstein to walk free in 2008 ensured that Ghislaine Maxwell could not hide behind the same corrupt shield.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell Wants Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal to Undo Her Conviction (insider.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On todays show TFT(James, Dwayne, and Glenn) discuss  the appointment of Judge Janine Piro as the permanent Southern District of New York prosecutor, her salary of $178,000 compared to her $21 million as a Fox News host, and her background in law and politics. The conversation also touched on gerrymandering in Texas, with Republicans drawing new congressional maps, and the Supreme Court's potential ruling on racial considerations in redistricting. Additionally, the group discussed the financial struggles of Sesame Street, the impact of facial recognition technology, and the recent negative immigration numbers in the U.S. Don't miss it.

Document 1 is the original Complaint and Jury Demand filed by Jane Doe No. 6 against Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida (case number 9:08-cv-80994-KAM). It alleges that Epstein engaged in systemic sexual abuse, molestation, and assault of a minor under federal and state law jurisdiction. The complaint includes detailed personal injury claims and asserts that Epstein knowingly trafficked and exploited the plaintiff for his own sexual gratification. Though initially sealed, the filing formally requests damages, declaratory relief, and preservation of claims under both Florida and federal statutes.Just days later, the case was consolidated with related lawsuits under Judge Marra's docket involving other Jane Does. Document 1 served as the procedural foundation for coordinated civil litigation nearly identical across numerous plaintiffs (case numbers 80119, 80232, 80380, etc.), all naming Epstein as the defendant. The lawsuit demanded a jury trial and laid out Epstein's alleged pattern of grooming and abuse across multiple properties, making it a key piece in the broader class of civil actions that predated the federal non‑prosecution agreement by months.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.321287.1.0_4.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Donald Trump's court battles have dominated national headlines this past week, unfolding across multiple jurisdictions and touching on core questions about presidential power and American democracy. I'm here to take you through the whirlwind developments, connecting the dots so you get the full picture.Let's begin with the most high-profile outcome: the historic New York case, The People for the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. After a months-long trial, Donald Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in Manhattan. That guilty verdict was delivered back in May of 2024, but what many found surprising was Justice Juan Merchan's sentencing decision in January. Trump faced the possibility of jail time, but ultimately received an unconditional discharge. That means, despite the felony convictions, no jail, fines, or probation—a legal oddity that analysts say was influenced by both the unprecedented nature of the case and its proximity to the 2024 election.Meanwhile, in the Southern District of Florida, things took a sharp turn regarding Trump's handling of classified documents. Originally, the indictment included 32 counts of retaining national defense information and several other obstruction-related charges. However, on July 15, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the indictment altogether, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Department of Justice did try to appeal, but by early 2025, those efforts had quietly ended, leaving Trump unscathed in that federal case.Georgia's Fulton County has also played host to legal drama. Trump and 18 others were indicted, accused of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results. While this sprawling RICO case has moved slowly, it remains one of the most closely watched state efforts.On a separate legal front, there's been fresh turmoil over Trump's executive actions. This week, Chief Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. ordered the Trump administration to answer tough questions about how they implemented Executive Order 14248, which mandates proof of citizenship for federal voting, restricts mail-in ballots, and ties election funding to compliance. Plaintiffs, which include the Democratic Party and civil rights groups, argue the order threatens to disenfranchise millions. The administration now faces a tight August 15 deadline to provide answers. This is happening as Trump's team also appeals a court order that blocked key provisions of the same order, keeping uncertainty swirling around future voting rules.And it's not just voting rights on the docket. The Trump administration's new policy authorizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest people attending mandatory court hearings has triggered an urgent lawsuit. Groups like the New York Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU are fighting this policy, calling it an unprecedented assault on due process and immigrant rights.It's a dizzying array of legal fights involving not just Donald Trump himself but the very machinery of his administration—the outcomes of which could fundamentally reshape the legal landscape and the 2026 election season.Thank you for tuning in to this court update. Come back next week for more insights and breaking developments. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Elie Honig is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than 100 mobsters, including members of La Cosa Nostra, and the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He went on to serve as Director of the Department of Law and Public Safety at New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. He is currently Special Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler and a CNN legal analyst. For a transcript of Elie's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I want to jump right in and take you through the remarkable and historic courtroom drama of Donald Trump's past few days as we stand here on August 1, 2025. With legal developments swirling on multiple fronts, Trump's name remains front and center in American headlines, and the cascade of rulings, verdicts, and appeals is still shaping the nation's political landscape.First, let's talk about the New York trial that made history earlier this year. In Manhattan, in the case of The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, a grand jury indicted Trump on thirty-four counts of falsifying business records. This trial kicked off on April 15, 2024, and by May 30, a Manhattan jury reached a decision that shook the nation: Donald Trump was found guilty on all counts. On January 10, 2025, Justice Juan Merchan sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge, meaning no jail time or probation, but the felony convictions will remain—a symbolic but significant mark in legal and presidential history. Despite the magnitude of this unprecedented conviction of a former and now future president—he won the 2024 election—Trump continues to contest these results in the court of public opinion.Meanwhile, there's been major movement in federal court as well. Down in the Southern District of Florida, Trump and two aides, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, faced a sweeping indictment over handling of classified documents after leaving office. But in a stunning twist on July 15, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the charges, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith had been improperly appointed and funded. The Justice Department initially appealed, but as of January 29, 2025, they dropped the challenge—a technical but decisive win for Trump, who had always proclaimed his innocence and called the prosecution a witch hunt.Over in Washington, D.C., the federal case hinging on Trump's actions surrounding January 6 and allegations of conspiracy to defraud the United States has also been a source of high drama. Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court determined that Trump had presidential immunity for official acts but not for private conduct. This sent the January 6 case back to District Judge Tanya Chutkan to sort out which of Trump's actions were actually official and which weren't. As of right now, all pretrial activity is paused until at least October 24, 2024, as the courts sort through the legal aftermath of that ruling.Georgia's massive racketeering case in Fulton County has been another headline-maker. Originally, District Attorney Fani Willis was leading the charge, but in December 2024, the Georgia Court of Appeals disqualified Willis after fierce legal battles. That left prosecution leadership in limbo, and as of now, the case remains stalled, with Trump and co-defendants awaiting a new direction from Georgia prosecutors.Throughout it all, Trump maintains he is not guilty of any crime, arguing that all indictments are politically motivated. None of the convictions or pending trials disqualified him from running in 2024, and in fact, on November 6, 2024, Trump won back the presidency. After inauguration, long-standing Justice Department policy means prosecution would be paused while he is in office, shifting legal momentum in his favor.Thank you for tuning in to this whirlwind court update on Donald Trump. Make sure to come back next week for more, and remember, this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdf

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdf

This week, the boys fire off about “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” and “Happy Gilmore 2” before heading to 1941! The random year generator spoke, and we chose “The Maltese Falcon” for our featured conversation. This is our second John Huston/Humphrey Bogart collaboration after we discussed “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” a few weeks ago!  linktr.ee/theloveofcinema - Check out our YouTube page!  Our phone number is 646-484-9298. It accepts texts or voice messages.  0:00 Intro + News; 8:20 Dave's “The Fantastic Four: First Steps” mini-review; 15:42 Jeff & John's “Happy Gilmore 2” mini-review; 25:28 1941 Year in Review; 43:06 Films of 1941: “The Maltese Falcon”; 1:20:05 What You Been Watching?; 1:28:03 Next Week's Episode Teaser Additional Cast/Crew: Mary Astor, Gladys George, Peter Lorre, Barton MacLane, Lee Patrick, Sydney Greenstreet, Ward Bond, Hal B. Wells, Henry Blanke, Matt Shakman, Josh Friedman, Ian Springer, Kat Wood, Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby, Ebon Moss-Bacharach, Joseph Quinn, Ralph Ineson, Julia Garner, Natasha Lyonne, Paul Walter Hauser, Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, Scottie Scheffler, Jordan Spieth, Post Malone, Margaret Qualley, Steve Buscemi, John Daly, Benny Safdie, Bad Bunny, Haley Joel Osment, Julie Bowen. Hosts: Dave Green, Jeff Ostermueller, John Say Edited & Produced by Dave Green. Beer Sponsor: Carlos Barrozo Music Sponsor: Dasein Dasein on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/77H3GPgYigeKNlZKGx11KZ 
Dasein on Apple Music: https://music.apple.com/us/artist/dasein/1637517407 Recommendations: The Bear season 4, The Sandman, Stranger Things: The First Shadow on Broadway, KPOP: Demon Hunters, Picnic at Hanging Rock Additional Tags: Peter Weir, Paramount, Poop Cruise, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, Netflix, Apple Film, Times Square, Formula 1, British Grand Prix at Silverstone, Austrian Grand Prix, Lando Norris, Charles Leclerc, Oscar Piastri, Shane, Stick, Peter Pan, Roman Holiday, Mission: Impossible, submarine, nuclear weapons, Top Gun: Maverick, Ben Mendelsohn, French Accents, Tom Cruise, George Clooney, The Stock Market Crash, Bear Market, Trains, Locomotions, Museums, Nazis, WWII movies, WWI Shows, Plastic ExplosivesThe Crusades, Swedish Art, Knights, Death, MGM, Amazon Prime, Marvel, Sony, Conclave, Here, Venom: The Last Dance, Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, Oscars, Academy Awards, BFI, BAFTA, BAFTAS, British Cinema. England, Vienna, Leopoldstadt, The Golden Globes, Past Lives, Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, The Holiday, Sunset Boulevard, Napoleon, Ferrari, Beer, Scotch, Travis Scott, U2, Apple, Apple Podcasts, Switzerland, West Side Story, Wikipedia, Adelaide, Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Melbourne, Indonesia, Java, Jakarta, Bali, Guinea, The British, England, The SEC, Ronald Reagan, Stock Buybacks, Marvel, MCU, DCEU, Film, Movies, Southeast Asia, The Phillippines, Vietnam, America, The US, Academy Awards, WGA Strike, SAG-AFTRA, SAG Strike, Peter Weir, Jidaigeki, chambara movies, sword fight, samurai, ronin, Meiji Restoration, plague, HBO Max, Amazon Prime, casket maker, Seven Samurai, Roshomon, Sergio Leone, Clint Eastwood, Stellen Skarsgard, the matt and mark movie show.The Southern District's Waratah Championship, Night of a Thousand Stars, The Pan Pacific Grand Prix (The Pan Pacifics), Montana.

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

In its motion opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal, the Department of Justice argued that the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida did not and could not shield Maxwell from prosecution in a different jurisdiction. The DOJ emphasized that Maxwell was not a signatory to the agreement and that the language of the NPA did not expressly bind federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. By reinforcing that the agreement applied only to Epstein and only within Florida's jurisdiction, the government maintained that Maxwell's prosecution was not only lawful but well within constitutional and statutory boundaries.The DOJ also dismantled several of Maxwell's other appellate claims, including challenges related to the statute of limitations, juror misconduct, and alleged flaws in jury instructions. Prosecutors argued that the indictment fell squarely within the allowed time frame under the applicable federal laws governing crimes against minors, and that the lower court acted within its discretion in denying Maxwell's request for a new trial. They also rejected the notion that the jury had been misled or that any aspect of the charges had been constructively amended. The motion concluded by urging the Second Circuit—and ultimately the Supreme Court—not to disturb the conviction or sentence, framing Maxwell's appeal as a meritless attempt to relitigate settled issues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US government urges appeals court to uphold Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking conviction | Daily Mail Online

In its motion opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal, the Department of Justice argued that the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida did not and could not shield Maxwell from prosecution in a different jurisdiction. The DOJ emphasized that Maxwell was not a signatory to the agreement and that the language of the NPA did not expressly bind federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. By reinforcing that the agreement applied only to Epstein and only within Florida's jurisdiction, the government maintained that Maxwell's prosecution was not only lawful but well within constitutional and statutory boundaries.The DOJ also dismantled several of Maxwell's other appellate claims, including challenges related to the statute of limitations, juror misconduct, and alleged flaws in jury instructions. Prosecutors argued that the indictment fell squarely within the allowed time frame under the applicable federal laws governing crimes against minors, and that the lower court acted within its discretion in denying Maxwell's request for a new trial. They also rejected the notion that the jury had been misled or that any aspect of the charges had been constructively amended. The motion concluded by urging the Second Circuit—and ultimately the Supreme Court—not to disturb the conviction or sentence, framing Maxwell's appeal as a meritless attempt to relitigate settled issues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US government urges appeals court to uphold Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking conviction | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This Day in Legal History: Eisenhower Signs Act Creating NASAOn July 29, 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act into law, officially creating NASA. The legislation emerged in response to growing Cold War tensions and the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik the previous year. It marked a pivotal shift in U.S. federal priorities, establishing a civilian-led space agency to coordinate scientific exploration, aeronautics research, and peaceful uses of space. NASA began operations on October 1, 1958, absorbing the earlier National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and ushering in a new era of government-backed technological ambition.Over the decades, NASA has become a symbol of American innovation, from landing astronauts on the moon to deploying the Hubble Space Telescope. Its work has catalyzed advancements not only in spaceflight, but also in climate science, materials engineering, and telecommunications. The legal framework underpinning NASA reflects a national consensus that science and exploration are critical public goods deserving of federal investment and support.But 67 years later, that consensus is showing strain. Just yesterday, NASA announced that nearly 4,000 employees—about 20% of its workforce—are leaving the agency through the Trump administration's deferred resignation program. This mass exodus follows proposed budget cuts and internal restructuring driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key player in Trump's effort to slash the federal workforce.The timing couldn't be worse. The administration has called for both sweeping workforce reductions and a significant budget cut of nearly 24% for FY 2026, even as it touts long-term funding increases in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Scientists and space advocates, including The Planetary Society, have criticized the inconsistency, calling it a direct threat to American leadership in space. A group of over 300 NASA employees echoed that concern in a public letter this week, denouncing the changes as "rapid and wasteful" and warning that they jeopardize the agency's mission.What began as a proud moment of bipartisan support for science and exploration now faces a political climate where expertise is undervalued and institutional stability is sacrificed for short-term optics.Nearly 4,000 NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation programIn her latest appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ghislaine Maxwell argues that her 2021 federal sex trafficking conviction should be overturned because it violated a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) originally struck between Jeffrey Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida. Maxwell contends that the agreement, which shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal charges in exchange for his state-level plea, should have also barred her later prosecution in New York. The Justice Department disputes this, saying the NPA applied only to the Southern District of Florida and does not merit Supreme Court review. Maxwell's brief criticizes the DOJ for focusing on Epstein's misconduct rather than the legal scope of the deal, framing the issue as one of government accountability to its promises. The Second Circuit previously upheld her conviction, finding no evidence that the NPA was meant to apply nationally. However, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed a brief supporting Maxwell, arguing that even atypical agreements must be honored if made by the government. Political tensions surrounding the Epstein case continue to complicate matters, as Maxwell recently met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche amid renewed scrutiny of the Trump administration's handling of Epstein's prosecution. The Supreme Court is expected to consider whether to hear the case in late September.Ghislaine Maxwell Tells Supreme Court Epstein Deal Shielded HerThe Trump administration has filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of violating judicial ethics by expressing concerns that the administration might defy court rulings, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis. The complaint centers on comments Boasberg allegedly made during a March meeting of the judiciary's policymaking body, which included Chief Justice John Roberts. The Justice Department argues that these remarks, later echoed in his rulings, undermined judicial impartiality—particularly in a case where Boasberg blocked the deportation of Venezuelan migrants using wartime powers under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration claims Boasberg acted on a political bias when he found probable cause to hold it in criminal contempt for defying his deportation order. The DOJ has asked the D.C. Circuit to reassign the case and refer the complaint to a special investigative panel. Boasberg, appointed to the federal bench by President Obama after an earlier nomination to the D.C. Superior Court by President George W. Bush, has not publicly responded. The D.C. Circuit stayed his contempt finding, and a final ruling is still pending.Trump administration files misconduct complaint against prominent judge Boasberg | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has extended the suspension of 98-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for another year, citing her continued refusal to undergo a full neuropsychological evaluation to assess her fitness to serve. Despite submitting medical reports from her own experts asserting she is mentally competent, the court concluded that those reports were insufficient and contained inaccuracies, including concerns about memory issues and fainting episodes. Newman's legal team criticized the court's swift decision, arguing that their evidence and arguments were not seriously considered following a recent hearing. Newman, a respected patent law jurist appointed by President Reagan in 1984, is the oldest active federal judge who has not taken senior status and has been a prominent dissenter on the Federal Circuit. The court originally suspended her in 2023 after Chief Judge Kimberly Moore raised concerns about her cognitive and physical condition. Newman sued over the suspension, but her case was dismissed; it is now under review by a separate federal appeals court. The latest ruling reaffirms the court's insistence on comprehensive testing before any reconsideration of her judicial role.US appeals court extends suspension of 98-year-old judge in fitness probe | ReutersDonald Trump has asked a federal court to expedite a deposition of Rupert Murdoch in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over a July 17 article linking him to Jeffrey Epstein. The article claimed Trump sent Epstein a 2003 birthday greeting that included a suggestive drawing and cryptic references to shared secrets—allegations Trump calls fabricated. In a court filing, Trump's lawyers said he informed Murdoch before publication that the letter was fake, and Murdoch allegedly responded that he would “take care of it,” which they argue demonstrates actual malice—a necessary legal threshold in defamation cases involving public figures. Trump's team is seeking Murdoch's testimony within 15 days, and Judge Darrin Gayles has ordered Murdoch to respond by August 4. The article's release has intensified political scrutiny of Trump's handling of the Epstein investigation. Legal analysts note Trump faces an uphill battle given the stringent standards for proving defamation, especially against media outlets. Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal, said it stands by its reporting and intends to vigorously defend the case.Trump asks for swift deposition of Murdoch in Epstein defamation case | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the latest shift in federal tax law—the move from the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) regime to the net controlled foreign corporation tested income (NCTI) system—should push states to reassess their habitual conformity to the Internal Revenue Code. NCTI expands the scope of taxable foreign income for U.S. multinationals, reflecting a broader federal effort to combat base erosion and bolster global competitiveness. But when states automatically conform to these changes—especially through rolling conformity—they risk inheriting complex, federally motivated rules that don't align with their economic interests or legal authority.Rolling conformity is a mechanism by which a state automatically updates its tax code to reflect changes in the federal Internal Revenue Code as they occur, without requiring separate legislative action. While rolling conformity can reduce administrative friction, it's increasingly problematic in an era of aggressive and frequent federal tax rewrites. States adopting NCTI may find themselves without key federal mechanisms like foreign tax credits or Section 250 deductions, exposing them to potential legal challenges over extraterritorial taxation and apportionment. These lawsuits could be expensive, prolonged, and ultimately hinge on issues that federal tax policy has already moved past. I argue that states need to move beyond passive conformity and take an intentional, sovereign approach to tax policy—reviewing conformity statutes now, decoupling where necessary, and preparing to defend their fiscal independence in the face of Washington's rapid policy swings.Trump Tax Law Should Spur States to Split From Federal ‘Pendulum' This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdf

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein's abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein's trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 31, 2010, the plaintiff—identified by the initials C.L.—accuses Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse and related misconduct. C.L., a resident of Palm Beach County at the time of the alleged incidents, brings this complaint based on events that occurred when she was underage and in vulnerable circumstances. The complaint outlines Epstein's pattern of grooming and exploiting young girls in the Palm Beach area, suggesting that C.L. was one of his many victims targeted during a period when Epstein operated a network designed to recruit and abuse minors under the guise of offering financial help or mentorship.The suit claims Epstein engaged in a deliberate and manipulative scheme to solicit C.L. for sexually exploitative acts and that these acts resulted in significant emotional and psychological trauma. The complaint seeks damages for the abuse endured and accuses Epstein of violating both civil and statutory obligations designed to protect minors. Although this is just the first page, the document is consistent with the broader pattern of civil actions filed against Epstein in the wake of his non-prosecution agreement and subsequent revelations about his long-running sex trafficking operation.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

It's Sunday, July 27, 2025, and what a stretch it's been in America's courtrooms — and, as always, at the center of it all is Donald Trump. Listeners, you hardly need another reminder, but the whirlwind of legal proceedings around the former President has only escalated these past days.Let's begin with the New York saga, which has truly left its mark. Back on May 30, 2024, a Manhattan jury convicted Donald Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, the culmination of the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, a trial that gripped the city and the nation. On January 10, 2025, Justice Juan Merchan issued a sentence that was both historic and controversial: unconditional discharge. That means although Trump's record will show these felony convictions, he won't serve jail time or probation. Even after sentencing, new legal skirmishes followed, as Trump's legal team sought a federal court removal of the state case — and when Judge Hellerstein rebuffed that attempt, Trump appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, keeping the legal drama alive.Meanwhile, the classified documents case in the Southern District of Florida has taken a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal indictment on July 15, 2024, agreeing with Trump's lawyers that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment and funding were improper. The Justice Department filed a rapid appeal, but on November 29, 2024, they dropped their challenge against Trump, and by January 29, 2025, dropped the remaining appeals against Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, Trump's co-defendants. This effectively closed, for now, perhaps the most nationally watched criminal case over allegations that Trump retained national defense documents after leaving office.Georgia presents another battlefield. Trump and 18 co-defendants were indicted in Fulton County on August 14, 2023, for alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Litigation has been relentless: fellow defendant Mark Meadows petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a review after losing an attempt to move his state case to federal court. Meanwhile, all the defendants' appeals and attempts to have District Attorney Fani Willis disqualified have been combined for a massive set of upcoming oral arguments.The Supreme Court hasn't been quiet either. Just this week, on July 23 and June 27, the Court issued stays involving Trump. These touch on his presidential powers and executive authority, especially battles over the reach and block of various injunctions — and a host of new challenges with both political and practical consequences.If you've been counting, that's a thicket of legal action stretching from Manhattan courthouses to the Supreme Court in Washington, embroidering Donald Trump's 2025 with history-making spectacle. Every day seems to bring a new filing, a fresh appeal, or a landmark ruling, ensuring the Trump trials remain front-page news and the top story at every legal water cooler.Thanks for tuning in to this week's courtroom chronicle. Don't miss us next week for more updates and insights — this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Tulsi Gabbard has sent criminal referrals to the DOJ for the deep state Russia Collusion actors. James Comey is back again running his mouth to defend his deep state daughter who was just fired from the Southern District of New York. Will this be the term or justice for all who have been weaponized by the deep staters?Sponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 31, 2010, the plaintiff—identified by the initials C.L.—accuses Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse and related misconduct. C.L., a resident of Palm Beach County at the time of the alleged incidents, brings this complaint based on events that occurred when she was underage and in vulnerable circumstances. The complaint outlines Epstein's pattern of grooming and exploiting young girls in the Palm Beach area, suggesting that C.L. was one of his many victims targeted during a period when Epstein operated a network designed to recruit and abuse minors under the guise of offering financial help or mentorship.The suit claims Epstein engaged in a deliberate and manipulative scheme to solicit C.L. for sexually exploitative acts and that these acts resulted in significant emotional and psychological trauma. The complaint seeks damages for the abuse endured and accuses Epstein of violating both civil and statutory obligations designed to protect minors. Although this is just the first page, the document is consistent with the broader pattern of civil actions filed against Epstein in the wake of his non-prosecution agreement and subsequent revelations about his long-running sex trafficking operation.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

OA1176 - Six years after his death in a filthy Manhattan jail cell, Jeffrey Epstein's disgusting ghost is now haunting Donald Trump--his former “best friend” of more than a decade. What are the “Epstein files” and why has the demand to see them turned MAGA world against itself now?  We go beyond the headlines to explain how one of the most notorious criminals  in recent American history has become this week's top legal story so long after his death, and why DOJ's recent efforts to cover for Trump should constitute a ten-alarm scandal. We then review Trump's attempt to sue the Wall Street Journal for revealing his surprisingly artistic birthday wishes to his “pal,” why his administration is so intent on unsealing grand jury records which DOJ knows can't be released, how this whole mess has reached the point that the Supreme Court might actually have a good legal reason to reverse Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction (!), and why Trump might be about to pardon Maxwell even if it doesn't. Also discussed: the history of Epstein's astonishing 2007 non-prosecution agreement and its legacy, the real “Epstein files” that no one has been talking about, and how the President of France might be about to righteously bankrupt MAGA mouthpiece Candace Owens.  Complaint in Trump v. Wall Street Journal (filed 7/18/25) Undated July 2025 FBI memo summarizing recent Epstein file review  Judge Robin Rosenberg's order denying DOJ motion to unseal Epstein grand jury records in the Southern District of Florida (7/23/25) Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (signed 9/24/2007) Ghislaine Maxwell's petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (filed 4/10/25) Complaint in Macron v. Owens (filed 7/23/25) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Elie Honig is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than 100 mobsters, including members of La Cosa Nostra, and the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He went on to serve as Director of the Department of Law and Public Safety at New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. He is currently Special Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler and a CNN legal analyst. For a transcript of Elie's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In a ruling on July 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the Southern District of Florida denied the Trump administration's bid to unseal grand jury transcripts from the 2005 and 2007 federal investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. She concluded that the Justice Department failed to present any legal exception allowing disclosure, such as a judicial proceeding or prosecutorial misconduct claim. The court emphasized that “the law does not permit disclosure” absent those narrow exceptions, and declared that “the court's hands are tied” under the Eleventh Circuit's strict grand jury secrecy rules.This denial marks the first judicial response to the administration's attempt to release previously sealed materials amid mounting political pressure. The transcripts in question derive from Epstein's early federal probes initiated by the U.S. Attorney's Office in West Palm Beach—not his later indictments. Meanwhile, similar unsealing requests for grand jury materials in Manhattan, tied to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, remain pending and subject to review under different, less rigid legal standards.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge rejects effort to unseal Epstein grand jury records in Florida | AP News

In a ruling on July 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the Southern District of Florida denied the Trump administration's bid to unseal grand jury transcripts from the 2005 and 2007 federal investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. She concluded that the Justice Department failed to present any legal exception allowing disclosure, such as a judicial proceeding or prosecutorial misconduct claim. The court emphasized that “the law does not permit disclosure” absent those narrow exceptions, and declared that “the court's hands are tied” under the Eleventh Circuit's strict grand jury secrecy rules.This denial marks the first judicial response to the administration's attempt to release previously sealed materials amid mounting political pressure. The transcripts in question derive from Epstein's early federal probes initiated by the U.S. Attorney's Office in West Palm Beach—not his later indictments. Meanwhile, similar unsealing requests for grand jury materials in Manhattan, tied to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, remain pending and subject to review under different, less rigid legal standards.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge rejects effort to unseal Epstein grand jury records in Florida | AP NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This Day in Legal History: Apollo 11On July 24, 1969, the Apollo 11 mission concluded when astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins safely splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, returning from the first successful lunar landing. While the event was widely celebrated as a scientific and political triumph, it also raised an unexpectedly terrestrial legal issue: customs law. Upon returning to Earth, the astronauts were required to fill out a standard U.S. Customs declaration form. The departure point was listed as “Moon,” and the flight number: “Apollo 11.” Among the items declared were “moon rock and moon dust samples,” brought back from the lunar surface.Despite their unprecedented journey, the crew still had to comply with Department of Agriculture and Customs rules designed to monitor and control potentially hazardous biological materials. In the “Declaration of Health” section of the form, they noted that the presence of any condition that could spread disease was “To be determined.” This moment captured how U.S. law, even in its most routine forms, extended to the edge of human experience.The astronauts' re-entry into the U.S. technically triggered the same legal processes that greet travelers arriving from abroad. This event also underscored the broader legal challenge of adapting existing statutes to cover entirely new domains like space travel. Though humorous in hindsight, the customs declaration reflected a serious concern: whether extraterrestrial material might carry unknown biological risks.The completed form, now a historical artifact, reminds us that legal frameworks often evolve reactively. In 1969, space law was largely uncharted territory. Today, those early steps form part of the foundation for international agreements like the Outer Space Treaty and modern debates over resource rights beyond Earth.The U.S. Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump the authority to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), reversing a lower court ruling that had temporarily blocked the dismissals. The CPSC was established by Congress in 1972 as an independent agency to protect the public from hazardous products, and its members were traditionally shielded from at-will removal by the president. The justices, in a brief unsigned order, suggested that Trump was likely to prevail in arguing that the Constitution gives him broad authority to remove executive officials, even from agencies Congress meant to be independent.This move followed a June ruling by District Judge Matthew Maddox, who sided with the ousted commissioners, citing a 1935 Supreme Court precedent (Humphrey's Executor v. United States) that upheld removal protections for independent agency officials. The Supreme Court's majority, with all three liberal justices dissenting, appeared to undermine that precedent. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned that using the Court's emergency docket to erode agency independence risked shifting constitutional power toward the presidency.The fired commissioners, whose terms extended through 2025 to 2028, had sued Trump, arguing their removal lacked legal justification. Their attorney, Nicolas Sansone, criticized the Court's decision as harmful to public safety oversight. The Justice Department, however, contended that limiting the president's removal power was unconstitutional.This decision echoes a similar ruling in May allowing Trump to remove members of other federal boards, reinforcing a pattern of the Court endorsing expanded executive control over federal agencies.US Supreme Court lets Trump remove consumer product safety commissioners | ReutersSupreme Court Lets Trump Oust Top Consumer-Safety Officials - BloombergU.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals withdrew a June 30 opinion in a securities fraud case against CorMedix Inc. after attorneys pointed out significant factual and legal errors. Lawyers flagged that the opinion included invented quotes, misattributed statements, and references to non-existent or misidentified cases. Among the problems was a supposed quote from Dang v. Amarin Corp. about “classic evidence of scienter,” which does not appear in the actual case, as well as misquoted content from a case involving Intelligroup and a fabricated citation to a Verizon case in the Southern District of New York.The withdrawn opinion had denied CorMedix's motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging the company misled investors about its FDA approval efforts for the drug DefenCath. CorMedix's counsel, Andrew Lichtman of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, raised concerns but clarified he wasn't seeking reconsideration, only correction of the record. The same opinion had been cited as persuasive authority in a separate but similar shareholder lawsuit against Outlook Therapeutics Inc., before being discredited due to its inaccuracies.The incident drew attention not just for the mistakes themselves, but because judicial errors of this nature are rare—especially when resembling the kind of AI-generated errors that have recently led to lawyer sanctions. There is no indication AI was involved in drafting Judge Neals' opinion, but the situation reflects heightened scrutiny of legal drafting in an era where reliance on technology is increasing.Judge Withdraws Pharma Opinion After Lawyer Flags Made-Up QuotesColumbia University has agreed to pay over $200 million to the U.S. government in a settlement with the Trump administration, resolving federal investigations and securing the reinstatement of most of its previously suspended federal funding. The dispute stemmed from Columbia's handling of pro-Palestinian campus protests and alleged antisemitism, which led the administration in March to freeze $400 million in grants. In addition to the main settlement, Columbia will pay $21 million to resolve claims brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.The agreement includes several conditions: Columbia must discipline students involved in severe campus disruptions, reform its Faculty Senate, review its international admissions process, and overhaul its Middle Eastern studies programs to promote “viewpoint diversity.” The university is also required to eliminate race-based considerations in hiring and admissions and to dismantle its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.Columbia has agreed to appoint two new administrators: one to oversee compliance with the settlement and another to address antisemitism. The university has also severed ties with the pro-Palestinian group Columbia University Apartheid Divest and adopted a new definition of antisemitism that equates it with opposition to Zionism—moves that have sparked backlash among students and faculty.Rights advocates have voiced alarm over academic freedom and due process, especially amid reports of deportation attempts against foreign pro-Palestinian students. Critics say the government is equating legitimate political protest with antisemitism, while ignoring rising Islamophobia and anti-Arab bias.Columbia University to pay over $200 million to resolve Trump probes | ReutersFrench President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have filed a defamation lawsuit in Delaware against U.S. right-wing podcaster Candace Owens, alleging she spread false and harmful claims about Brigitte's gender identity. The suit centers on Owens' podcast series Becoming Brigitte, which claims Brigitte was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux—actually the name of her older brother—and accuses the couple of incest and identity fraud. The Macrons argue these assertions amount to a global smear campaign intended to boost Owens' profile and cause personal harm.Owens responded by labeling the lawsuit a politically motivated PR move and maintained it is an attack on her First Amendment rights. Her spokesperson framed the suit as a foreign government's attempt to silence an American journalist. The Macrons, however, stated that they had made multiple requests for a retraction, all of which Owens ignored.Defamation lawsuits by sitting world leaders are rare, and as public figures, the Macrons must meet the high legal bar of proving “actual malice”—that Owens knowingly spread falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The complaint also notes the rumors originated in 2021 and were amplified by other high-profile commentators like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan. A similar French court case involving Brigitte ended in a temporary victory, but was later overturned on appeal and is now pending before France's highest court.French president Macron sues right-wing podcaster over claim France's first lady was born male | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Pressured for transparency from all sides of the aisle, the Department of Justice made a surprising move to try and unseal grand jury materials from the Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases. Andrew and Mary discuss why this move is so shocking and what it signifies. They also look at the latest sentencing for an ex-officer involved in the 2020 raid that killed Breonna Taylor and what a trial on behalf of international students and faculty detained for pro-Palestinian activism revealed about ICE's practices. Finally, they unpack the DOJ's firing of Maurene Comey and Attorney General Pam Bondi's firing of a New Jersey attorney who replaced a long-term Trump ally.  Listener Note: This episode was recorded prior to the ruling from a Florida court that denied the requested grand jury materials in the Jeffery Epstein case. However, the DOJ's other request related to a grand jury in the Southern District of New York remains pending.Further reading:Here is the op-ed written by Rümeysa Öztürk in the Tufts Daily about her time in a women's ICE facility.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Andrew McCarthy, Fox News Contributor, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and author of Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency, joined The Guy Benson Show today to discuss the ongoing saga surrounding Mahmoud Khalil and what the future of the deportation case against him may be. McCarthy also weighed in on Tulsi Gabbard's recent release of information tied to Russiagate, and he weighed in on whether these revelations truly break new ground or could result in criminal exposure for the Obama administration. Plus, Andy offered sharp criticism of the renewed focus on the Epstein files and why he believes revisiting the case ultimately harms Republicans. Listen to the full interview below! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the most recent developments surrounding Donald Trump's court trials, things have remained complex and charged with legal maneuvering. Starting with the situation in New York, the case known as The People for the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump saw a definitive moment early this year. On January 10, 2025, Judge Merchan issued a sentence in the case involving 34 counts of falsifying business records. This stemmed from charges brought by a Manhattan grand jury back in March 2023. The trial began in April 2024 and concluded with Trump being found guilty on all counts by a jury in May 2024. Notably, rather than imposing jail time, Judge Merchan sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge, effectively ending that chapter of the criminal proceedings in New York City.Meanwhile, the federal case out of the Southern District of Florida took quite a different turn. This indictment, originally unsealed in mid-2023, accused Trump, along with aides Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, of multiple serious offenses including 32 counts of willfully retaining national defense information, along with obstruction of justice and making false statements. However, on July 15, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the indictment, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith had been improperly appointed and funded. Despite the Justice Department's initial plans to appeal this dismissal to the 11th Circuit Court, the appeal was later dropped in early 2025 for Trump and his co-defendants. This dismissal significantly stalled the federal government's efforts on that front.In Georgia, Fulton County prosecutors indicted Trump and 18 co-defendants on August 14, 2023, on charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. This case has been closely watched as it involves state-level allegations tied to election interference. Trump has pursued strategies to move the state charges into federal court, but as of late 2024, those efforts were unsuccessful. Appeals and motions continue to shape the battlefield there, showing that Georgia's legal drama remains active and ongoing.Adding dimension to the legal landscape, the federal courts recently allowed Trump's administration plans to move forward toward significant federal workforce reductions. On July 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily stayed a federal judge's injunction against these reductions, signaling a judicial willingness to let the executive order proceed for now. This work force downsizing stems from an executive order Trump issued in February and marks continued legal engagement beyond just criminal trials.Throughout these parallel legal stories, Trump's persistent use of appeals and motions characterizes much of what's unfolding. From questions about the appointment of special counsels to multiple attempts to shift venues or delay proceedings, the legal strategy has been as important as the evidence itself. As these cases unfold in courtrooms from New York to Florida to Georgia, the nation watches a historic legal saga that could redefine presidential accountability.Thank you for tuning in to this update on the ongoing court trials involving Donald Trump. Be sure to come back next week for more insights. This has been a production of Quiet Please, and for more information, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

This week, Dave is drinking again! United Airlines will do that to you, even after a 6-month hiatus. After a pair of un-stuffy mini-reviews of “Superman” (2025) and “Eddington”, the boys head back to 2003 to discuss the legendary film year. Our featured conversation is a first-time visit to “House of Sand and Fog”, the Sir Ben Kingsley, Jennifer Connelly, and Shohreh Aghdashloo film, directed by Vadim Perelman, shot by Roger Deakens, scored by James Horner, which is a powerhouse drama so powerful it nabbed two acting Oscar nominations. None of those was for Jennifer Connelly, who won for “A Beautiful Mind” the year before. Grab a beer and give us a listen!  linktr.ee/theloveofcinema - Check out our YouTube page!  Our phone number is 646-484-9298. It accepts texts or voice messages.  0:00 Intro + News; 6:01 Dave's “Superman” mini-review; 11:15 John's “Eddington” mini-review; 17:28 Gripes; 25:41 2003 Year in Review; 53:12 Films of 2003: “House of Sand and Fog”; 01:37:35 What You Been Watching?; 01:37:35 Next Week's Episode Teaser Additional Cast/Crew: Ron Eldard, Frances Fisher, Kim Dickens, Jonathan Ahdout, Navi Rawat, Carlos Gomez, Andre Dubus III, Shawn Lawrence Otto.  Hosts: Dave Green, Jeff Ostermueller, John Say Edited & Produced by Dave Green. Beer Sponsor: Carlos Barrozo Music Sponsor: Dasein Dasein on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/artist/77H3GPgYigeKNlZKGx11KZ 
Dasein on Apple Music: https://music.apple.com/us/artist/dasein/1637517407 Recommendations: The Intern, The Eternaut, Attack on London: Hunting the 7/7 Bombers, Heads of State, September 5. Additional Tags: Poop Cruise, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, Netflix, Apple Film, Times Square, Formula 1, British Grand Prix at Silverstone, Austrian Grand Prix, Lando Norris, Charles Leclerc, Oscar Piastri, Shane, Stick, Peter Pan, Roman Holiday, Mission: Impossible, submarine, nuclear weapons, Top Gun: Maverick, Ben Mendelsohn, French Accents, Tom Cruise, George Clooney, The Stock Market Crash, Bear Market, Trains, Locomotions, Museums, Nazis, WWII movies, WWI Shows, Plastic ExplosivesThe Crusades, Swedish Art, Knights, Death, MGM, Amazon Prime, Marvel, Sony, Conclave, Here, Venom: The Last Dance, Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, Oscars, Academy Awards, BFI, BAFTA, BAFTAS, British Cinema. England, Vienna, Leopoldstadt, The Golden Globes, Past Lives, Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, The Holiday, Sunset Boulevard, Napoleon, Ferrari, Beer, Scotch, Travis Scott, U2, Apple, Apple Podcasts, Switzerland, West Side Story, Wikipedia, Adelaide, Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Melbourne, Indonesia, Java, Jakarta, Bali, Guinea, The British, England, The SEC, Ronald Reagan, Stock Buybacks, Marvel, MCU, DCEU, Film, Movies, Southeast Asia, The Phillippines, Vietnam, America, The US, Academy Awards, WGA Strike, SAG-AFTRA, SAG Strike, Peter Weir, Jidaigeki, chambara movies, sword fight, samurai, ronin, Meiji Restoration, plague, HBO Max, Amazon Prime, casket maker, Seven Samurai, Roshomon, Sergio Leone, Clint Eastwood, Stellen Skarsgard, the matt and mark movie show.The Southern District's Waratah Championship, Night of a Thousand Stars, The Pan Pacific Grand Prix (The Pan Pacifics), The Canadian Grand Prix. Montana, 

Tulsi Gabbard has sent criminal referrals to the DOJ for the deep state Russia Collusion actors. James Comey is back again running his mouth to defend his deep state daughter who was just fired from the Southern District of New York. Will this be the term or justice for all who have been weaponized by the deep staters?Sponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Elie Honig is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than 100 mobsters, including members of La Cosa Nostra, and the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He went on to serve as Director of the Department of Law and Public Safety at New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. He is currently Special Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler and a CNN legal analyst. For a transcript of Elie's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” Trump's DOJ just fired Maurene Comey, who was an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Then, James O'Keefe teases a new episode exposing Disney's racist hiring practices. Next, Jaco Booyens has a plan that will heavily crack down on human trafficking. Finally, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reveals President Trump's current health status, showing us just how much more transparent this administration is than the Biden administration.   Today's Guests: Sara is joined by James O'Keefe, the founder of O'Keefe Media Group and the founder of Project Veritas. She is later joined by host of “The Bottom Line” Jaco Booyens and BlazeTV contributor Matthew Marsden.   You can check out James O'Keefe's latest exposés at UNIFYD TV: https://unifyd.tv/pages/okeefe-disney   Today's Sponsors:   Birch Gold: Just text my name, SARA, to the number 989898, and Birch Gold will send you a FREE info kit on gold.   CraftCo Premium: Buy online at http://www.flyingacespirits.com and use code BLAZE for free shipping. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You heard her name throughout the Diddy trial, and you definitely know her last name from her well known father, former FBI director James Comey. After 10 years with the Southern District of Manhattan, Lead Prosecutor Maurene Comey was suddenly fired this week. While no official reason has been given, Amy and T.J. discuss all the reasons why President Trump may have had a personal hand in letting her go. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A massive victory overnight as the first rescission bill gets through the Senate and on to President Trump's desk. After decades of talking about it, President Trump just got taxpayers off the hook for public broadcasting. He also signed major legislation to crack down on fentanyl, Comey's daughter was just fired from the Southern District of Manhattan, and the week isn't over yet! Having said all that and Stigall discusses it all today, there's still that lingering subject many aren't satisfied with yet. From "Why are you wasting your time on this" to "I can't believe you're covering this up and excusing Trump on this" - Stigall explains why he thinks President Trump is so prickly about this Epstein story and what many aren't considering he knows that we don't. Col. Kurt Schlichter weighs in as well. Did you notice where the All Star break is taking place? Four years ago MLB wanted noting to do with the venue. Remember why? J.T. Young - author of Unprescedented Assault remembers. -For more info visit the official website: https://chrisstigall.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/chrisstigallshow/Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisStigallFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/chris.stigall/Listen on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/StigallPodListen on Apple Podcasts: https://bit.ly/StigallShow-Help protect your wealth with real, physical gold and silver. Texas Bullion Exchange helps everyday Americans diversify with tailored portfolios, IRA rollovers, and expert support every step of the way.

You heard her name throughout the Diddy trial, and you definitely know her last name from her well known father, former FBI director James Comey. After 10 years with the Southern District of Manhattan, Lead Prosecutor Maurene Comey was suddenly fired this week. While no official reason has been given, Amy and T.J. discuss all the reasons why President Trump may have had a personal hand in letting her go. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Maurene Comey, a federal prosecutor in Manhattan and the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, has been fired from her job in the Southern District of New York, according to people familiar with the situation. Comey was a prosecutor in the case against accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and more recently against Sean “Diddy” Combs. The reason for her firing was not immediately clear. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You heard her name throughout the Diddy trial, and you definitely know her last name from her well known father, former FBI director James Comey. After 10 years with the Southern District of Manhattan, Lead Prosecutor Maurene Comey was suddenly fired this week. While no official reason has been given, Amy and T.J. discuss all the reasons why President Trump may have had a personal hand in letting her go. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.