Podcasts about Southern District

Mea Culpa welcomes back our old friend Elie Honig. Honig is a best-selling author, a CNN Senior Legal Analyst, and a former federal and state prosecutor. You may also know him from his popular podcasts, “Up Against the Mob” and/or “Cafe Brief”. As a New Jersey federal prosecutor, Honig directed major criminal cases against street gangs, arms dealers, and even a few corrupt politicians. He was also an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he successfully prosecuted more than 100 members of La Cosa Nostra, including bosses and other high-ranking members of the Gambino and Genovese organized crime families. And now Honig leverages all that prosecutorial experience to keep the public informed and as fodder for his latest book due out soon, entitled Hatchet Man: How Bill Barr broke the prosecutor's code and corrupted the Justice Department. Michael and Elie dig deep into Merrick Garland's DOJ, Mar-a-Largo, and the Manhattan criminal Investigation into Trump and his Business.

Courtney Wild became one of the most prominent voices challenging how the United States government handled the Jeffrey Epstein case after she discovered that federal prosecutors had secretly negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007 without informing the victims. Wild had been one of the teenagers abused by Epstein in Florida, and when she learned years later that the deal had effectively shielded Epstein and several potential co-conspirators from federal prosecution, she began a long legal battle arguing that the government had violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Her lawsuit asserted that prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida had deliberately concealed the agreement from victims while negotiations were underway, denying them their legal right to be informed and to confer with prosecutors during the process.Wild's case became a landmark legal fight over victims' rights and government accountability. After years of litigation, a federal judge ruled in 2019 that prosecutors had indeed violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by failing to notify Epstein's victims about the secret plea agreement. However, the ruling came after Epstein had already died in federal custody, leaving the court grappling with how—or whether—the agreement could be undone posthumously. Although the courts ultimately declined to reopen the prosecution, Wild's legal effort exposed the behind-the-scenes negotiations that protected Epstein for years and helped ignite broader public scrutiny of the government's handling of the case, making her pursuit of justice one of the most consequential legal challenges connected to the Epstein scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

This week, the boys headed to 1970 to the new decade of the new wave of American independent cinema! Bob Rafelson's “Five Easy Pieces” established the behavior-driven, theme-over-plot indie movies that paved the way for the best era for indies. Jack Nicholson is a badass (asshole) prodigy-turned-roustabout looking to find himself in people he's willing to screw over in Bob Rafelson's seminal movie. After John fires off some mini-reviews and news, we set up the film year of 1970 before we drink beers and try to keep our conversation positive! linktr.ee/theloveofcinema - Check out our YouTube page!  Our phone number is 646-484-9298. It accepts texts or voice messages.  0:00 Intro; 5:45 “Crime 101” mini-review; 7:25 “Midwinter Break” mini-review; 13:52 1970 Year in Review; 28:00 Films of 1970: “Five Easy Pieces”; 1:11:48 What You Been Watching?; 1:21:36 Next Week's Episode Teaser Additional Cast/Crew: Karen Black, Sally Struthers, Billy Green Bush, Fannie Flagg, Lois Smith, Carole Eastman, Laszlo Kovacs, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Barry Keoghan, Bart Layton, Hale Berry, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Tate Donovan, Corey Hawkins, Don Winslow, Polly Findlay, Lesley Manville, Ciaran Hinds. 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: Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowehere, Nuremburg, Fallout, Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, They Live, Paradise, John Carpenter, The Muppet Series, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, The Pitt, Blue Moon, A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms.  Additional Tags: Warner Discovery, Paramount Skydance, Annapurna Films, Old Man Marley, Home Alone, Shawshenk Redemption, Gordon Ramsay, Thelma Schoonmaker, Stephen King's It, The Tenant, Rosemary's Baby, The Pianist, Cul-de-Sac, AI, The New York City Marathon, Apartments, Tenants, Rent Prices, Zohran Mamdani, Andrew Cuomo, Curtis Sliwa, Amazon, Robotics, AMC, IMAX Issues, Tron, The Dallas Cowboys, Short-term memory loss, Warner Brothers, Paramount, Netflix, AMC Times Square, Tom Cruise, George Clooney, 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, Apple Podcasts, West Side Story, Adelaide, Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Melbourne, 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, Stellan 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), Jeff Bezos, Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, David Ellison, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg.   

For years, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) possessed extensive evidence connected to Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation but failed to act decisively, allowing the case to languish despite mounting allegations and investigative material. Federal agents had gathered witness statements, victim accounts, travel records, and financial evidence that painted a clear picture of a long-running trafficking enterprise involving underage girls. Yet despite the gravity of the allegations and the scope of the evidence, the SDNY did not bring charges for years, leaving Epstein free to continue operating within elite social and financial circles. Critics argue that this delay represents one of the most glaring failures of federal prosecution in recent memory. In their view, the evidence was not merely suggestive — it was substantial and deeply troubling, raising serious questions about why federal prosecutors waited so long before pursuing a full criminal case.The eventual indictment of Epstein in 2019 only intensified scrutiny of the SDNY's earlier inaction. By that point, victims had spent years fighting to be heard while Epstein moved freely among wealthy and powerful associates. Observers and advocates for the victims have argued that the SDNY's delay allowed critical evidence to grow stale, witnesses to disperse, and the broader network surrounding Epstein to remain unexamined for far too long. The situation fueled suspicions that Epstein's immense wealth and influential connections may have contributed to the reluctance to move forward sooner. Whether the delay stemmed from bureaucratic caution, prosecutorial hesitation, or something more troubling, the outcome was the same: a powerful predator operated for years while federal authorities who possessed significant evidence failed to bring him to justice in a timely manner.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

03-10-2026 Alexander Paykin Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://usabusinessradio.com/southern-district-of-new-york-hands-down-far-reaching-ai-decision/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

John talks with U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton about the threats facing New York City, both foreign and domestic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For years, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) possessed extensive evidence connected to Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation but failed to act decisively, allowing the case to languish despite mounting allegations and investigative material. Federal agents had gathered witness statements, victim accounts, travel records, and financial evidence that painted a clear picture of a long-running trafficking enterprise involving underage girls. Yet despite the gravity of the allegations and the scope of the evidence, the SDNY did not bring charges for years, leaving Epstein free to continue operating within elite social and financial circles. Critics argue that this delay represents one of the most glaring failures of federal prosecution in recent memory. In their view, the evidence was not merely suggestive — it was substantial and deeply troubling, raising serious questions about why federal prosecutors waited so long before pursuing a full criminal case.The eventual indictment of Epstein in 2019 only intensified scrutiny of the SDNY's earlier inaction. By that point, victims had spent years fighting to be heard while Epstein moved freely among wealthy and powerful associates. Observers and advocates for the victims have argued that the SDNY's delay allowed critical evidence to grow stale, witnesses to disperse, and the broader network surrounding Epstein to remain unexamined for far too long. The situation fueled suspicions that Epstein's immense wealth and influential connections may have contributed to the reluctance to move forward sooner. Whether the delay stemmed from bureaucratic caution, prosecutorial hesitation, or something more troubling, the outcome was the same: a powerful predator operated for years while federal authorities who possessed significant evidence failed to bring him to justice in a timely manner.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

Swiss agricultural manufacturer Syngenta announced it will end global production of paraquat, an herbicide used to control weeds in farming operations, by the end of June. The company plans to phase out production at its facility in Huddersfield, UK, its only manufacturing site for the ingredient. Syngenta cited significant competition from global producers, which put pressure on the company's competitiveness, as the reason for the decision.The release, however, did not mention ongoing legal challenges involving paraquat, including a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois that named Syngenta as a defendant and consolidated over 5,000 plaintiffs who alleged they developed Parkinson's disease due to paraquat exposure.The MDL references expert witness Martin Wells, who conducted a meta-analysis of seven epidemiological studies that measured a potential association between paraquat and Parkinson's disease. According to the document, Wells determined that there was a “near tripling of [Parkinson's] occurrence in [study] participants occupationally exposed to paraquat.”Syngenta previously rejected the claims of a causal link between paraquat and Parkinson's, stating that the herbicide is “safe when used in line with registered label instructions.” In its announcement on ending production, the company mentioned that paraquat supports conservation practices such as no-till farming and added that the herbicide is registered for sale by more than 750 companies. Over 70 countries have banned or discontinued the use of paraquat. This includes the EU, which withdrew the herbicide from its market in 2007, as well as China, Brazil and Canada. In 2024, nearly 50 members of the U.S. Congress signed a letter to the EPA asking the agency to ban paraquat.#Paraquat #Syngenta #AgricultureNews #FarmingChemicals #Herbicides #AgTech #CropScience #ParkinsonsDisease #EnvironmentalHealth #Pesticides #AgIndustry #ChemicalIndustry #FarmNews #WeedControl #SustainableFarming #NoTillFarming #EPA #AgPolicy #FoodProduction #ManufacturingNews

A federal judge in the Southern District of West Virginia issued a ruling that should be making national headlines but isn't. Hawk walks through the full 34-page opinion by U.S. District Judge Joseph Godwin, who found that ICE agents wearing masks, operating from unmarked vehicles with no license plates, and making warrantless civil arrests violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The case centers on Anderson Jesus Urquilla Ramos, a 21-year-old Salvadoran national with a valid driver's license, lawful work authorization, and a pending asylum application, who was pulled over in West Virginia on a pretext stop. Masked federal agents in an unmarked vehicle with no license plate detained him without a warrant, without identifying themselves, and without legal justification. Judge Godwin's opinion traces the Fourth Amendment back to its founding-era roots, the colonial outrage over British general warrants and writs of assistance, and applies that history directly to modern ICE enforcement tactics. The ruling draws on James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Justice Brandeis, and citations ranging from Marbury v. Madison to Katz v. United States. The opinion concludes that a law enforcement practice whose only operational effect is the elimination of accountability is not a safety measure. It is a constitutional deficiency. Hawk also highlights the Fifth Amendment due process violations and the habeas corpus petition that brought the case before the court. This is Fourth Amendment education at its finest, delivered through one of the most clearly reasoned federal opinions in recent memory. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Initial shock has given way to grave concerns as the US and Israel's joint attack on Iran continue, stepping both countries into a war without a clear goal, end date or exit strategy. To help explain where congressional powers lie and the limits of executive authority, Mary and Andrew call upon Tess Bridgeman, international law expert and Co-Editor-in-Chief of "Just Security”. Tess stakes out the scope of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, and why Congress is meant to be the body that decides if, and when the US commits to armed conflict with another nation state. Then, Mary and Andrew turn focus to a few immigration updates, as more judges chastise the government for continually violating court orders, and a Columbia student is detained by ICE under false pretenses. Last up, the co-hosts turn to the decision in the case involving whether a journalist's devices seized while executing a search warrant could be searched. Plus: the Trump administration's decision to stand down on defending Trump's sanctions against law firms— only to do a seeming about face the next day. Further reading: Here is the piece Tess Bridgeman co-wrote on "Just Security": Top Questions the Trump Administration Needs to Answer on War with Iran Here is the opinion Andrew and Mary were referring to out of the Southern District of West Virginia You can pre-order Andrew's book, out May 19th, here: Liar's Kingdom: How to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save America Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of our Litigation Lens podcast series, Shareholders Michael Nail (Greenville) and Sarah Zucco (New York) analyze Dudnauth v. A.B.C. Carpet & Home Inc., a case from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York involving disability discrimination and wage and hour claims under New York state law. Michael and Sarah discuss how the court granted summary judgment on the plaintiff's discrimination and overtime claims based largely on his own deposition testimony admitting he could not work and did not exceed 40 hours per week, while denying summary judgment on the pay frequency claim due to a genuine dispute over whether he qualified as a “manual worker” entitled to weekly pay. In this episode, the speakers highlight key takeaways for employers on the importance of maintaining payroll records, understanding state-specific wage requirements, and the fact-intensive nature of disability accommodation and exemption analyses.

The award-winning Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast that takes a deep dive into a compliance-related topic, literally going into the weeds to explore it more fully. Looking for some hard-hitting insights on compliance? Look no further than Compliance into the Weeds! In this episode of Compliance into the Weeds, Tom Fox and Matt Kelly look at the recently announced new Southern District of New York standard for Declinations. They look at SDNY U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton's newly released self-disclosure/cooperation/declination policy and its implications for corporate compliance. While the core elements, prompt voluntary disclosure, cooperation, remediation, and restitution, mirror existing DOJ expectations, they highlight a significant change: SDNY now treats “aggravated circumstances” as certain categories of crimes that are categorically ineligible for declinations, including foreign corruption/FCPA, sanctions evasion, terrorism, sex trafficking with minors, smuggling, drug cartels, and forced labor, rather than focusing on offense traits such as senior management involvement or recidivism. They note potential inconsistencies with DOJ's corporate enforcement approach, uncertainty about disclosure timing despite references to promptness and pre-investigation disclosure, broad discretion in enforcement, and the risk of forum shopping. Key highlights: Why SDNY Declinations Matter Clayton Policy Key Changes Aggravated Circumstances Redefined FCPA Carve Out Confusion Timing and Disclosure Pressure Cooperation Restitution Disgorgement Resources: Matt in Radical Compliance Tom in the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog Tom Instagram Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn A multi-award-winning podcast, Compliance into the Weeds was most recently honored as one of the Top 25 Regulatory Compliance Podcasts, a Top 10 Business Law Podcast, and a Top 12 Risk Management Podcast. Compliance into the Weeds has been conferred a Davey, a Communicator Award, and a W3 Award, all for podcast excellence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2019, federal prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York asked New Mexico authorities to stop their own sex trafficking investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sprawling Zorro Ranch, located south of Santa Fe, in an effort to avoid potential conflicts with the federal case and the risk of “inconsistent statements” from parallel investigations. At the time, then-New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas agreed to pause the state probe and share investigative materials — including police reports and witness interviews — with the federal team, with the understanding that federal prosecutors would provide information back that could support potential state charges. However, Balderas has since said he is unaware of any substantial information ever being shared back to New Mexico that could have led to prosecutions at the state level before Epstein's death in August 2019.The now-released correspondence shows that the federal request effectively “gutted” New Mexico's investigation, and Balderas has described the cooperation as essentially one-way. Records also reveal he urged federal authorities to seize the ranch and offered assistance to execute warrants, but received no response, and none of the material New Mexico sent appears among the files released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. In light of the newly disclosed DOJ records, current New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez has announced that the state is reopening its investigation into alleged trafficking at Zorro Ranch, and a bipartisan legislative truth-finding commission has been formed to subpoena witnesses and gather testimony as part of renewed scrutiny of activities tied to Epstein's former property.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Feds asked New Mexico to halt Jeffrey Epstein Zorro Ranch sex trafficking probe, records show

I never thought I'd be covering court battles like this, but here I am, glued to the latest twists in the legal wars swirling around President Donald Trump. Just yesterday, on March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court heard arguments in United States v. Hemani, where the Trump administration is defending a federal law banning illegal drug users from owning guns. Justice Elena Kagan grilled lawyers with hypotheticals about ayahuasca ceremonies, and even Justice Amy Coney Barrett admitted she'd never heard of the drug, asking if it was real. The justices seemed skeptical of challenges to the law's constitutionality, drawing parallels to everyday drug use to test the limits of Second Amendment rights, as reported in SCOTUSblog's live coverage.But that's just one front. Trump's unilateral military strike on Iran has sparked a firestorm over war powers. The New York Times' Charlie Savage detailed how accusations are flying that Trump violated the Constitution by launching the operation without congressional approval. It's reignited the age-old debate on who controls America's war machine—presidents have done it before, but critics say this crosses a line, paving the way for broader Supreme Court scrutiny.Over in the D.C. Circuit, things got wild with those executive orders targeting law firms like Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, and Susman Godfrey. Trump hit them hard—terminating government contracts, yanking security clearances, barring access to federal buildings—because they represented his opponents, worked on voting rights, or challenged his 2020 election efforts. District judges, including Beryl Howell, called it chilling, a First Amendment nightmare that could scare lawyers from tough cases. The Justice Department stunned everyone by moving to dismiss the appeals on Monday, a huge win for the firms and the rule of law. But Tuesday, they flipped, filing to revive the fights without explanation. Democracy Docket reports the firms fired back, urging the court to reject the about-face. Pro-democracy watchers are alarmed—this isn't just about contracts; it's whether a president can weaponize government against his legal foes.Meanwhile, the Federal Circuit shot down the Trump team's plea to delay a tariff refund case by up to four months. After the Supreme Court's February 20 ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't let presidents slap on tariffs willy-nilly, Trump vented on social media about rehearing it. Bloomberg's Zoe Tillman notes the administration argued complexity demands caution, but companies are pushing back, saying delays hurt. Trump responded by imposing 10 percent tariffs on all countries starting February 24 using other laws, per Holland & Knight analysis.Down in New York, a federal court in the Southern District smacked down Trump's bid to kill the city's Congestion Pricing program. Earthjustice, representing Riders Alliance and Sierra Club alongside the MTA, won summary judgment. U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy couldn't override the democratic process that approved the tolls, which have cleaned the air, sped up streets, boosted transit, and added millions to the economy despite Trump's "disaster" label.And that's not all—Lawfare's tracker logs 298 active cases challenging Trump actions, from national security to the Alien Enemies Act deportations. State courts are buzzing too, with oral arguments on ghost guns and DOJ voter data grabs. Whew, listeners, these past few days have been a legal whirlwind, testing the courts like never before.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. 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.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

In 2019, federal prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York asked New Mexico authorities to stop their own sex trafficking investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sprawling Zorro Ranch, located south of Santa Fe, in an effort to avoid potential conflicts with the federal case and the risk of “inconsistent statements” from parallel investigations. At the time, then-New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas agreed to pause the state probe and share investigative materials — including police reports and witness interviews — with the federal team, with the understanding that federal prosecutors would provide information back that could support potential state charges. However, Balderas has since said he is unaware of any substantial information ever being shared back to New Mexico that could have led to prosecutions at the state level before Epstein's death in August 2019.The now-released correspondence shows that the federal request effectively “gutted” New Mexico's investigation, and Balderas has described the cooperation as essentially one-way. Records also reveal he urged federal authorities to seize the ranch and offered assistance to execute warrants, but received no response, and none of the material New Mexico sent appears among the files released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. In light of the newly disclosed DOJ records, current New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez has announced that the state is reopening its investigation into alleged trafficking at Zorro Ranch, and a bipartisan legislative truth-finding commission has been formed to subpoena witnesses and gather testimony as part of renewed scrutiny of activities tied to Epstein's former property.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Feds asked New Mexico to halt Jeffrey Epstein Zorro Ranch sex trafficking probe, records showBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Kirkland & Ellis response treats the May 19, 2008 letter from the Southern District of Florida's First Assistant U.S. Attorney not as a good-faith summary, but as a document that actively distorts the historical record of the Epstein investigation. The firm argues that the letter is riddled with contradictions, misleading framing, and outright falsehoods that cannot be chalked up to sloppy drafting or innocent error. Rather than accurately recounting investigative decisions, the letter is portrayed as a post-hoc justification designed to sanitize prosecutorial conduct after the fact. Kirkland & Ellis makes clear that the document attempts to reshape reality—presenting disputed actions as settled facts and glossing over decisions that directly benefited Epstein.Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter's defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government's entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter's assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013801.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

A wealthy Miami developer, a waterfront mansion, and FBI agents closing in. When Sergio Pino was found dead just moments before his arrest for allegedly plotting his wife's murder, the fallout was immediate and explosive. What followed was a chilling mix of fear, power, and greed as his widow, Tatiana Pino, was thrust into the center of a legal war over a massive real estate empire, shadowy last-minute moves, and allegations so dark they raised questions about what was really happening behind closed doors….If you're new here, don't forget to follow the show for weekly deep dives into the darkest true crime cases! To watch the video version of this episode, head over to youtube.com/@annieelise. .

In 2019, federal prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York asked New Mexico authorities to stop their own sex trafficking investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sprawling Zorro Ranch, located south of Santa Fe, in an effort to avoid potential conflicts with the federal case and the risk of “inconsistent statements” from parallel investigations. At the time, then-New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas agreed to pause the state probe and share investigative materials — including police reports and witness interviews — with the federal team, with the understanding that federal prosecutors would provide information back that could support potential state charges. However, Balderas has since said he is unaware of any substantial information ever being shared back to New Mexico that could have led to prosecutions at the state level before Epstein's death in August 2019.The now-released correspondence shows that the federal request effectively “gutted” New Mexico's investigation, and Balderas has described the cooperation as essentially one-way. Records also reveal he urged federal authorities to seize the ranch and offered assistance to execute warrants, but received no response, and none of the material New Mexico sent appears among the files released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. In light of the newly disclosed DOJ records, current New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez has announced that the state is reopening its investigation into alleged trafficking at Zorro Ranch, and a bipartisan legislative truth-finding commission has been formed to subpoena witnesses and gather testimony as part of renewed scrutiny of activities tied to Epstein's former property.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Feds asked New Mexico to halt Jeffrey Epstein Zorro Ranch sex trafficking probe, records showBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Kirkland & Ellis response treats the May 19, 2008 letter from the Southern District of Florida's First Assistant U.S. Attorney not as a good-faith summary, but as a document that actively distorts the historical record of the Epstein investigation. The firm argues that the letter is riddled with contradictions, misleading framing, and outright falsehoods that cannot be chalked up to sloppy drafting or innocent error. Rather than accurately recounting investigative decisions, the letter is portrayed as a post-hoc justification designed to sanitize prosecutorial conduct after the fact. Kirkland & Ellis makes clear that the document attempts to reshape reality—presenting disputed actions as settled facts and glossing over decisions that directly benefited Epstein.Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter's defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government's entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter's assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013801.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCX

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

Breaking developments in the Anna Kepner case: her sixteen-year-old stepbrother has been charged with federal homicide, according to custody court filings that exposed what the FBI won't confirm.The February 20th emergency petition filed by the suspect's biological father reveals the teenager was charged on February 3rd, 2026, by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. He appeared in sealed federal court on February 6th, was processed for pretrial release, and returned to guardian custody in Brooksville.Anna Kepner, eighteen, was found dead aboard the Carnival Horizon on November 7th, 2025. She was discovered under a bed in her stateroom — asphyxiated by what her family says was a bar hold restraint. She shared that cabin with her stepbrother and her fourteen-year-old biological brother. The adults slept across the hall.The federal case remains sealed. But the custody battle between the suspect's divorced parents has become the only source of public information. His father is funding his defense. His mother — married to Anna's father — wants accountability. The family expelled the teenager immediately after docking. Neither has seen him since.Today we examine the charges, the legal pathway to adult prosecution, and whether this sealed case will ever see daylight.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AnnaKepner #CarnivalCruise #HomicideCharged #CruiseShipDeath #SealedCase #FBIInvestigation #TrueCrimeToday #CarnivalHorizon #JuvenileJustice #BreakingNews

Anna Kepner's sixteen-year-old stepbrother has been charged with federal homicide. The FBI won't confirm it. The DOJ won't comment. But a custody battle just exposed everything.A February 20th filing in Brevard County, Florida, revealed the teenager was charged on February 3rd, 2026, by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in connection with Anna's death aboard the Carnival Horizon. The eighteen-year-old was found asphyxiated under a bed in the cabin they shared — wrapped in a blanket, covered with life vests.The federal case is sealed. Juvenile proceedings are closed to the public. But the suspect's divorced parents are fighting over custody of their nine-year-old daughter, and their court filings have become the only window into what's actually happening.His biological father is funding his defense. His biological mother — married to Anna's father — is publicly calling for accountability. The family expelled him from their home the day they returned from the cruise. Allegations from Anna's ex-boyfriend describe obsession, warning signs, and a recommendation for separate rooms that was overruled.This episode breaks down what the charges mean, how a juvenile gets tried as an adult under federal law, and why this case may stay sealed forever.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AnnaKepner #CarnivalHorizon #CruiseShipHomicide #FederalCharges #SealedCase #StepbrotherCharged #TrueCrime #FBIInvestigation #HiddenKillers #JuvenileJustice

Newly released Department of Justice files and internal emails show that just **five days after Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in July 2019, federal authorities — including the FBI in coordination with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York — ordered the New York Police Department Special Victims Unit (SVU) to “stand down” its own investigations into Epstein and related matters. The directive reportedly came via outreach from the FBI to NYPD leadership, instructing that all Epstein-related investigative work from that point forward was to be handled through federal channels, effectively sidelining the NYPD's specialized child exploitation investigators. At the time, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office also had its own parallel inquiry underway, but the communication suggested that any further NYPD actions should defer to federal leadership.Emails among federal agents indicated that the motivation for the stand-down order was concern about overlapping cases and the perception of “competing investigations,” particularly after the DA's office reached out to a victim for interview amid the unfolding federal prosecution. The directive applied specifically to SVU — the unit trained to handle sex crimes and child abuse cases — and essentially shut out local detectives from pursuing additional leads or interviewing witnesses independently once Epstein was in federal custody. Internal discussions later suggested that NYPD's Epstein inquiry was effectively closed or deferred to the FBI, limiting the department's role despite its expertise in handling such cases. Epstein died in federal custody about a month later, ending the immediate criminal prosecution, though federal and local authorities continued to coordinate on related matters.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Revealed: FBI told NYPD to 'stand down' probe into Jeffrey Epstein - Alternet.org

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a class action lawsuit titled Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. was filed. The complaint represented not only Jane Doe 1, but a broader group of alleged victims who claimed they suffered harm tied to the actions—and alleged inaction—of JP Morgan Chase & Co. The filing formally demanded a jury trial, signaling the plaintiffs' intention to take the allegations into open court rather than resolve them quietly behind closed doors.The case was framed as both an individual and a class action complaint, raising the stakes considerably for the financial giant. By categorizing it this way, the plaintiffs positioned their claims as part of a larger systemic issue involving an entire group of alleged victims. The filing marked the beginning of what later became one of the most scrutinized legal battles connected to the Jeffrey Epstein network, setting the stage for intense public inquiry into the bank's role and potential liability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 00513854.DOCXBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Newly released Department of Justice files and internal emails show that just **five days after Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in July 2019, federal authorities — including the FBI in coordination with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York — ordered the New York Police Department Special Victims Unit (SVU) to “stand down” its own investigations into Epstein and related matters. The directive reportedly came via outreach from the FBI to NYPD leadership, instructing that all Epstein-related investigative work from that point forward was to be handled through federal channels, effectively sidelining the NYPD's specialized child exploitation investigators. At the time, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office also had its own parallel inquiry underway, but the communication suggested that any further NYPD actions should defer to federal leadership.Emails among federal agents indicated that the motivation for the stand-down order was concern about overlapping cases and the perception of “competing investigations,” particularly after the DA's office reached out to a victim for interview amid the unfolding federal prosecution. The directive applied specifically to SVU — the unit trained to handle sex crimes and child abuse cases — and essentially shut out local detectives from pursuing additional leads or interviewing witnesses independently once Epstein was in federal custody. Internal discussions later suggested that NYPD's Epstein inquiry was effectively closed or deferred to the FBI, limiting the department's role despite its expertise in handling such cases. Epstein died in federal custody about a month later, ending the immediate criminal prosecution, though federal and local authorities continued to coordinate on related matters.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Revealed: FBI told NYPD to 'stand down' probe into Jeffrey Epstein - Alternet.orgBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This week, the boys grabbed some beers and kept it positive while they fired off some mini-reviews before featuring a conversation about “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”. As part of the random year generator series, 2004 was a great year for movies, with over 50 $100m movies and many likable ones. While “Eternal Sunshine” didn't gross in the top 70, it may be the year's greatest film. Props to Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman for giving Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet some juicy roles and incredibly shifty worlds! As for the mini-reviews, the boys can't speak highly enough of Gore Verbinski's “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die”, starring Sam Rockwell, and the intense and captivating “If I Had Legs I'd Kick You”, and the Academy Award-nominated “It Was Just An Accident”. Grab some beers and join us!  linktr.ee/theloveofcinema - Check out our YouTube page!  Our phone number is 646-484-9298. It accepts texts or voice messages.  0:00 Intro; 04:19 “If I Had Legs I'd Kick You” mini-review; 12:10 “Good Luck, Have Fun, Don't Die” mini-review; 18:24 “It Was Just An Accident” mini-review; 22:20 2004 Year in Review; 39:01 Films of 2004: “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”; 1:16:10 What You Been Watching?; 1:23:05 Next Week's Episode Teaser Additional Cast/Crew: Michel Gondry, Charlie Kaufman, Pierre Busmuth, David Cross, Elijah Wood, Mark Ruffalo, Kirsten Dunst, Tom Wilkinson, Sam Rockwell, Gore Verbinski, Michael Pena, Zazie Beetz, Haley Lu Richardson, Juno Temple, Jafar Panahi, Rose Byrne, Conan O'Brien, A$AP Rocky. 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: Fallout, Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, They Live, Paradise, John Carpenter, The Muppet Series, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, The Pitt, Blue Moon, A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms.  Additional Tags: Old Man Marley, Home Alone, Shawshenk Redemption, Gordon Ramsay, Thelma Schoonmaker, Stephen King's It, The Tenant, Rosemary's Baby, The Pianist, Cul-de-Sac, AI, The New York City Marathon, Apartments, Tenants, Rent Prices, Zohran Mamdani, Andrew Cuomo, Curtis Sliwa, Amazon, Robotics, AMC, IMAX Issues, Tron, The Dallas Cowboys, Short-term memory loss, Warner Brothers, Paramount, Netflix, AMC Times Square, Tom Cruise, George Clooney, 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, Apple Podcasts, West Side Story, Adelaide, Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Melbourne, 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, Stellan 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), Jeff Bezos, Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, David Ellison, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg.   

Newly released Department of Justice files and internal emails show that just **five days after Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in July 2019, federal authorities — including the FBI in coordination with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York — ordered the New York Police Department Special Victims Unit (SVU) to “stand down” its own investigations into Epstein and related matters. The directive reportedly came via outreach from the FBI to NYPD leadership, instructing that all Epstein-related investigative work from that point forward was to be handled through federal channels, effectively sidelining the NYPD's specialized child exploitation investigators. At the time, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office also had its own parallel inquiry underway, but the communication suggested that any further NYPD actions should defer to federal leadership.Emails among federal agents indicated that the motivation for the stand-down order was concern about overlapping cases and the perception of “competing investigations,” particularly after the DA's office reached out to a victim for interview amid the unfolding federal prosecution. The directive applied specifically to SVU — the unit trained to handle sex crimes and child abuse cases — and essentially shut out local detectives from pursuing additional leads or interviewing witnesses independently once Epstein was in federal custody. Internal discussions later suggested that NYPD's Epstein inquiry was effectively closed or deferred to the FBI, limiting the department's role despite its expertise in handling such cases. Epstein died in federal custody about a month later, ending the immediate criminal prosecution, though federal and local authorities continued to coordinate on related matters.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Revealed: FBI told NYPD to 'stand down' probe into Jeffrey Epstein - Alternet.orgBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Public Corruption Unit of the Southern District of New York played a central role in the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, underscoring how seriously the government regarded her alleged crimes. Typically focused on rooting out misconduct by officials and abuses of power, the unit's involvement highlighted that the case was not treated as a routine sex-trafficking prosecution but one with broader implications for systemic corruption and the abuse of privilege. By taking charge, the unit signaled that Maxwell's conduct—and her ties to Jeffrey Epstein—raised concerns that reached far beyond individual victims, touching on networks of influence and power.This unusual assignment was not lost on observers, who noted that it suggested prosecutors were framing the case as part of a larger pattern of accountability, ensuring that Maxwell's proximity to wealth, politics, and international connections would not shield her from justice. The Public Corruption Unit's presence lent the proceedings additional weight, reflecting an institutional recognition that the crimes alleged were intertwined with how elites exploited their positions. It also reassured critics who feared the case would be mishandled, presenting the trial as not only about Maxwell's personal actions but about confronting the broader culture of impunity surrounding Epstein's circle.To contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ghislaine-maxwells-case-being-handled-by-sdny-public-corruption-unit-could-spell-trouble-for-u-s-elites/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein's conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00008529.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf

Elie Honig doesn't talk like a television pundit.He talks like someone who has actually built cases.On this week's Friday Reporter, the former Southern District of New York prosecutor drew a straight line between organized crime and modern political power. The tactics, he said, don't really change.Create distance.Insulate the boss.Let other people take the fall.Stretch everything out.Sound familiar?We also talked about what the media consistently misunderstands about presidential investigations. These cases don't move slowly because prosecutors are confused. They move slowly because the stakes are historic, the bar for evidence is high, and every decision reshapes the institution itself.That caution protects legitimacy, but it can also suffocate it. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Which led to the bigger question: does the Department of Justice truly return to being an independent institution — or has the last decade permanently shifted it closer to the presidency it is supposed to check?Elie didn't hedge. Institutions don't magically reset. They either reassert themselves or they evolve into something else.If you work anywhere near power — politics, media, corporate leadership — this is worth your time.Because accountability is about structure — and structure is what determines who actually gets touched — and who doesn't.Link to the show is here —> Get full access to Authentically Speaking at thefridayreporter.substack.com/subscribe

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein's 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations.Edwards further argues that the government's resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government's possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney's Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability.to contact me:bobbycacpucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

Today on Mea Culpa, I'm joined by Nick Akerman, former Assistant Special Watergate Prosecutor and Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to break down Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent hearing and what it reveals about the state of our government. We discuss accountability, prosecutorial power, and the growing strain the Trump administration has placed on the rule of law. Drawing on lessons from Watergate, Akerman explains how political interference, delayed justice, and selective enforcement have eroded public trust, and why DOJ independence matters now more than ever. We also examine the dangers of normalizing corruption, the reality of a two-tiered justice system, and what it will take to restore faith in American institutions before lasting damage is done. Subscribe to Michael's Substack: https://therealmichaelcohen.substack.com/ Subscribe to Michael's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheMichaelCohenShow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Meal Culpa welcomes to the show Michael's old friend and former lawyer, Danya Perry. Danya is a founding partner at Perry Guha LLP. She is a nationally recognized white-collar criminal defense attorney and commercial litigator. Danya is equally gifted at litigating high-profile matters in court and in the press as she is at navigating backchannels to obtain quiet victories for her clients. Danya has represented corporations and individuals from every walk of life. And her criminal defense practice includes representing clients in cases involving everything from fraud to sexual assault of both men and women. Prior to founding Perry Guha with Samidh Guha in 2019, Danya spent five years as the Chief of Litigation and Deputy General Counsel at MacAndrews & Forbes Incorporated. From 2002 to 2013, Danya served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Today she is a regular media commentator, on MSNBC, CNN, and BBC. She's also written a number of op-eds ...

OA1233 - We are not conspiracy theorist type people. But... yeah man I don't know. But also, so much more in these files to talk about. If you know anything about the federal government's 2007 plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein you know that it was bad. But newly-released documents from the Epstein files show that it was actually much worse than that! Thanks to a newly-released legal memo, a draft indictment, and internal emails between prosecutors we now have a much better understanding of the disagreements within US Attorney for the District of Southern Florida Alex Acosta's office as they finalized the terms of a much-too-friendly agreement between the US government and a billionaire pedophile which a federal appeals court would later call “a national disgrace.” Matt has the receipts for this special emergency episode. You can also watch this episode on YouTube! Steve Bannon's Interview with Jeffrey Epstein (directly downloaded from the DOJ) Investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's Resolution of Its 2006–2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation (Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, 2020) Incident Report (Palm Beach Police Department, 2006)  Epstein indictment draft (United States Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, 2007) Appendix in The People of the State of New York v. Jeffrey E. Epstein (2013) Opinion - Alex Acosta acted with professionalism and integrity in handling the Jeffrey Epstein case (Miami Herald, 2/16/2019)  Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!