Podcasts about United States district court

Five days after the South Carolina Supreme Court's unanimous ruling overturning Alex Murdaugh's double murder convictions, his defense team filed a seventeen-page Section 1983 civil rights complaint against former Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in Charleston.The complaint alleges Hill, acting under color of state law in her capacity as elected clerk, deprived Murdaugh of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights through deliberate jury interference — conduct the Supreme Court characterized as "shocking" and described as Hill placing "her fingers on the scales of justice."Eric Faddis examines the legal architecture of the federal civil action, including the evidentiary standard Murdaugh must meet, the scope of civil discovery available under federal rules, and the strategic implications of Jim Griffin's public statement that none of the six hundred thousand dollars in requested damages would go to Murdaugh personally.He addresses the prosecutorial gap — Hill's guilty pleas to misconduct, obstruction, and perjury alongside the absence of a jury tampering charge from state prosecutors, followed by the Supreme Court's effective finding of exactly that conduct. He evaluates Attorney General Alan Wilson's public consideration of the death penalty for the retrial and the potential legal friction created by vindictive prosecution doctrine.Footer Links: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/TrueCrimePodDisclaimer:This 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.Hashtags:#AlexMurdaugh #BeckyHill #MurdaughTrial #SouthCarolina #JuryTampering #Section1983 #TrueCrime #DeathPenalty #MurdaughRetrial #HiddenKillers

Troy Nunley, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, talks about the strain that immigration cases have placed on his district and what led him to ask for help from Hawaiʻi judges; Honolulu's director of botanical gardens, Joshlyn Sand, on cleanup efforts at Hoʻomaluhia Botanical Garden in Kāne‘ohe following the Kona Lows

Violent conflicts like the ones currently happening in the Mideast usually have the fallout of misinformation and disinformation from many sides. Since the terror attacks of October 7th on Israel, Jews across the world have been subjected to a sharp rise in antisemitism being fueled by online information that has become increasingly harder to discern between truth and propaganda. And besides hateful untrue rhetoric, there are deadly consequences to this antisemitism with attacks on the Jewish communities in the United Sates that authorities have connected to radicalization by terror groups. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Roy Altman, lawyer and jurist who serves as a United States district judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and author of 'Israel on Trial: Examining the History, the Evidence and the Law', out April 28th, who explains how online disinformation fuels antisemitism across the world, and how to evaluate modern political claims using legal reasoning. Click Here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Violent conflicts like the ones currently happening in the Mideast usually have the fallout of misinformation and disinformation from many sides. Since the terror attacks of October 7th on Israel, Jews across the world have been subjected to a sharp rise in antisemitism being fueled by online information that has become increasingly harder to discern between truth and propaganda. And besides hateful untrue rhetoric, there are deadly consequences to this antisemitism with attacks on the Jewish communities in the United Sates that authorities have connected to radicalization by terror groups. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Roy Altman, lawyer and jurist who serves as a United States district judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and author of 'Israel on Trial: Examining the History, the Evidence and the Law', out April 28th, who explains how online disinformation fuels antisemitism across the world, and how to evaluate modern political claims using legal reasoning. Click Here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Violent conflicts like the ones currently happening in the Mideast usually have the fallout of misinformation and disinformation from many sides. Since the terror attacks of October 7th on Israel, Jews across the world have been subjected to a sharp rise in antisemitism being fueled by online information that has become increasingly harder to discern between truth and propaganda. And besides hateful untrue rhetoric, there are deadly consequences to this antisemitism with attacks on the Jewish communities in the United Sates that authorities have connected to radicalization by terror groups. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Roy Altman, lawyer and jurist who serves as a United States district judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and author of 'Israel on Trial: Examining the History, the Evidence and the Law', out April 28th, who explains how online disinformation fuels antisemitism across the world, and how to evaluate modern political claims using legal reasoning. Click Here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We Like Shooting - Ep 657 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Gideon Optics (Code: WLSISLIFE) Night Fision (Code: WLSISLIFE) Die Free Co. (Code: WLSISLIFE) Rost Martin (Code: WLSISLIFE) Flatline Fiber Co (Code: WLS15) Second Call Defense Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171  Public   Show Titles   GunCon.net Tickets on sale now. Use code AGENCY171 GEAR CHAT Note Kelbly Element update. https://kelbly.com/precision-element-rifle/ Note Bounty Hunter from Midwest Industries. https://midwestindustriesinc.com/product-type/stocks-braces/revolver-stocks-braces/ Note Mediator XL update https://gideonoptics.com/shop-all/mediator-xl-red-dot-sight/ Note Holosun AEMS – https://www.holosun.com/products/rifle-sights/aems-x2.html Note Hi-Point HP-15 update – https://www.hi-pointfirearms.com/hi-point-hp15/556-rifle/556-16in-blk/ Note VKTR Industries update – https://www.vktrind.com/product/vk-1p-11-5-ar15-pistol-with-sba3-brace/ [EZshoot] BoreSighter Caliber Pistols Shotguns The EZshoot BoreSighter is a laser bore sight kit compatible with calibers from .177 to 0.78 inches, suitable for pistols, rifles, handguns, and shotguns. It features multiple adapters for precise bore alignment and a red or green laser for quick sighting. The kit includes batteries, a storage case, and an arbor for enhanced stability in larger calibers. Note Laser boresight – responses and did both. [FarrowTech] 22R Stock/Brace PDW Kit for Ruger MK3 and MK4 (Nick) This is a PDW style conversion kit for the Ruger MK3/4, available as a Stock or Brace configuration. All setups include 2 optional side Picatinny rails and a charging handle. Installation requires no permanent modifications to the host firearm. [AS Designs] ARHK (Nick) The ARHK is a fully self-contained drop-in cassette trigger unit built on ARC-Fire technology, designed specifically for HK roller-delayed platforms such as MP5, MP5K, AP53, G3, and HK21 clones. It installs directly into factory OEM polymer housings without modifications, features a pre-installed ejector, and offers a three-position selector: Safe, Semi (standard trigger pull), and Active Reset via ARC-Fire clutch. It maintains compatibility with all bolt carrier types, including full-auto. [Impact Kote] Custom Scope Wraps (Nick) Impact Kote offers custom scope wraps designed for precision rifle shooters. Specific technical details such as mechanical features, pricing, and availability are not detailed on the page. The content primarily consists of a general announcement without explicit product specifications. [Shomer-Tec] Escape Button™ The Escape Button™ is a covert escape and evasion tool disguised as a standard mil-spec 3/4 inch diameter plastic BDU button, featuring a pivoting 7/16 inch serrated 1095 steel blade that deploys via fingernail along the perimeter for cutting restraints like zip-ties, cord, rope, and tape. It attaches to clothing with low breaking-strength thread in accessible areas for use even with bound wrists. Manufactured in the USA with all USA components, it weighs 0.05 oz and is available in black, tan, and olive drab. BULLET POINTS Bus Built Systems PBP Gen 3 (Nick) The PBP Gen 3 from Bus Built Systems is a laser-cut 1/8-inch thick 304 stainless steel plate designed for mounting bags to an Arca rail, featuring an Arca clamp on one side and Arca rail on the other. It supports multiple bags from various manufacturers via perimeter slots and includes scallops for stability on props like cattle gates, plus fore and aft holes for optics or accessories. Powder coated in Bus Built Yellow, it weighs roughly a pound and a half without a bag. AR-15 Buffer Weights for Suppressed Tuning (H2 Buffer) The H2 buffer for AR-15 rifles weighs approximately 4.6 ounces and contains two tungsten weights, designed to slow down the bolt carrier group and reduce recoil in suppressed setups without needing an adjustable gas block. It is a popular choice for short-barreled rifles and suppressed AR-15s to manage increased backpressure from silencers. Heavier buffers like the H2 help fine-tune over-gassed systems by increasing mass. 1X Prism Optic A 1X prism optic uses a glass prism to focus both the target image and an etched reticle, which can be optionally illuminated without requiring batteries for basic use. It provides clarity and durability advantages over red dots, particularly for users with astigmatism, and supports complex reticles like ACSS with bullet drop compensation. Though not truly 1X, any magnification is negligible in practice. GUN FIGHTS No one stepped into the arena this week. THE AGENCY BRIEF WLS IS LIFESTYLE 9mm Speed-Loader for Glock, SIG, CZ, Springfield The 9mm Speed-Loader is a 3D printable tray that holds 10 rounds for quick reloading of compatible magazines from Glock, SIG, CZ, and Springfield. It features holes for bracing against a surface to ease loading without thumb strain from compressed springs. Print profiles include options with or without text, using 0.2mm layers, 3 walls, and 15% infill. GOING BALLISTIC Alberta and Saskatchewan Reject Federal Gun Confiscation Program from Ottawa (Savage) Alberta and Saskatchewan have publicly opposed Ottawa's federal firearm confiscation program, which banned about 2,500 firearms with a voluntary declaration deadline of March 31. Alberta's Minister of Justice Mickey Amery affirmed non-participation, directing provincial entities including law enforcement to decline implementation under provincial sovereignty legislation. Saskatchewan passed legislation to hinder the program, prompting criticism from Federal Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree. John Lott on U.S. Military Bases Gun-Free Zones Policy (1992-1993) (Savage) John Lott argues that U.S. military bases should never have implemented gun-free zones, as these policies disarm trained personnel, leaving them vulnerable to attackers, evidenced by multiple mass shootings totaling 24 murdered and 38 wounded. The restrictions originated in 1992 under President George H.W. Bush and were enacted in 1993 by President Clinton to create a more ‘professional, business-like' environment. In contrast, troops carried weapons at all times in Iraq and Afghanistan without internal violence. Antonyuk v. James: New York Permanent Injunction on Social Media Gun Permit Requirement (Savage) In Antonyuk v. James, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a permanent injunction against New York's requirement for concealed carry applicants to disclose social media accounts from the past three years, as part of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act. The state consented to this injunction, removing the provision from the PPB-3 license application form. Litigation continues on other aspects of the Act, including restrictions on sensitive locations. Trump's FY2027 Budget Proposal (Civil Rights Division and ATF Funding for 2A Protection) (Savage) President Trump's FY2027 budget proposal includes targeted federal funding to defend Second Amendment rights, such as $1.4 million for a new office in the DOJ Civil Rights Division to protect against unlawful infringements and pursue enshrining those rights. It allocates $4.8 million to the Office of the Pardon Attorney's Firearm Rights Restoration Initiative for law-abiding citizens to regain rights post-justice obligations. The budget supports ATF in reversing prior regulations on background checks, pistol braces, homemade firearms, and FFL revocations, redirecting focus to illegal traffickers. Beckwith v. Frey: First Circuit Rules Gun Purchases Not Protected by Second Amendment (Savage) In Beckwith et al. v. Frey, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed a district court's preliminary injunction against Maine's 2024 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases (Me. Stat. tit. 25, § 2016). The panel held that the Second Amendment's plain text protects keeping and bearing arms but not the act of purchasing or acquiring firearms. This creates a circuit split with other circuits recognizing a right to acquire arms. ATF Frames and Receivers Rule (Updating 2021R-05F) – Bondi v. VanDerStok (Savage) The ATF is preparing a new draft rule updating the 2021R-05F ‘Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver' and Identification of Firearms,' which expands the definition of ‘firearm' to include partially completed frames, receivers, and certain parts kits that are ‘readily' completable. This follows the 2022 rule upheld by the Supreme Court in Bondi v. VanDerStok (2025). The update eases restrictions on some metal unfinished kits while maintaining strict regulation on polymer frames. REVIEWS Review: Operative Agent J Freedom from Illinois Comiforina wants full gun control, and the latest suit against gatalog proves it's not about public safety. Ironic, that their top gun control tard was running guns, Yang I think his name was. And they literally had politicians hiring Chinese spys, and one threatening to nuke us. Operative Agent J Freedom Review: Griz from Texas Absolutely phenomenal podcast. It takes real talent to talk for this long and somehow say so little, but the hosts pull it off with impressive consistency. Every episode feels like a masterclass in wandering off-topic, repeating the same points, and stretching what could be five minutes of content into a full episode. The chemistry between the hosts is undeniable—mostly because they seem just as confused about where the conversation is going as the listeners are. The audio quality is great though, which really helps you clearly hear every awkward pause and questionable take. If you're looking for a podcast that will make you appreciate literally every other podcast out there, this one is a must-listen. Five squares for the unforgettable experience. Secret Notes Griz Review: JackB from Texas 5 squares.

What happens when a soldier survives combat overseas only to face a different battle at home? In this powerful episode of The MisFitNation Show, host Rich LaMonica sits down with Purple Heart combat veteran Jeremy Kevin Jackson. Jeremy served in the United States Army and was severely wounded in Iraq on August 13, 2005, when a 7.62mm sniper round struck his left arm, causing permanent nerve damage and paralysis. The injury ultimately led to his medical retirement from the Army. Despite living with these disabilities, Jeremy focused on rebuilding his life and raising his two sons. But according to Jeremy, his life took a dramatic turn when legal actions and allegations led to criminal charges and the removal of his children from his custody. Those charges were later dismissed, yet Jeremy says the legal battle continued. Jeremy is currently the plaintiff in an active federal civil rights lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:25-cv-00420). His lawsuit alleges constitutional violations, due process concerns, malicious prosecution, and misconduct related to his case. In this conversation, Jeremy shares his story, his perspective on what happened, and why he believes his experience highlights larger issues within family courts and legal systems that affect parents across the country. ⚠️ Important Note: The matters discussed in this episode involve an ongoing legal case, and all allegations discussed reflect Jeremy Jackson's claims and perspective. Jeremy's military service and combat injury in Iraq Living with permanent disability after war The challenges veterans face when returning home His ongoing federal civil rights lawsuit The emotional impact of family court battles Why he is speaking publicly about due process and accountability

This week Steve and Yvonne interview Anthony Elman & Frederick Joseph of Elman Joseph Law Group, LLC (https://www.elmanlaw.com/).    Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review   View/Download Trial Documents   Guest Bios: Anthony Ellman Anthony (Tony) Elman is the Lead Trial Attorney of the Elman Joseph Law Group, LLC. He has been named a "Super Lawyer" by Thomson Reuters each year from 2016-2022. This "Super Lawyer" designation is granted to no more than 5% of lawyers based upon 12 indicators of both professional achievement as well as peer recognition. Anthony Elman was born in Chicago, Illinois on October 22, 1966. He graduated with a bachelor's degree in 1988 from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, went on to earn his J.D. degree in 1991 from Tulane Law School in New Orleans, Louisiana, and earned his Master of Law degree (L.L.M.) in health care law in 1994 from the DePaul Law School/Health Law Institute in Chicago, Illinois. He was admitted to the State of Illinois Bar and the General and Trial Bar of the United States District Court of North Eastern Illinois in 1992. Read the Full Bio Here   Frederick Joseph Frederick is a partner and trial lawyer for the Elman Joseph Law Group, LLC.  He was named to the 2021 & 2022 "Rising Stars" group of lawyers by Thomson Reuters as part of their "Super Lawyers" awards.  This "Rising Stars" designation is for those under 40 years old or who have been practicing law for 10 years or less and is granted to the Top 2.5% of lawyers.  The designation is based upon 12 indicators encompassing both professional achievement and peer review. The Elman Joseph Law Group concentrates on Illinois personal injury lawsuits involving car, truck, SUV, motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian accident injuries. The firm also handles cases involving premises liability injury cases (including "slip & fall" accidents), workplace accidents, injuries and accidents that occur in nursing homes, and other situations where injury or death has resulted due to the negligence or intentional actions of another person. Frederick prides himself on his success rate at arbitration and at trial. Like other lawyers at the Elman Joseph Law Group, LLC, he is unwilling to just "settle" cases by accepting inappropriate offers from the insurance companies. Among his accomplishments are the results he achieved in two Cook County car accident cases. Mr. Joseph has obtained the highest jury verdict awards in two separate Cook County municipal division courtrooms in 2018. Both verdicts are more than double the amount of the next highest verdict in their respective courtrooms. In one car accident court trial, the verdict was 12 times the final offer from the defense attorney; in the other lawsuit, the verdict was over 5 times the final offer from the defense attorney. Another example of Mr. Joseph's trial capabilities took place recently in Cook County. The plaintiff (a public school teacher) was struck after the defendant ran a red light and collided with her vehicle. The insurance company wanted to settle the case for less than the plaintiff's medical bills, and award her nothing for her pain and suffering. Mr. Joseph, unwilling to settle for that amount, took the case to trial. After closing arguments, the jury returned a verdict for his client for over four times what the insurance company was offering to settle the case. He graduated from the Purchase College Conservatory of Music, and he continued his graduate studies at Boston University. His J.D. degree is from the Loyola University Chicago School of Law. During law school, he was a member of the Dean's List, participated on the ABA Mock Trial Team, and spent two years clerking in the litigation/product liability group for a prestigious national corporate defense firm. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LegalTechService.com Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Production Team: Dee Daniels Media Podcast Production   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

We are back and ready for a "Title" Fight at cruiserweight, but curious as to which title is at stake in Las Vegas Sunday night. We sort that and preview that matchup and have some fight news on the "Big Fight Weekend Preview" Podcast!Host T.J. Rives is back with insider Dan Rafael to go over it all.They start with Sunday night's Zuffa Boxing main event at the Apex in Las VegasJai Opetaia vs. Brandon Glanton, for Opetaia's lineal cruiserweight title, the Ring Magazine belt, the Zuffa new title, but what about Opetaia's IBF championship? That's unclear. We have the latest.  Then, some newsGolden Boy Promotions won a legal victory in United States District Court in Nevada on Monday night, as Judge Cristina Silva keeps Golden Boy's interim injunctive relief preventing, at least for now, Vergil Ortiz from contracting for the Jarpm Ennis. She has ordered the case be settled in arbitration. We explain what it all means for now?Then, William Zepeda and Lamont Roach Jr. will fight for the vacant WBC lightweight title stripped from Shakur Stevenson last month. However, how is the "interim" WBC 135 lb. champ Jadier Herrera not involved?Floyd Mayweather announces another exhibition- this one for June 27 in Athens, Greece, vs. Mike Zambidis, a retired Greek kickboxer who won a variety of world titles in various promotions during his 2000 to 2015 career.  How many exhibitions are we up to with Floyd before he rematches Pacquiao in September?MVP is hosting a press conference at Madison Square Garden on Friday for what it says is a major announcement. Per Dan's reporting, it will be to announce an April 17 card involving Alycia Baumgardner in a unified women's junior lightweight title defense vs. former lightweight title challenger Bo Mi Re Shin of Korea with the card on ESPN as the first of multiple ESPN events.  Eddie Hearn announced Thursday he has signed UFC heavyweight champion, Tom Aspinall as his first client of the newly created Matchroom Talent Agency. Will put him negotiating with Dana White on Aspinnal's UFC fight. That should be fun to hear Eddie talk about how underpaid UFC fighters are. We go over the latest in the fued.And, with Oscar Duarte having his title shot vs. Richardson Hitchins canceled the day of the fight from the Barrios-Garcia card,  Golden Boy tells Dan they plan to add him to the May 2 Benavidez-Zurdo PPV card.It's all part of the "Big Fight Weekend Preview Podcast" and make sure to follow/subscribe on Apple/Spreaker/Spotify, etc.

We are back and ready for a "Title" Fight at cruiserweight, but curious as to which title is at stake in Las Vegas Sunday night. We sort that and preview that matchup and have some fight news on the "Big Fight Weekend Preview" Podcast!Host T.J. Rives is back with insider Dan Rafael to go over it all.They start with Sunday night's Zuffa Boxing main event at the Apex in Las VegasJai Opetaia vs. Brandon Glanton, for Opetaia's lineal cruiserweight title, the Ring Magazine belt, the Zuffa new title, but what about Opetaia's IBF championship? That's unclear. We have the latest.  Then, some newsGolden Boy Promotions won a legal victory in United States District Court in Nevada on Monday night, as Judge Cristina Silva keeps Golden Boy's interim injunctive relief preventing, at least for now, Vergil Ortiz from contracting for the Jarpm Ennis. She has ordered the case be settled in arbitration. We explain what it all means for now?Then, William Zepeda and Lamont Roach Jr. will fight for the vacant WBC lightweight title stripped from Shakur Stevenson last month. However, how is the "interim" WBC 135 lb. champ Jadier Herrera not involved?Floyd Mayweather announces another exhibition- this one for June 27 in Athens, Greece, vs. Mike Zambidis, a retired Greek kickboxer who won a variety of world titles in various promotions during his 2000 to 2015 career.  How many exhibitions are we up to with Floyd before he rematches Pacquiao in September?MVP is hosting a press conference at Madison Square Garden on Friday for what it says is a major announcement. Per Dan's reporting, it will be to announce an April 17 card involving Alycia Baumgardner in a unified women's junior lightweight title defense vs. former lightweight title challenger Bo Mi Re Shin of Korea with the card on ESPN as the first of multiple ESPN events.  Eddie Hearn announced Thursday he has signed UFC heavyweight champion, Tom Aspinall as his first client of the newly created Matchroom Talent Agency. Will put him negotiating with Dana White on Aspinnal's UFC fight. That should be fun to hear Eddie talk about how underpaid UFC fighters are. We go over the latest in the fued.And, with Oscar Duarte having his title shot vs. Richardson Hitchins canceled the day of the fight from the Barrios-Garcia card,  Golden Boy tells Dan they plan to add him to the May 2 Benavidez-Zurdo PPV card.It's all part of the "Big Fight Weekend Preview Podcast" and make sure to follow/subscribe on Apple/Spreaker/Spotify, etc.

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.

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.

On this episode, Payton explores the case of Anne Marie Fahey, an ambitious woman who was building a bright future for herself when she suddenly vanished without a trace. What first seemed like a missing persons case slowly unraveled into something far more unsettling, revealing hidden secrets, powerful connections, and a shocking truth no one expected. Links: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/murderwithmyhusbandNetflix: https://www.netflix.com/murderwithmyhusband NEW MERCH LINK: https://mwmhshop.com Discount Codes: https://mailchi.mp/c6f48670aeac/oh-no-media-discount-codes Twitch: twitch.tv/throatypie Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/paytonmorelandshow/ Discount Codes: https://mailchi.mp/c6f48670aeac/oh-no-media-discount-codes Watch on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUbh-B5Or9CT8Hutw1wfYqQ Listen on Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/into-the-dark/id1662304327 Listen on spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/36SDVKB2MEWpFGVs9kRgQ7 Case Sources: And Never Let Her Go by Anne Rule  FBI - https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/thomas-capano-and-the-murder-of-anne-marie-fahey CBS News - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/another-twist-in-fahey-mystery/  Delaware Online - https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2019/01/16/20-years-later-12-never-before-heard-details-thomas-capano-murder-trial/2482031002/  The Doe Network - https://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1989dfde.html  WHYY - https://whyy.org/articles/notorious-convicted-killer-thomas-capano-found-dead-in-delaware-prison-cell/ Death Penalty Information Center - https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/high-profile-delaware-defendant-spared-the-death-penalty   United States District Court for the District of Delaware - https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/06-58.pdf Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey folks, imagine this: it's early 2026, and I'm glued to my screen in my Washington D.C. apartment, coffee going cold as the Supreme Court ramps up for what could be the biggest clash yet with President Donald Trump. Just days ago, on January 28th, News4JAX aired a riveting breakdown on Politics & Power, hosted by Bruce Hamilton alongside a constitutional law scholar, dissecting how Chief Justice John Roberts subtly defended the court's independence in his end-of-2025 year-end report. Roberts leaned hard on history over politics, but they warned 2026 is the real showdown—cases testing if Trump can unilaterally rewrite citizenship laws, slap massive tariffs worldwide, and even fire Federal Reserve governors like Lisa Cook.Let me take you back a bit. Trump's second term kicked off January 20, 2025, and he hit the ground running with executive orders that shook everything up. By February and April, he'd unleashed tariffs on imports from nearly every country—10 to 50 percent reciprocal hits, tweaking them for toys from China or steel from Europe. Two Illinois companies, Learning Resources, Inc., and hand2mind, Inc., weren't having it. They sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president carte blanche for unlimited tariffs. The district court sided with them in May, issuing a preliminary injunction. The Court of International Trade echoed that without the injunction, and by August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shot down Trump's appeal. Boom—the Supreme Court grabbed it for expedited review, hearing oral arguments on November 5, 2025, right in the thick of their term that started October 6.SCOTUSblog's been all over it, noting the justices are in winter recess now, not back on the bench until February 20. That's when we might get the tariffs ruling—unless they drop it early like they did with Trump v. Anderson in 2024, zipping out a decision before Super Tuesday primaries. Trump's fighting tooth and nail, calling the stakes massive for America's economy.But tariffs are just the appetizer. There's Trump v. Barbara, straight from Oyez, challenging Executive Order No. 14,160 that aims to gut birthright citizenship—can he really end it by fiat? Then there's the Lisa Cook drama. Trump tried firing the Federal Reserve Governor over alleged mortgage fraud, claiming dual primary residences in D.C. and Atlanta. Lower courts blocked it, saying no full hearing yet, and the Supreme Court agreed across ideologies: Cook stays put until it's sorted. The Ninth Circuit's National TPS Alliance v. Noem ruling ties in too—Trump's team, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed January 25, 2025, moved fast to vacate Haiti's Temporary Protected Status extension set to expire August 2025.And don't get me started on Kilmar Orega or those nationwide injunctions Trump hates—judges in far-off districts halting his policies for the whole U.S. without everyone getting a say. Britannica lists these as marquee 2025-26 term battles: Learning Resources v. Trump, plus Chiles v. Salazar, Louisiana v. Callais, Little v. Hecox—all probing separation of powers. Experts on that News4JAX show predict Trump might lose big on delegation doctrine; Congress, not the president, sets agency rules. It's midterm election year, Trump's termed out, politically weaker—courts historically push back harder then. The Supreme Court's legitimacy hangs in the balance, walking that tightrope between executive muscle and judicial check.Whew, listeners, what a whirlwind these past days. From tariff showdowns to citizenship overhauls, Trump's vision collides head-on with the robes in black. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and 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

UPDATE: Jonathan Fombonne was appointed to serve as Harris County Attorney in Houston, Texas in January 2026.   Jonathan Fombonne is the Deputy County Attorney and First Assistant County Attorney in Harris County, Texas. After graduating from Swarthmore College and the University of Michigan Law School, he started his career with a clerkship for Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. Prior to his current appointment, he practiced law at law firms in Texas and New York, maintained a significant pro bono practice, and was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Jonathan, his wife Lauren, and their children live in Houston, Texas.

On June 27, 2025, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire challenging President Trump's Executive Order No. 14,160, which denies birthright citizenship to children born after February 19th, 2025 to parents who are either illegally present in or temporary residents of the United States. On July 10th, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction barring the execution of the order, and, in September, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari before judgment. The Court granted cert and will hear oral arguments in early 2026.The case hinges on the question of whether children born to illegal or temporary residents of the United States are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and thus entitled to citizenship under the 14th amendment. Join us for this timely discussion on a case with immense implications for immigration enforcement, our understanding of the 14th amendment, and the meaning of birthright citizenship.Featuring:Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCProf. Michael Ramsey, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center

Every trial tells a story — but what happens when the storyteller becomes the judge? The honorable Judge Richard Franklin Boulware II speaks with Anora Wang and Jeny Maier on his remarkable journey from public defender to federal judge, lessons on persuasion, fairness, and the fine art of trial craft, and what it really means to keep score in the pursuit of justice. Along the way, we'll talk about competition on the field and in the courtroom, the evolving role of lawyers in upholding trust in the judiciary, and how the legal profession can help protect the judiciary from rising threats. With special guest: Judge Richard Franklin Boulware II, United States District Court for the District of Nevada Related Links: Le et al v. Zuffa, LLC, No. 2:2015cv01045 - Document 839 (D. Nev. 2023) Hosted by: Anora Wang, Arnold & Porter and Jeny Maier, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider

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.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-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-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.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-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-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.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-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-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.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-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-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.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.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-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-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-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.

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.

Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California joins host Renée Rothauge to reflect on how his civil rights-era upbringing in Mississippi, his clerkship for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas – where he contributed to Roe v. Wade and Sierra Club v. Morton – and his experiences as a trial attorney all shaped his judicial philosophy. He discusses his transition from private practice to the federal bench, his belief in the jury trial, and his enduring respect for the United States District Court. Alsup also shares insights from his novel The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald and his memoir Won Over, revealing a lifetime devoted to fairness, truth, and the pursuit of justice.

Accountability or weaponization? That's the question Andrew and Mary tackle in their 150th episode together, starting with the distraction of the Office of the Special Counsel's investigation into Jack Smith for possible Hatch Act violations. In other DOJ related matters, they give some context to the Trump administration's continued battle to keep Alina Habba, a Trump ally, as New Jersey U.S. Attorney, just as The Legal Accountability Center filed bar complaints against lawyers who have represented Trump's White House in court. In another sideshow, Andrew and Mary break down what to make of a report on the “Clinton Plan” emails, declassified amid the Epstein controversy. And last up, they detail the decision out of the 9th Circuit Court which upheld a pause on ICE raids in California.  Further Reading: Here is the piece Andrew and his colleague Ryan Goodman wrote for Just Security in October 2024: Refuting the Latest Baseless Attacks Against Special Counsel Jack SmithHere is the 9th Circuit Court decision on ICE Raids: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California And some exciting news: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.