Gone But Not Forgotten: Matthew Green (10/28/25)

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn’t justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta’s insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he’d been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:[email protected]:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google Drive

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn’t justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta’s insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he’d been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:[email protected]:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google Drive

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn’t justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta’s insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he’d been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:[email protected]:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google Drive

Matthew Green, a 39-year-old math teacher and experienced outdoorsman, disappeared in July 2013 while on a solo hike near Mammoth Lakes, California. Despite extensive search efforts involving local authorities, volunteers, and advanced technology, no trace of him has ever been found. Matthew, who had a seizure disorder requiring daily medication, left his belongings at the campground, suggesting he intended only a short hike. His disappearance remains a mystery, with theories ranging from a medical emergency or hiking accident to more speculative ideas of foul play or voluntary disappearance. Over a decade later, his family continues to search for answers, utilizing newer search technology and maintaining hope for closure.(commercial at 10:09)to contact me:[email protected]

Diddy has fired back at Joi Dickerson Neal and her allegations against him and in this episode, we are going to get a look at what Diddy had to say.   A "Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint" is a legal document filed by defendants in a lawsuit. Let's break down what each component means:Memorandum of Law: This is a written legal document that presents arguments and supporting authorities (such as statutes, regulations, and case law) in support of a specific legal position. It is used to persuade the court to rule in favor of the party presenting the memorandum.Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss: A motion to dismiss is a request made by one party in a lawsuit to terminate the case before it goes to trial. In this case, the defendants are asking the court to dismiss only certain parts of the complaint filed against them. This motion is "partial" because it seeks dismissal of only some claims or allegations, rather than the entire complaint.The Complaint: This refers to the initial document filed by the plaintiff(s) in a lawsuit, which outlines the claims and allegations against the defendant(s). The defendants' motion to dismiss is a response to the complaint, arguing that some or all of the claims in the complaint should be dismissed for various reasons, such as failure to state a legal claim, lack of jurisdiction, or other deficiencies in the complaint.So, the "Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint" would be a document prepared by the defendants' legal team that lays out the legal arguments and authorities supporting their request to dismiss certain parts of the complaint. It would likely include analysis of relevant case law, statutes, and legal principles to demonstrate why the court should grant their motion to dismiss.(commercial at 13:02)to contact me:[email protected]:diddy-motion.pdf (documentcloud.org)

Diddy has fired back at Joi Dickerson Neal and her allegations against him and in this episode, we are going to get a look at what Diddy had to say.   A "Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint" is a legal document filed by defendants in a lawsuit. Let's break down what each component means:Memorandum of Law: This is a written legal document that presents arguments and supporting authorities (such as statutes, regulations, and case law) in support of a specific legal position. It is used to persuade the court to rule in favor of the party presenting the memorandum.Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss: A motion to dismiss is a request made by one party in a lawsuit to terminate the case before it goes to trial. In this case, the defendants are asking the court to dismiss only certain parts of the complaint filed against them. This motion is "partial" because it seeks dismissal of only some claims or allegations, rather than the entire complaint.The Complaint: This refers to the initial document filed by the plaintiff(s) in a lawsuit, which outlines the claims and allegations against the defendant(s). The defendants' motion to dismiss is a response to the complaint, arguing that some or all of the claims in the complaint should be dismissed for various reasons, such as failure to state a legal claim, lack of jurisdiction, or other deficiencies in the complaint.So, the "Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss the Complaint" would be a document prepared by the defendants' legal team that lays out the legal arguments and authorities supporting their request to dismiss certain parts of the complaint. It would likely include analysis of relevant case law, statutes, and legal principles to demonstrate why the court should grant their motion to dismiss.(commercial at 13:02)to contact me:[email protected]:diddy-motion.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In November 2023, Joi Dickerson-Neal filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging that in 1991, while she was a college student at Syracuse University, Combs drugged and sexually assaulted her during a date. According to the complaint, after dining at Wells Restaurant in Harlem, Combs allegedly gave her a substance that incapacitated her, rendering her unable to stand or walk independently. He then purportedly transported her to a location where he sexually assaulted her. Dickerson-Neal further claims that Combs recorded the assault without her consent and distributed the footage within the music industry.Following the incident, Dickerson-Neal asserts that she suffered severe emotional distress, leading to depression and withdrawal from college. She alleges that the trauma from the assault and the unauthorized distribution of the recording caused long-term psychological harm. In response, Combs' legal representatives have denied the allegations, labeling the lawsuit as a "money grab" and asserting that the claims are fabricated.to contact me:[email protected]

In November 2023, Joi Dickerson-Neal filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging that in 1991, while she was a college student at Syracuse University, Combs drugged and sexually assaulted her during a date. According to the complaint, after dining at Wells Restaurant in Harlem, Combs allegedly gave her a substance that incapacitated her, rendering her unable to stand or walk independently. He then purportedly transported her to a location where he sexually assaulted her. Dickerson-Neal further claims that Combs recorded the assault without her consent and distributed the footage within the music industry.Following the incident, Dickerson-Neal asserts that she suffered severe emotional distress, leading to depression and withdrawal from college. She alleges that the trauma from the assault and the unauthorized distribution of the recording caused long-term psychological harm. In response, Combs' legal representatives have denied the allegations, labeling the lawsuit as a "money grab" and asserting that the claims are fabricated.to contact me:[email protected]

In November 2023, Joi Dickerson-Neal filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging that in 1991, while she was a college student at Syracuse University, Combs drugged and sexually assaulted her during a date. According to the complaint, after dining at Wells Restaurant in Harlem, Combs allegedly gave her a substance that incapacitated her, rendering her unable to stand or walk independently. He then purportedly transported her to a location where he sexually assaulted her. Dickerson-Neal further claims that Combs recorded the assault without her consent and distributed the footage within the music industry.Following the incident, Dickerson-Neal asserts that she suffered severe emotional distress, leading to depression and withdrawal from college. She alleges that the trauma from the assault and the unauthorized distribution of the recording caused long-term psychological harm. In response, Combs' legal representatives have denied the allegations, labeling the lawsuit as a "money grab" and asserting that the claims are fabricated.to contact me:[email protected]

An Garda Síochána has intensified its crackdown on the Kinahan cartel, one of Europe’s most notorious organized crime networks. In recent months, Garda investigators—working with international partners—secured the extradition of senior cartel figure Sean McGovern from the United Arab Emirates to Ireland, where he faces charges of murder, directing a criminal organization, and conspiracy to commit serious offenses. Garda Commissioner Drew Harris described the extradition as a “landmark development,” underscoring Ireland’s growing cooperation with the UAE after years of diplomatic standoffs. The move also represents the first major success under the new international enforcement pact targeting the Kinahans’ drug, arms, and money-laundering operations across Europe, the Middle East, and South America.Still, skepticism lingers over how far the Irish authorities are truly willing—or able—to go. Despite public bravado from senior Garda officials warning cartel members of “serious life choices ahead,” the group’s top hierarchy—Daniel Kinahan, his father Christy Sr., and brother Christopher Jr.—remain free abroad. While Gardaí have reportedly submitted files to the Director of Public Prosecutions recommending charges, no warrants or arrests have been executed inside Ireland. The McGovern extradition may symbolize progress, but until the Kinahan leadership faces handcuffs or forfeits its vast assets, the perception will remain that the cartel’s real power players are still beyond reach.to contact me:[email protected]