VIRAL: Man Heroically Confronts Michigan Walmart Stabbing Suspect In Parking Lot
Renowned Miami defense attorney Roy Black passed away at 80 in Coral Gables, Florida, after battling an undisclosed illness. Widely regarded as a legal titan, Black remained active at his law firm until his final days. Following news of his death, conspiracy theories exploded online, with many linking it to his past ties with Jeffrey Epstein. Viral posts claim it's 'no coincidence,' calling it another piece removed from the board. His wife, Lea Black, confirmed the passing and promised a public tribute soon. Black gained national fame after defending William Kennedy Smith in a historic televised rape trial and later represented high-profile names like Justin Bieber, Rush Limbaugh, Helio Castroneves, and Epstein. He is survived by his wife and two children, RJ and Nora, marking the end of an era in American legal circles.
1.7K views | 5 days ago
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
36 minutes ago
- First Post
Epstein Files: FBI blacked out Trump's name in documents after March review, says report
This large-scale effort involved nearly 1,000 agents who were tasked with sifting through over 100,000 pages of documents in March. read more In a sweeping review of internal records tied to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) redacted the names of President Donald Trump and other high-profile individuals, according to a recent Bloomberg report. This large-scale effort, conducted earlier this year, involved nearly 1,000 agents who were tasked with sifting through over 100,000 pages of documents in March. Sources cited by Bloomberg revealed that agents were specifically instructed to flag any references to Trump, with his name ultimately blacked out to prevent what the FBI described as an 'unwarranted invasion of privacy.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The directive came as part of a broader reassessment of Epstein-related files led by the Justice Department. The review concluded that there was no evidence of criminal activity involving Trump. However, the decision to redact his name has sparked debate, particularly among Trump's MAGA supporters, who have been vocal about their demands for the release of the remaining Epstein files. Both the president and senior White House officials have resisted these calls, arguing that further disclosures are unnecessary and expressing a desire to move on from the issue. The controversy traces back to February, when the White House distributed binders filled with mostly public Epstein-related materials to far-right influencers, framing it as part of a transparency initiative. At the time, US Attorney General Pam Bondi described the release as the 'first phase' of making documents public, adding that additional files, including the highly speculated client list, were 'sitting on my desk,' as she told Fox News. However, frustration over delays in accessing requested files prompted Bondi to push the FBI to reassign hundreds of agents to the case. This led to the intensive March effort, where agents worked around-the-clock shifts to prepare documents for potential public release, with a specific focus on flagging Trump's name. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to Bloomberg, the review uncovered 'numerous references to Trump' alongside mentions of other prominent figures. Before any potential public disclosure, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) officers processed the flagged documents, applying redactions under exemptions designed to protect personal privacy. Trump's name was withheld because he was a private citizen during the initial Epstein investigation in 2006. Investigators cited FOIA provisions that guard against releasing information that could constitute an 'unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.' In May, during a Justice Department briefing, Bondi informed Trump that his name appeared multiple times in the Epstein files, according to a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report. She also noted that other high-profile individuals were mentioned, but clarified that no so-called 'client list' had been uncovered. The White House initially dismissed the WSJ report as 'fake news,' but an unnamed official later confirmed to Reuters that Trump's name did appear in some files, though it did not suggest any wrongdoing. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD By July, the administration shifted its stance, stating that 'no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.' The Justice Department pointed to a lack of new findings and ongoing privacy concerns as reasons to halt additional releases.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
I-T officials investigating Jane Street for tax treaty breach; Singapore link under scrutiny: Report
Jane Street under scrutiny Tax authorities are conducting an investigation into Jane Street's potential tax treaty violations, specifically examining if the firm routed profits through Singapore entities for its Indian market derivative trades, according to three informed sources, quoted by Reuters (anonymously). Income tax officials have been conducting searches at the American trading firm's Indian offices since last week. A government official familiar with the situation indicated that Jane Street personnel were not being cooperative. The tax inquiry follows the Securities and Exchange Board of India's (SEBI) temporary restriction, where the regulator publicly claimed the firm had manipulated stock indices through derivatives positions. While Jane Street has contested Sebi's claims, they have remained silent regarding the tax investigation. The investigation reportedly centres on whether Jane Street circumvented the General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) by utilising the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore to avoid taxes on substantial profits from Indian derivative trading, according to all three sources. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Premium 1 BHK at Mahindra Citadel – Coming Soon! Mahindra Citadel Enquire Now Undo The DTAA aims to prevent dual taxation for residents, whilst GAAR enables countries to refuse tax benefits used solely for avoidance purposes. Indian tax officials are examining whether Jane Street deliberately recorded higher profits on Indian market derivatives positions through Singapore entities to reduce tax liability, confirmed all three Reuters informed sources. SEBI's July 4 ban order revealed Jane Street's Indian trading earnings exceeded $4 billion from January 2023 to May 2025. The order showed profit distribution across entities: JSI Investments and JSI2 Investments (India) earned 39.35 billion Indian rupees ($448.23 million), Jane Street Singapore gained 256 billion rupees ($2.92 billion), and Jane Street Asia Trading (Hong Kong) recorded 69.30 billion Indian rupees ($789.39 million). Should the tax investigation reveal rule violations, Jane Street might face tax demands, according to the third source. Tax authorities are attempting to examine Jane Street's overseas-maintained accounts. The second source indicated that SEBI provided the tax department with financial details of the four Jane Street group entities mentioned in their orders. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . Discover stories of India's leading eco-innovators at Ecopreneur Honours 2025
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Comedian Matt Rife is now ‘legal guardian' of the haunted Annabelle doll: What does it mean?
American comedian Matt Rife and YouTuber Elton Castee became the legal guardians of the infamous Annabelle doll, which is believed to be haunted, last week. The development came after Dan Rivera, a paranormal investigator, died on July 13 in a Pennsylvania hotel while bringing the doll on a national tour in the United States. Rivera was taking the doll on tour on behalf of the New England Society for Psychic Research (NESPR), a group founded by the late paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren. The Annabelle doll is housed in the Warren Occult Museum, also founded by the Warrens. Rife and Castee have bought the museum, and become the legal guardians of around 750 'haunted artefacts' kept there. However, they legally do not own these items. Why do Rife and Castee not legally own the artefacts? What does being a legal guardian mean? Can inanimate objects have a legal guardian? Here is a look. Annabelle is a Raggedy Ann doll that is believed to have been gifted to a nursing student in 1968. The student brought it to her apartment, which she shared with a roommate. The student and her roommate subsequently 'noticed strange occurrences with the doll' before a psychic medium told them it was 'inhabited by the spirit of a young girl named Annabelle,' according to the website of the NESPR. 'The two roommates tried to accept the doll's spirit and please it only to have it reciprocate maliciousness and violent intent,' the NESPR said. Eventually, the doll came into the possession of the Warrens, who kept it on display in their museum in Monroe, Connecticut. The term 'legal guardian' is typically used in personal law to refer to someone who acts on behalf of another person who is unable to act for themselves, like a minor or a person with a disability. By this definition, inanimate objects do not qualify for guardianship. As they have no rights or needs of their own. However, people are often appointed as caretakers for objects that hold cultural, emotional or symbolic value, thus borrowing the language of guardianship. The Warren Occult Museum is a private collection of the Warrens, and was shut down in 2019 due to zoning issues. Its artefacts do not fall under any historical preservation scheme as of now. In a statement to NESPR Director Tony Spera, son-in-law of Ed and Lorraine Warren, clarified that while Rife and Castee purchased the home, he and his wife Judy Spera remain the owners of the artefacts. 'All of the artefacts, including the infamous Annabelle doll, are owned by Judy and myself… We have no plans to ever 'sell' the artefacts,' Spera said. Under property law, real property, such as land or a building, is distinct from personal property, which includes movable items such as artefacts. In the absence of an agreement that transfers the ownership of such personal property, the new owners act as custodians or caretakers of such items under a private agreement. Rife and Castee's statement as being legal guardians of the items in the museum underpins their responsibility for how these items are stored, displayed or treated. Museums, government departments and private collectors may sometimes hold items they don't technically 'own' but are responsible for preserving or protecting. In these cases, the term used is that of a 'custodian' or a 'trustee'. In India, heritage is governed by laws like the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act 1972. These laws regulate how monuments and artefacts must be handled. Under the 1958 Act, the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India is the official legal guardian of all protected monuments. Their job is to ensure that these sites are preserved and not damaged or misused. In the US, similar obligations exist under the National Historic Preservation Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Institutions holding items of cultural or religious significance are required to consult communities, such as the Native American tribes, before displaying or transferring those objects. Moreover, ownership or representation is sometimes extended to non-human entities to establish clear responsibility. In India, temple deities are treated as juristic persons that can hold legal rights and have a representative to appear in court. The person who manages the deity's affairs, called a shebait, is expected to act in the deity's interest, much like a guardian would for a human. In the entertainment domain, the rights to represent, use, or adapt fictional characters are typically managed by rights holders such as their creators. Families or companies act as stewards of these fictional works. This includes ensuring that the character's image is not misused or misrepresented. This usually comes under the intellectual property rights. For instance, after the death of the Japanese creator of Astro Boy, Osamu Tezuka, his estate now manages the characters' appearances and licensing through Tezuka Productions. This responsibility can not be framed as guardianship but reflects a similar idea that someone must take care of what the character symbolises.
