Beyond The Horizon

In the defamation lawsuit Giuffre v. Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell submitted a Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as part of her motion for summary judgment. This statement aimed to establish that there were no genuine disputes over key facts, thereby justifying a judgment in her favor without proceeding to trial. Maxwell's Rule 56.1 statement outlined her version of events, countering Virginia Giuffre's allegations that Maxwell had defamed her by denying involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking activities. The statement sought to demonstrate that Maxwell's public denials were not defamatory but rather responses to unfounded accusations.However, the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly concerning the truth or falsity of Maxwell's statements and her role in Epstein's activities. As a result, Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was denied, allowing the case to proceed to trial. This decision underscored the complexities involved in defamation cases, especially when intertwined with serious allegations of sexual misconduct and trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloud

Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, the former leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, has had his appeal to overturn his 2019 life sentence rejected by a U.S. court. Guzman was convicted on charges including drug trafficking, operating a criminal enterprise, and firearms violations. His legal team argued that his trial was unfair due to jury misconduct and the harsh conditions of his solitary confinement, which they claimed impacted his ability to mount a defense.Despite these arguments, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the original verdict, praising the trial judge's management of the high-profile case and rejecting the claims of juror misconduct. The court also dismissed the argument regarding Guzman's solitary confinement, stating it did not infringe on his right to a fair trial.In this episode, we take a look at the DOJ's El Chapo Brief.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Chapo-ca2-us-brief.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, the former leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, has had his appeal to overturn his 2019 life sentence rejected by a U.S. court. Guzman was convicted on charges including drug trafficking, operating a criminal enterprise, and firearms violations. His legal team argued that his trial was unfair due to jury misconduct and the harsh conditions of his solitary confinement, which they claimed impacted his ability to mount a defense.Despite these arguments, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the original verdict, praising the trial judge's management of the high-profile case and rejecting the claims of juror misconduct. The court also dismissed the argument regarding Guzman's solitary confinement, stating it did not infringe on his right to a fair trial.In this episode, we take a look at the DOJ's El Chapo Brief.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Chapo-ca2-us-brief.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, the former leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, has had his appeal to overturn his 2019 life sentence rejected by a U.S. court. Guzman was convicted on charges including drug trafficking, operating a criminal enterprise, and firearms violations. His legal team argued that his trial was unfair due to jury misconduct and the harsh conditions of his solitary confinement, which they claimed impacted his ability to mount a defense.Despite these arguments, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the original verdict, praising the trial judge's management of the high-profile case and rejecting the claims of juror misconduct. The court also dismissed the argument regarding Guzman's solitary confinement, stating it did not infringe on his right to a fair trial.In this episode, we take a look at the DOJ's El Chapo Brief.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Chapo-ca2-us-brief.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, the former leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, has had his appeal to overturn his 2019 life sentence rejected by a U.S. court. Guzman was convicted on charges including drug trafficking, operating a criminal enterprise, and firearms violations. His legal team argued that his trial was unfair due to jury misconduct and the harsh conditions of his solitary confinement, which they claimed impacted his ability to mount a defense.Despite these arguments, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the original verdict, praising the trial judge's management of the high-profile case and rejecting the claims of juror misconduct. The court also dismissed the argument regarding Guzman's solitary confinement, stating it did not infringe on his right to a fair trial.In this episode, we take a look at the DOJ's El Chapo Brief.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Chapo-ca2-us-brief.pdf (courthousenews.com)

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

Hillary Clinton drew sharp criticism after declining to comply with an Epstein-related congressional subpoena that sought testimony and records tied to the broader investigation into Epstein's network and institutional failures. Rather than appearing or producing materials in the manner demanded, her response was routed through lawyers and procedural objections, effectively stonewalling lawmakers who were attempting to trace accountability beyond Epstein and Maxwell. The refusal fed the perception that powerful political figures operate under a different set of rules, especially when scrutiny turns uncomfortable. At a moment when survivors and the public were demanding transparency, Clinton's posture reinforced the idea that influence can be used to slow-walk or blunt congressional oversight. The optics were unmistakable: a former Secretary of State choosing legal insulation over public accountability in a case defined by elite protection.Critics argued that Clinton's noncompliance wasn't a neutral legal maneuver but a strategic dodge that undermined the very transparency Congress was seeking. The Epstein scandal has long been marked by selective exposure, where lesser players are named while powerful figures remain unreachable behind counsel and procedure. By refusing to engage directly, Clinton added to that pattern, signaling that even a congressional subpoena can be treated as negotiable if you have enough clout. The decision also undercut claims that the political class takes institutional abuse seriously, especially when cooperation might clarify who knew what and when. In an investigation already plagued by delays and redactions, Clinton's defiance hardened public skepticism that truth would ever outrun privilege. It wasn't just a missed testimony; it was another reminder of how accountability stalls at the top.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Hillary Clinton expected to skip House Oversight deposition Wednesday, risking contempt | Fox News

Queen Elizabeth II did not merely “stand by” Prince Andrew; she enabled him, protected him, and absorbed institutional damage on his behalf for years while pretending the situation could be managed away. Even after Andrew publicly humiliated the monarchy with the Newsnight interview and confirmed to the world that he was incapable of basic judgment or remorse, the Queen kept him cocooned inside royal privilege. He was shielded from immediate consequences, allowed to retain status, security, and proximity to power, and quietly insulated from the same accountability any other public figure would have faced. This was not ignorance or inertia. It was a deliberate choice to place dynastic loyalty over moral clarity, survivors, and public trust. The Palace's silence functioned as protection, and the Queen's refusal to decisively cut Andrew loose signaled that royal blood still mattered more than credible allegations of sexual exploitation. Every month Andrew remained sheltered sent a message that consequences were negotiable if your surname was Windsor.Andrew, for his part, behaved exactly like someone who knew he was protected. He refused interviews unless forced, avoided U.S. authorities, staged photo ops with his mother, and clung to the fiction that this was all a misunderstanding he could outwait. When the Queen finally intervened directly, it was not an act of moral awakening but of institutional triage. The one-on-one meeting where Andrew was told to step down was a command issued far too late, after settlements were paid, reputations were torched, and the monarchy had been dragged through years of self-inflicted damage. Even then, Andrew was not expelled or disgraced in any meaningful way; he was quietly sidelined, stripped of duties but kept comfortable, protected, and silent. The Queen did not hold him accountable so much as she managed him out of sight. Andrew escaped public reckoning, and the monarchy preserved itself at the cost of credibility. What remains is not a story of tragic family loyalty, but of power protecting itself until the last possible second, then pretending restraint was responsibility.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Late Queen tried to 'soften the blow' of Andrew losing his titles 'one-on-one' - but the 'painful' meeting left ex-Duke 'blindsided', royal expert reveals | Daily Mail Online

The Epstein story is being slowly smothered not because the facts disappeared, but because attention did. A fresh tragedy dominates the news cycle, soaking up oxygen the way breaking disasters always do, leaving no room for unresolved scandals that demand patience and persistence. Wall-to-wall coverage shifts emotional bandwidth away from accountability and toward shock, grief, and immediacy. The result is predictable: Epstein coverage slips from front-page urgency to background noise. Panels that once debated co-conspirators now debate optics and timing. Editors quietly decide that a dead story with no “new hook” can wait another day, then another week. Public outrage doesn't vanish, it just gets deferred. That delay is fatal to complicated accountability stories that rely on sustained pressure. The files remain sealed not because the public stopped caring, but because caring requires focus. Distraction does the work that censorship never could.That dynamic plays directly into the hands of everyone who benefits from the Epstein story staying buried. Powerful institutions don't need to argue against disclosure when the public is too exhausted to demand it. Silence becomes procedural instead of sinister, framed as backlog, process, or sensitivity. Each new tragedy gives cover to stall, redact, and delay without looking defensive. The longer the pause, the easier it is to claim the moment has passed. Survivors are told, implicitly, to wait their turn while history moves on without them. Accountability is treated as optional, something to revisit once the chaos settles, knowing full well it never really does. This is how uncomfortable truths die in modern America: not with denial, but with neglect. The Epstein files don't stay sealed because they lack importance. They stay sealed because distraction is policy, and it's working.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The great lie of the Epstein scandal isn't just what he did, but how the powerful around him suddenly claimed they couldn't remember him at all. Presidents, princes, billionaires, academics, bankers, and celebrities who once courted his money and shared his jets all reached for the same script when the walls closed in: I barely knew him. It was a coordinated act of survival, not an accident. Institutions like Harvard, MIT, Deutsche Bank, and JP Morgan played the same game, pretending they never saw the red flags. Legacy media, instead of hammering the contradictions, often published these denials straight, allowing amnesia to masquerade as truth. Forgetting became strategy, and strategy became cover.But memory leaves evidence. Flight logs, photographs, donations, and testimonies remain, and every denial only underscores the complicity of those who looked away. The survivors don't get to forget; they live with scars while the powerful rewrite history. What the amnesia act reveals is cowardice: a willingness to erase reality to protect reputation. Epstein built his empire on memory, yet his circle tried to survive through erasure. In the end, their denials brand them more deeply than their associations ever could—because the attempt to forget is itself proof they remembered perfectly well.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

At the Capitol press conference, Epstein survivors delivered a blunt, unified message: the federal government has failed them repeatedly, and symbolic gestures are no longer acceptable. Standing alongside advocates and lawmakers, survivors described years of being ignored, sidelined, and excluded from decisions that directly affected their lives and their cases. They spoke about the non-prosecution agreement, the secrecy surrounding it, and the continued refusal by the DOJ to fully acknowledge or remedy the harm caused by its own misconduct. The press conference was not framed as a plea for sympathy, but as a demand for accountability. Survivors emphasized that transparency laws and victims' rights mean nothing if the DOJ can violate them without consequence. They made clear that Epstein's death did not end the crimes, did not erase co-conspirators, and did not absolve the government of its duty to pursue the truth. The setting of the Capitol was deliberate, underscoring that this was not just a legal failure, but a systemic one that required congressional oversight and intervention.Several survivors used the moment to call out what they described as performative concern from federal officials, contrasting public statements about victim advocacy with years of private indifference. They criticized the DOJ for slow-walking disclosures, over-redacting files, and framing Epstein as a lone offender despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Family members and advocates stressed that justice delayed has functioned as justice denied, allowing powerful figures to escape scrutiny while survivors were forced to relive their trauma in courtrooms and press cycles. The press conference ended with clear demands: full enforcement of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, independent oversight of the DOJ's handling of Epstein-related matters, and a real commitment to pursuing anyone who enabled or participated in the abuse. The tone was resolute and unsparing. Survivors made it clear they were no longer asking to be heard. They were insisting that the government finally be held to the same standards it claims to enforce.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Epstein survivors have been consistent and unambiguous in their message: the Department of Justice has ignored them at every critical juncture, treating their trauma as an inconvenience rather than a legal and moral obligation. From the original non-prosecution agreement to the latest file releases, survivors have said they were sidelined, excluded, and spoken about only after decisions were already made behind closed doors. They have repeatedly pointed out that the DOJ failed to meaningfully consult them, failed to inform them in real time, and failed to honor their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Instead of transparency, they were met with silence. Instead of accountability, they were given procedural excuses. Survivors have said the DOJ's posture has felt less like a pursuit of justice and more like damage control, where institutional reputation took priority over truth. Each time the government claimed the matter was resolved or closed, survivors were left watching from the outside, knowing that key questions remained unanswered and powerful people remained untouched. The message they say they received was simple and brutal: your pain is acknowledged rhetorically, but it will not shape outcomes.Virginia Roberts Giuffre's family has echoed those same criticisms, especially in the aftermath of Epstein's death and the DOJ's repeated declarations that the case was effectively over. They have said the government's actions amounted to erasure, not resolution, and that closing the case without fully pursuing co-conspirators or exposing the full scope of Epstein's network compounded the original injustice. The family has argued that the DOJ framed Epstein as a lone offender precisely to avoid reckoning with its own past failures and the complicity of others. In public statements, they have described feeling shut out of the process, ignored when raising concerns, and dismissed when demanding accountability beyond Epstein himself. For them, the DOJ's conduct didn't just fail to deliver justice, it actively reopened wounds by signaling that institutional convenience mattered more than survivor voices. Taken together, the survivors' statements paint a picture of a justice system that listened just enough to say it cared, but not enough to change course, confront its own misconduct, or deliver the full truth they have been asking for all along.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

Glenn Dubin was not some distant, accidental acquaintance of Jeffrey Epstein. He was deeply embedded in Epstein's personal and financial orbit for years, benefiting directly from Epstein's money, connections, and influence while later claiming ignorance of Epstein's criminal behavior. Epstein invested tens of millions of dollars in Dubin's hedge fund, Highbridge Capital, helped smooth relationships with JPMorgan Chase, and acted as a financial patron at critical moments in Dubin's rise. On a personal level, Epstein dated Dubin's wife Eva Andersson-Dubin, remained close to the family long after that relationship ended, and was even named godfather to one of the Dubins' children. This was not casual proximity; it was intimate, sustained access. For Dubin to later position himself as merely another wealthy figure who crossed Epstein's path strains credibility, especially given how tightly Epstein's money, social life, and leverage were woven into Dubin's professional success.Virginia Giuffre's allegation cuts straight through the “unknowing bystander” narrative. In sworn statements and civil filings, she has said that Glenn Dubin was the first man Jeffrey Epstein “gave” her to after she was trafficked into Epstein's control as a teenager. That claim places Dubin not on the periphery but at the very beginning of her exploitation. Dubin has denied the allegation, and no criminal charges have been brought, but the gravity of the accusation cannot be dismissed as gossip or tabloid noise. Giuffre has been consistent over many years, under oath, and across multiple proceedings, and her account aligns with the broader, well-documented pattern of Epstein using powerful friends as both participants and proof of protection. The fact that Dubin continued to enjoy elite status, minimal scrutiny, and public sympathy while survivors' claims were sidelined is emblematic of how Epstein's network insulated itself. Dubin's closeness to Epstein, combined with Giuffre's allegation, places him squarely within the moral and factual shadow of Epstein's trafficking operation, whether the legal system has chosen to confront that reality or not.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Billionaire hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin was first person Ghislaine Maxwell told Virginia Roberts Giuffre to have sex with, unsealed Jeffrey Epstein files allege | Daily Mail Online

Congressional leaders are now moving to hold former President Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress after he refused to appear for a subpoenaed deposition in the House Oversight Committee's ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his network. The committee, led by Republican Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), had subpoenaed Clinton last year along with others to answer questions about his relationship with Epstein; Clinton's deposition was rescheduled multiple times, and when he failed to appear on the most recent date set for January 13, the panel announced it will next week begin contempt proceedings against him. The contempt action stems from his refusal to comply with a bipartisan subpoena that the committee says was lawfully authorized, and Comer's office issued a statement emphasizing that the committee had repeatedly offered opportunities for him to testify before moving forward with this rare enforcement measure. If the committee's contempt resolution is approved by the full House, it could then be referred to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution, with contempt of Congress carrying potential fines and even imprisonmentto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:House GOP seeks to hold Bill Clinton in contempt for skipping Epstein deposition

For months, and most aggressively in its final public posture, the Department of Justice told the public that Jeffrey Epstein acted alone, that there were no co-conspirators worth pursuing, and that the case was effectively closed because the evidence led nowhere else. That claim was presented as the product of exhaustive investigation, a sober conclusion reached after following every lead. But the unsealed Epstein files expose that narrative as a manufactured endpoint, not a factual one. The DOJ's public insistence that Epstein was a lone predator directly contradicts its own internal records, which show prosecutors and investigators repeatedly discussing other individuals, logistical facilitators, and potential co-conspirators. These weren't vague references or speculative names. The emails reveal active consideration of witnesses who could implicate others, debates over how far the investigation should go, and deliberate choices to narrow the scope of exposure. In public, the DOJ spoke in absolutes. In private, they spoke in contingencies. That gap is the story.The newly unsealed emails make clear that the absence of co-conspirators was not a discovery, it was a decision. Prosecutors expressed concern about expanding the case, about the consequences of naming or charging others, and about preserving agreements that would collapse under scrutiny if the full picture came out. Internal communications reference ongoing leads, cooperation strategies, and awareness that Epstein's crimes required infrastructure and assistance, yet none of that translated into indictments or even transparent explanations. Instead, the DOJ retroactively sold inaction as resolution. By the time officials told the public there was “no evidence” of co-conspirators, their own records showed they had stopped looking long before the evidence ran out. The unsealed emails don't just undermine the DOJ's claim, they obliterate it. What was framed as a lack of proof was, in reality, a lack of will, and the insistence that Epstein operated alone now reads less like a conclusion and more like a cover story built to survive public scrutiny rather than judicial review.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00037366.pdf

In recent days Peter Mandelson, the former British ambassador to the United States and veteran Labour peer, has made a notable reversal in his stance regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. After initially refusing in a high-profile BBC interview to apologise directly to Epstein's survivors — instead expressing regret for systemic failures that left victims unheard while insisting he was unaware of Epstein's crimes and not personally culpable — Mandelson has since issued a clear public apology for continuing his association with Epstein after the financier's 2008 conviction. In his updated statement, he said he was “wrong to believe him following his conviction and to continue my association with him afterwards,” and offered an unequivocal apology to the women and girls who suffered. While he maintains he did not witness Epstein's abuse or know the full extent of his crimes, Mandelson acknowledged that victims did know what was happening, and expressed sorrow that he had once believed Epstein's denials.This apology marks a significant shift from his earlier remarks, which sparked widespread outrage and political consequences — including his dismissal as ambassador after undisclosed emails showing a much deeper, supportive friendship with Epstein came to light. Mandelson's u-turn reflects growing pressure and criticism over his past behaviour, as he now seeks to address the pain of survivors rather than primarily defending his own reputation. The reversal also comes amid broader debates in the UK about accountability among elites who maintained ties with Epstein post-conviction, and follow-up calls for further scrutiny of Mandelson's conduct during his career.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Lord Mandelson apologises to victims of Jeffrey Epstein | The Independent

In her sworn deposition from 2016 (unsealed in 2020), Virginia Giuffre detailed how Ghislaine Maxwell recruited, groomed, and trafficked her into Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation starting when she was 16. She testified that Maxwell approached her at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 under the pretense of offering her work as a masseuse for a wealthy benefactor. That “job” quickly evolved into sexual abuse. According to Giuffre, Maxwell took an active role in teaching her how to sexually service Epstein, including hands-on “training” sessions involving Maxwell herself. She stated that Maxwell instructed her to recruit other underage girls and was fully aware — and involved — in the trafficking scheme. Maxwell not only facilitated the abuse, Giuffre claimed, but also participated in it, organizing flights, outfits, and sex schedules for Epstein and his associates.Giuffre's deposition also included accusations that she was trafficked to powerful men at Maxwell's direction. She named Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Jean-Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, and Glenn Dubin among the men she was forced to have sex with — often in Epstein's residences or on his private jet, the “Lolita Express.” Giuffre detailed incidents of sexual abuse at Epstein's private island (Little St. James), in Maxwell's London townhouse, and at Epstein's New York and Palm Beach homes. She described Maxwell's role as operational: coordinating travel, preparing the girls, dictating what to wear (often schoolgirl outfits), and ensuring silence through emotional manipulation and threats. Giuffre testified that Maxwell told her to be “grateful” and warned her that speaking out would have consequences — including death. Throughout the deposition, Giuffre emphasized that she was a minor being trafficked across state and international lines, and that Maxwell was not only aware but orchestrating every detail. Her statements were corroborated years later by other victims and led to Maxwell's 2021 conviction on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.to  contact me;bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1090-32.pdf

In her sworn deposition from 2016 (unsealed in 2020), Virginia Giuffre detailed how Ghislaine Maxwell recruited, groomed, and trafficked her into Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation starting when she was 16. She testified that Maxwell approached her at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 under the pretense of offering her work as a masseuse for a wealthy benefactor. That “job” quickly evolved into sexual abuse. According to Giuffre, Maxwell took an active role in teaching her how to sexually service Epstein, including hands-on “training” sessions involving Maxwell herself. She stated that Maxwell instructed her to recruit other underage girls and was fully aware — and involved — in the trafficking scheme. Maxwell not only facilitated the abuse, Giuffre claimed, but also participated in it, organizing flights, outfits, and sex schedules for Epstein and his associates.Giuffre's deposition also included accusations that she was trafficked to powerful men at Maxwell's direction. She named Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Jean-Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, and Glenn Dubin among the men she was forced to have sex with — often in Epstein's residences or on his private jet, the “Lolita Express.” Giuffre detailed incidents of sexual abuse at Epstein's private island (Little St. James), in Maxwell's London townhouse, and at Epstein's New York and Palm Beach homes. She described Maxwell's role as operational: coordinating travel, preparing the girls, dictating what to wear (often schoolgirl outfits), and ensuring silence through emotional manipulation and threats. Giuffre testified that Maxwell told her to be “grateful” and warned her that speaking out would have consequences — including death. Throughout the deposition, Giuffre emphasized that she was a minor being trafficked across state and international lines, and that Maxwell was not only aware but orchestrating every detail. Her statements were corroborated years later by other victims and led to Maxwell's 2021 conviction on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.to  contact me;bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1090-32.pdf

In her sworn deposition from 2016 (unsealed in 2020), Virginia Giuffre detailed how Ghislaine Maxwell recruited, groomed, and trafficked her into Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation starting when she was 16. She testified that Maxwell approached her at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 under the pretense of offering her work as a masseuse for a wealthy benefactor. That “job” quickly evolved into sexual abuse. According to Giuffre, Maxwell took an active role in teaching her how to sexually service Epstein, including hands-on “training” sessions involving Maxwell herself. She stated that Maxwell instructed her to recruit other underage girls and was fully aware — and involved — in the trafficking scheme. Maxwell not only facilitated the abuse, Giuffre claimed, but also participated in it, organizing flights, outfits, and sex schedules for Epstein and his associates.Giuffre's deposition also included accusations that she was trafficked to powerful men at Maxwell's direction. She named Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Jean-Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, and Glenn Dubin among the men she was forced to have sex with — often in Epstein's residences or on his private jet, the “Lolita Express.” Giuffre detailed incidents of sexual abuse at Epstein's private island (Little St. James), in Maxwell's London townhouse, and at Epstein's New York and Palm Beach homes. She described Maxwell's role as operational: coordinating travel, preparing the girls, dictating what to wear (often schoolgirl outfits), and ensuring silence through emotional manipulation and threats. Giuffre testified that Maxwell told her to be “grateful” and warned her that speaking out would have consequences — including death. Throughout the deposition, Giuffre emphasized that she was a minor being trafficked across state and international lines, and that Maxwell was not only aware but orchestrating every detail. Her statements were corroborated years later by other victims and led to Maxwell's 2021 conviction on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.to  contact me;bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1090-32.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

Leon Black's response to being named in the Epstein survivors' lawsuit against Bank of America follows a familiar and well-worn script: recast himself as collateral damage rather than a powerful figure who knowingly remained in Jeffrey Epstein's orbit long after Epstein's crimes were public. Through statements and court filings, Black has framed his inclusion in the lawsuit as unfair, misleading, and opportunistic, arguing that he is not accused of committing abuse and that his name is being dragged into litigation simply because of his wealth and past association with Epstein. He presents himself as someone who was deceived by Epstein, emphasizing that he severed ties once he claims to have understood the full scope of Epstein's conduct and portraying his financial dealings as unrelated to trafficking or exploitation. In this telling, Black is not a beneficiary of Epstein's system, but a bystander whose reputation is being harmed by guilt-by-association.What this framing carefully avoids is the core allegation raised by survivors: that powerful men like Black, through continued financial engagement and personal access, helped legitimize Epstein, sustain his influence, and enable the broader machinery that allowed abuse to continue unchecked. Survivors and their attorneys argue that Black's claim of victimhood rings hollow given the years of documented payments, meetings, and post-conviction contact, all of which occurred in an environment where Epstein's criminal history was widely known. The lawsuit does not need to accuse Black of direct abuse to implicate him in the ecosystem that protected Epstein; it is precisely his power, credibility, and money that made that ecosystem possible. By casting himself as the injured party, Black attempts to flip the moral gravity of the case, shifting attention away from the survivors' claims and toward his own reputational harm—an inversion that many see as emblematic of how elite figures have repeatedly insulated themselves from accountability in the Epstein scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Billionaire Leon Black Fires Back at Epstein Victim's Bankrolling Claims

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement was always a disgrace, but the unsealed Epstein files rip away the last remaining excuses and expose it for what it truly was: a calculated surrender by federal prosecutors dressed up as discretion. The NPA didn't just give Epstein a sweetheart deal, it rewrote the rules of accountability to benefit one man and the powerful people around him. By secretly immunizing unnamed co-conspirators, the agreement functioned less like a plea deal and more like a legal firewall for an entire network. Even before the new disclosures, the NPA stood out as an aberration in federal practice, negotiated in secrecy, hidden from victims, and enforced with almost religious devotion despite Epstein's repeated violations. What the unsealed internal emails now show is that this wasn't negligence or incompetence, it was intentional. Prosecutors knew the scope of Epstein's conduct was far broader than what the agreement covered, yet they deliberately constrained the case to preserve the deal. The NPA wasn't about conserving resources or securing justice, it was about containment. It ensured Epstein did minimal time, protected his associates from scrutiny, and insulated the DOJ from having to confront what a full investigation would uncover. That alone should have invalidated it. Instead, it was defended for years as if it were sacred text.The OIG interview with Alex Acosta, when read alongside the internal emails, makes the disgrace even more damning. Acosta's explanations shift, soften, and ultimately collapse under their own weight when confronted with contemporaneous records showing active resistance to broader prosecution. His attempts to frame the NPA as the best option under difficult circumstances don't survive contact with emails revealing prosecutors discussing how to keep victims in the dark and how to preserve Epstein's leverage. The unsealed records make clear that Acosta and his office weren't cornered, they were accommodating. They weren't overmatched, they were compliant. The NPA didn't just fail the victims procedurally, it betrayed them deliberately, stripping them of their rights while shielding Epstein's orbit from exposure. In light of these files, continuing to defend the NPA isn't just wrong, it's indefensible. It represents a moment where the DOJ chose institutional convenience and elite protection over justice, and then spent years pretending it was an unfortunate but reasonable compromise. The emails and OIG interview finally remove the ambiguity. This wasn't a bad deal that aged poorly. It was a bad deal from day one, designed to make a monster manageable rather than accountable, and it stands as one of the most corrosive failures of federal prosecution in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Congress's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee recently moved to **subpoena billionaire retail executive Les Wexner to sit for a deposition as part of its ongoing investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's network and activities. Lawmakers, led by Rep. Robert Garcia and with support from members on both sides of the aisle, approved subpoenas not only for Wexner but also for Epstein's longtime lawyer Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn—the co-executors of Epstein's estate. The panel's aim is to dig deeper into Epstein's financial ties and the roles others may have played in enabling or benefiting from his abuses. Wexner, founder and former CEO of what became L Brands (including Victoria's Secret), had a long financial relationship with Epstein, who managed his personal finances and served as a trustee of his foundation; Wexner has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing but his ties, including reported business arrangements such as selling Epstein one of his properties, have drawn intense scrutiny.Supporters of the subpoenas frame them as a key step in “following the money” and providing accountability to survivors by clarifying the full scope of Epstein's financial network and relationships. Ranking Member Garcia described the actions as advancing justice and transparency, emphasizing the need to understand how Epstein's activities were supported or facilitated by powerful associates. The subpoenas reflect broader congressional pressure—including votes to force the Justice Department to release millions of pages of investigatory files—to uncover previously unseen details about Epstein's connections with elite figures. Wexner's counsel has said he will “cooperate fully,” noting past cooperation with earlier investigations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:“His wealth should not protect him:” Ohio's Les Wexner subpoenaed over Epstein connections - cleveland.com

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In her sworn deposition from 2016 (unsealed in 2020), Virginia Giuffre detailed how Ghislaine Maxwell recruited, groomed, and trafficked her into Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation starting when she was 16. She testified that Maxwell approached her at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 under the pretense of offering her work as a masseuse for a wealthy benefactor. That “job” quickly evolved into sexual abuse. According to Giuffre, Maxwell took an active role in teaching her how to sexually service Epstein, including hands-on “training” sessions involving Maxwell herself. She stated that Maxwell instructed her to recruit other underage girls and was fully aware — and involved — in the trafficking scheme. Maxwell not only facilitated the abuse, Giuffre claimed, but also participated in it, organizing flights, outfits, and sex schedules for Epstein and his associates.Giuffre's deposition also included accusations that she was trafficked to powerful men at Maxwell's direction. She named Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Jean-Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, and Glenn Dubin among the men she was forced to have sex with — often in Epstein's residences or on his private jet, the “Lolita Express.” Giuffre detailed incidents of sexual abuse at Epstein's private island (Little St. James), in Maxwell's London townhouse, and at Epstein's New York and Palm Beach homes. She described Maxwell's role as operational: coordinating travel, preparing the girls, dictating what to wear (often schoolgirl outfits), and ensuring silence through emotional manipulation and threats. Giuffre testified that Maxwell told her to be “grateful” and warned her that speaking out would have consequences — including death. Throughout the deposition, Giuffre emphasized that she was a minor being trafficked across state and international lines, and that Maxwell was not only aware but orchestrating every detail. Her statements were corroborated years later by other victims and led to Maxwell's 2021 conviction on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.to  contact me;bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1090-32.pdf

In her sworn deposition from 2016 (unsealed in 2020), Virginia Giuffre detailed how Ghislaine Maxwell recruited, groomed, and trafficked her into Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation starting when she was 16. She testified that Maxwell approached her at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 under the pretense of offering her work as a masseuse for a wealthy benefactor. That “job” quickly evolved into sexual abuse. According to Giuffre, Maxwell took an active role in teaching her how to sexually service Epstein, including hands-on “training” sessions involving Maxwell herself. She stated that Maxwell instructed her to recruit other underage girls and was fully aware — and involved — in the trafficking scheme. Maxwell not only facilitated the abuse, Giuffre claimed, but also participated in it, organizing flights, outfits, and sex schedules for Epstein and his associates.Giuffre's deposition also included accusations that she was trafficked to powerful men at Maxwell's direction. She named Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Jean-Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, and Glenn Dubin among the men she was forced to have sex with — often in Epstein's residences or on his private jet, the “Lolita Express.” Giuffre detailed incidents of sexual abuse at Epstein's private island (Little St. James), in Maxwell's London townhouse, and at Epstein's New York and Palm Beach homes. She described Maxwell's role as operational: coordinating travel, preparing the girls, dictating what to wear (often schoolgirl outfits), and ensuring silence through emotional manipulation and threats. Giuffre testified that Maxwell told her to be “grateful” and warned her that speaking out would have consequences — including death. Throughout the deposition, Giuffre emphasized that she was a minor being trafficked across state and international lines, and that Maxwell was not only aware but orchestrating every detail. Her statements were corroborated years later by other victims and led to Maxwell's 2021 conviction on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.to  contact me;bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1090-32.pdf

In her sworn deposition from 2016 (unsealed in 2020), Virginia Giuffre detailed how Ghislaine Maxwell recruited, groomed, and trafficked her into Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation starting when she was 16. She testified that Maxwell approached her at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 under the pretense of offering her work as a masseuse for a wealthy benefactor. That “job” quickly evolved into sexual abuse. According to Giuffre, Maxwell took an active role in teaching her how to sexually service Epstein, including hands-on “training” sessions involving Maxwell herself. She stated that Maxwell instructed her to recruit other underage girls and was fully aware — and involved — in the trafficking scheme. Maxwell not only facilitated the abuse, Giuffre claimed, but also participated in it, organizing flights, outfits, and sex schedules for Epstein and his associates.Giuffre's deposition also included accusations that she was trafficked to powerful men at Maxwell's direction. She named Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Jean-Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, and Glenn Dubin among the men she was forced to have sex with — often in Epstein's residences or on his private jet, the “Lolita Express.” Giuffre detailed incidents of sexual abuse at Epstein's private island (Little St. James), in Maxwell's London townhouse, and at Epstein's New York and Palm Beach homes. She described Maxwell's role as operational: coordinating travel, preparing the girls, dictating what to wear (often schoolgirl outfits), and ensuring silence through emotional manipulation and threats. Giuffre testified that Maxwell told her to be “grateful” and warned her that speaking out would have consequences — including death. Throughout the deposition, Giuffre emphasized that she was a minor being trafficked across state and international lines, and that Maxwell was not only aware but orchestrating every detail. Her statements were corroborated years later by other victims and led to Maxwell's 2021 conviction on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.to  contact me;bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1090-32.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

In the wake of renewed scrutiny over his long-standing friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, veteran British politician Lord Peter Mandelson has offered a deeply qualified response that has inflamed survivors and critics alike. In a high-profile BBC interview, Mandelson acknowledged his association with Epstein was a “terrible mistake” and expressed regret for the systemic failures that allowed Epstein's victims to be ignored and unprotected. He also accepted that his undisclosed communications and supportive emails to Epstein — written even after Epstein's 2008 conviction — contributed to his dismissal as the UK's ambassador to the United States and acknowledged the serious consequences of the controversy for his own career. However, while Mandelson expressed sympathy for the suffering of Epstein's victims and apologized for the broader institutional shortcomings that failed them, he refused to offer a direct personal apology to survivors for his friendship or to accept that he was culpable in any way for Epstein's crimes. Instead, he insisted he genuinely did not know about Epstein's criminal conduct and maintained he was not “complicit or culpable” in the abuse, citing his own lack of knowledge and arguing that, as a gay man, he had been largely excluded from the aspects of Epstein's life connected to the abuse.Mandelson's remarks have provoked sharp criticism from political figures and Epstein survivors who see his refusal to apologize personally as tone-deaf and insufficient given the gravity of Epstein's abuses and Mandelson's own continued association with him after his conviction. Cabinet ministers and commentators argued that anyone linked to Epstein should accept responsibility for the “lapse of judgment” that allowed such a relationship to persist, not merely lament systemic failures. Critics also highlighted that Mandelson's narrative — that he was unaware of Epstein's crimes — sits uneasily with the extent of his documented friendship and supportive communications, raising questions about accountability, judgment, and the message his qualified response sends to survivors seeking acknowledgment and justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Lord Mandelson refuses to apologise to Jeffrey Epstein's victims with Labour peer claiming he had no knowledge of 'evil monster's' depravity because he's gay | Daily Mail Online

Jeffrey Epstein violated the 2008 non-prosecution agreement repeatedly and blatantly, and yet faced no consequences from the same system that claimed the deal was conditional. The NPA required Epstein to comply with federal and state law, avoid further criminal conduct, and refrain from victim contact. Instead, after serving his sham county jail sentence, Epstein resumed trafficking behavior almost immediately. He continued to recruit young girls through the same network of associates, paid victims directly, traveled freely between jurisdictions, and maintained properties that were repeatedly identified by victims as sites of abuse. These were not technical or ambiguous violations. They were direct continuations of the very conduct the NPA was supposedly designed to stop. Under any normal interpretation, Epstein's actions should have voided the agreement and reopened prosecution.What makes this more disturbing is that federal authorities were aware of many of these violations and still chose inaction. Complaints continued to surface, law enforcement agencies received new allegations, and civil cases produced sworn testimony describing post-NPA abuse. Yet prosecutors treated the agreement as untouchable, as if Epstein had been granted permanent immunity rather than conditional leniency. No hearings were held, no compliance reviews were triggered, and no penalties were imposed. The NPA became less a legal agreement and more a protective shield, enforced in Epstein's favor regardless of his behavior. The message was unmistakable: the rules did not apply to him, and even open defiance of a federal agreement carried zero risk as long as the system decided not to look too closely.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00014110.pdf

Mark Epstein has consistently said he does not believe his brother died by suicide and has publicly rejected the official ruling of Jeffrey Epstein's death as implausible. He has pointed to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the death, including the failure of jail cameras, guards allegedly falling asleep, and the sudden disappearance or malfunction of evidence that would normally be critical in a high-profile federal custody death. Mark Epstein has argued that these failures are not minor errors but systemic breakdowns that conveniently aligned at the exact moment his brother died, making the official explanation difficult to accept. He has also emphasized that Jeffrey was actively pursuing legal strategies, expected to contest charges, and had shown no clear signs to him of being suicidal, undermining the narrative that his brother took his own life while awaiting trial.Mark Epstein has further reinforced his doubts by highlighting conflicting forensic opinions, particularly the findings of Dr. Michael Baden, who observed injuries to Jeffrey Epstein's neck that he said were more consistent with homicide than suicide. Mark has repeatedly called for an independent, transparent investigation, arguing that the government effectively investigated itself and closed the case too quickly despite glaring unanswered questions. He has framed his position not as a defense of his brother's crimes, which he acknowledges, but as a demand for truth and accountability in a case that implicates federal custodial responsibility. In Mark Epstein's view, the unanswered questions surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's death are not fringe speculation but legitimate concerns that were never properly resolved and were instead buried under a rushed conclusion that left the public and the family without credible answers.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein's Brother Claims a New Autopsy Report Will 'Prove' the Sex Offender Was Murdered

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In her sworn deposition from 2016 (unsealed in 2020), Virginia Giuffre detailed how Ghislaine Maxwell recruited, groomed, and trafficked her into Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation starting when she was 16. She testified that Maxwell approached her at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 under the pretense of offering her work as a masseuse for a wealthy benefactor. That “job” quickly evolved into sexual abuse. According to Giuffre, Maxwell took an active role in teaching her how to sexually service Epstein, including hands-on “training” sessions involving Maxwell herself. She stated that Maxwell instructed her to recruit other underage girls and was fully aware — and involved — in the trafficking scheme. Maxwell not only facilitated the abuse, Giuffre claimed, but also participated in it, organizing flights, outfits, and sex schedules for Epstein and his associates.Giuffre's deposition also included accusations that she was trafficked to powerful men at Maxwell's direction. She named Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Jean-Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, and Glenn Dubin among the men she was forced to have sex with — often in Epstein's residences or on his private jet, the “Lolita Express.” Giuffre detailed incidents of sexual abuse at Epstein's private island (Little St. James), in Maxwell's London townhouse, and at Epstein's New York and Palm Beach homes. She described Maxwell's role as operational: coordinating travel, preparing the girls, dictating what to wear (often schoolgirl outfits), and ensuring silence through emotional manipulation and threats. Giuffre testified that Maxwell told her to be “grateful” and warned her that speaking out would have consequences — including death. Throughout the deposition, Giuffre emphasized that she was a minor being trafficked across state and international lines, and that Maxwell was not only aware but orchestrating every detail. Her statements were corroborated years later by other victims and led to Maxwell's 2021 conviction on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.to  contact me;bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1090-32.pdf

In her sworn deposition from 2016 (unsealed in 2020), Virginia Giuffre detailed how Ghislaine Maxwell recruited, groomed, and trafficked her into Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation starting when she was 16. She testified that Maxwell approached her at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 under the pretense of offering her work as a masseuse for a wealthy benefactor. That “job” quickly evolved into sexual abuse. According to Giuffre, Maxwell took an active role in teaching her how to sexually service Epstein, including hands-on “training” sessions involving Maxwell herself. She stated that Maxwell instructed her to recruit other underage girls and was fully aware — and involved — in the trafficking scheme. Maxwell not only facilitated the abuse, Giuffre claimed, but also participated in it, organizing flights, outfits, and sex schedules for Epstein and his associates.Giuffre's deposition also included accusations that she was trafficked to powerful men at Maxwell's direction. She named Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Jean-Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, and Glenn Dubin among the men she was forced to have sex with — often in Epstein's residences or on his private jet, the “Lolita Express.” Giuffre detailed incidents of sexual abuse at Epstein's private island (Little St. James), in Maxwell's London townhouse, and at Epstein's New York and Palm Beach homes. She described Maxwell's role as operational: coordinating travel, preparing the girls, dictating what to wear (often schoolgirl outfits), and ensuring silence through emotional manipulation and threats. Giuffre testified that Maxwell told her to be “grateful” and warned her that speaking out would have consequences — including death. Throughout the deposition, Giuffre emphasized that she was a minor being trafficked across state and international lines, and that Maxwell was not only aware but orchestrating every detail. Her statements were corroborated years later by other victims and led to Maxwell's 2021 conviction on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.to  contact me;bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1090-32.pdf

In her sworn deposition from 2016 (unsealed in 2020), Virginia Giuffre detailed how Ghislaine Maxwell recruited, groomed, and trafficked her into Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation starting when she was 16. She testified that Maxwell approached her at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 under the pretense of offering her work as a masseuse for a wealthy benefactor. That “job” quickly evolved into sexual abuse. According to Giuffre, Maxwell took an active role in teaching her how to sexually service Epstein, including hands-on “training” sessions involving Maxwell herself. She stated that Maxwell instructed her to recruit other underage girls and was fully aware — and involved — in the trafficking scheme. Maxwell not only facilitated the abuse, Giuffre claimed, but also participated in it, organizing flights, outfits, and sex schedules for Epstein and his associates.Giuffre's deposition also included accusations that she was trafficked to powerful men at Maxwell's direction. She named Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz, Jean-Luc Brunel, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, and Glenn Dubin among the men she was forced to have sex with — often in Epstein's residences or on his private jet, the “Lolita Express.” Giuffre detailed incidents of sexual abuse at Epstein's private island (Little St. James), in Maxwell's London townhouse, and at Epstein's New York and Palm Beach homes. She described Maxwell's role as operational: coordinating travel, preparing the girls, dictating what to wear (often schoolgirl outfits), and ensuring silence through emotional manipulation and threats. Giuffre testified that Maxwell told her to be “grateful” and warned her that speaking out would have consequences — including death. Throughout the deposition, Giuffre emphasized that she was a minor being trafficked across state and international lines, and that Maxwell was not only aware but orchestrating every detail. Her statements were corroborated years later by other victims and led to Maxwell's 2021 conviction on sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.to  contact me;bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:1090-32.pdf

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant's actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sara cmplt