Podcasts about Breaking news

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

We take a journey back to 2015 in todays episode.In 2015 the world had moved on from Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes.So much so in fact the upper crust of society continued to associate with him.Today we take a look at what the picture showed us back then and we continue to ask the same question over and over...How did Epstein commit his crimes so brazenly out in the open??(commercial at 8:22)To contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/2015/02/06/sex-offender-who-mixes-princes-and-premiers-302877.html%3famp

A widely circulated photograph, taken in March 2001, shows a smiling Prince Andrew with his arm around Virginia Roberts—then 17 years old—while Ghislaine Maxwell looks on, reportedly at Maxwell's London home. The image has become one of the most enduring pieces of visual evidence connected to Roberts' allegations that she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and abused by the Duke. It has been cited repeatedly in media coverage and legal proceedings, including the civil lawsuit Roberts filed against Andrew, which was settled in 2022. The photograph's significance lies in the fact that it appears to capture all three key figures together in a casual, domestic setting—an unspoken counter to denials of familiarity.In the years since, Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell, and their apologists have treated the photo less like an inconvenient truth and more like a PR problem to be spun out of existence. Andrew's legal team has floated unsubstantiated claims of “fake” proportions and “mystery” alterations without ever producing credible forensic evidence. Maxwell, speaking from prison, has parroted the same line, conveniently claiming she has “only ever seen photocopies,” as if that alone discredits the image. Their supporters—whether in royal circles or among Epstein's old network—have amplified these talking points in a transparent attempt to gaslight the public into questioning their own eyes. It's a tactic ripped straight from the crisis-management playbook: attack the evidence, cast doubt, and hope the scandal rots in ambiguity. But without proof, these denials look less like reasoned skepticism and more like the desperate flailing of people cornered by a single, stubborn photograph that refuses to go away.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10531023/The-story-picture-Andrew-Virginia-Giuffre-Maxwell-journalist-scooped-world.html

​Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent announcement of releasing additional files related to Jeffrey Epstein has been met with skepticism, particularly following the underwhelming "Phase 1" release. The initial batch, which Bondi had hyped as containing "sick" revelations, primarily consisted of previously available flight logs and heavily redacted documents, offering little new information. This anticlimactic disclosure led to disappointment among the public and conservative influencers, who had anticipated more substantial revelations. Critics argue that the fanfare surrounding the release was disproportionate to its actual content, raising questions about the transparency and intentions behind these actions.In response to the backlash, Bondi has assured the public that more comprehensive documents will be forthcoming, blaming the initial shortcomings on the FBI's alleged withholding of thousands of pages. She has demanded that these documents be delivered to her office promptly, emphasizing a commitment to full transparency. However, given the previous overpromising and underdelivering, many remain skeptical about the authenticity and potential impact of the upcoming releases.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsoruce:Attorney General Pam Bondi insists more Jeffrey Epstein files are being released – despite disastrous ‘phase 1' | The Independent

In a  interview on "Jesse Watters Primetime," U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the Department of Justice plans to release documents related to Jeffrey Epstein on Thursday, February 27, 2025. Bondi emphasized the gravity of the contents, stating, "This will make you sick," and highlighted the necessity of protecting the identities of over 250 victims involved. She mentioned that the forthcoming release would include flight logs, numerous names, and extensive information pertaining to Epstein's activities.Bondi explained that the delay in releasing these documents was due to meticulous efforts to redact sensitive information to safeguard the victims' privacy. She noted that the files had been under review to ensure that personal details of the victims remained confidential. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bondi says some Epstein files coming Thursday | Fox News

Jeffrey Epstein's so-called “model visa” scheme was a carefully engineered system that used the glamour of the modeling industry as a cover to import and control young women, many from overseas. Recruiters—often women in his inner circle—lured victims with promises of fashion careers, sometimes backed by legitimate-looking modeling agencies and brand associations like Victoria's Secret. Once targeted, women were moved through a network of immigration loopholes, sham marriages, and legal paperwork that appeared legitimate to authorities. Epstein's connections to modeling agents such as Jean-Luc Brunel expanded his international reach, while his money paid for immigration lawyers, housing, and travel to keep the operation running without attracting suspicion. This infrastructure allowed him to maintain a steady supply of victims under the protection of legal status, making escape difficult and silence almost certain.The system thrived in the blind spots between law enforcement agencies, exploiting the fact that visa fraud and marriage records are rarely scrutinized unless tied to larger investigations. Even after Epstein's death, elements of this network remain intact: lawyers, recruiters, and agencies still in operation, and government files containing the hidden paper trail. Survivors face lingering consequences—fraudulent marriages, precarious immigration status, and the trauma of having their lives rewritten on paper to mask abuse. The scheme's success shows how predators can twist legitimate systems into tools of exploitation, offering a blueprint that could be reused unless those vulnerabilities are confronted and closed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein's so-called “model visa” scheme was a carefully engineered system that used the glamour of the modeling industry as a cover to import and control young women, many from overseas. Recruiters—often women in his inner circle—lured victims with promises of fashion careers, sometimes backed by legitimate-looking modeling agencies and brand associations like Victoria's Secret. Once targeted, women were moved through a network of immigration loopholes, sham marriages, and legal paperwork that appeared legitimate to authorities. Epstein's connections to modeling agents such as Jean-Luc Brunel expanded his international reach, while his money paid for immigration lawyers, housing, and travel to keep the operation running without attracting suspicion. This infrastructure allowed him to maintain a steady supply of victims under the protection of legal status, making escape difficult and silence almost certain.The system thrived in the blind spots between law enforcement agencies, exploiting the fact that visa fraud and marriage records are rarely scrutinized unless tied to larger investigations. Even after Epstein's death, elements of this network remain intact: lawyers, recruiters, and agencies still in operation, and government files containing the hidden paper trail. Survivors face lingering consequences—fraudulent marriages, precarious immigration status, and the trauma of having their lives rewritten on paper to mask abuse. The scheme's success shows how predators can twist legitimate systems into tools of exploitation, offering a blueprint that could be reused unless those vulnerabilities are confronted and closed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

In early 2016, Virginia Giuffre, through her counsel, filed a motion seeking to compel Ghislaine Maxwell to produce documents that had been withheld based on objections and privilege claims deemed improper by the plaintiff. Giuffre's motion challenged Maxwell's broad assertions of attorney‑client privilege, work‑product doctrine, vagueness, overbreadth, and undue burden. The motion was accompanied by detailed declarations—most notably by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley—which laid out why many of Maxwell's objections appeared unjustified and why the requested materials were relevant and necessary for Giuffre's case.The court reviewed both the motion and Maxwell's opposition, which included memoranda of law and declarations defending her objections and maintaining that providing certain documents would violate privacy rights or exceed the scope of discovery. Ultimately, in a partially favorable ruling for Giuffre, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, indicating that while some objections were valid, Maxwell was required to produce additional documents where privilege claims were not properly supported.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre v. Maxwell | MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . Document | Casetext

In early 2016, Virginia Giuffre, through her counsel, filed a motion seeking to compel Ghislaine Maxwell to produce documents that had been withheld based on objections and privilege claims deemed improper by the plaintiff. Giuffre's motion challenged Maxwell's broad assertions of attorney‑client privilege, work‑product doctrine, vagueness, overbreadth, and undue burden. The motion was accompanied by detailed declarations—most notably by attorney Sigrid S. McCawley—which laid out why many of Maxwell's objections appeared unjustified and why the requested materials were relevant and necessary for Giuffre's case.The court reviewed both the motion and Maxwell's opposition, which included memoranda of law and declarations defending her objections and maintaining that providing certain documents would violate privacy rights or exceed the scope of discovery. Ultimately, in a partially favorable ruling for Giuffre, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, indicating that while some objections were valid, Maxwell was required to produce additional documents where privilege claims were not properly supported.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre v. Maxwell | MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce Documents Subject To Improper Objections . Document | Casetext

Shamefully, newly uncovered emails show that Cecile de Jongh—former First Lady of the US Virgin Islands—invited convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to weigh in on updates to the territory's sex offender registration laws. “This is the suggested language; will it work for you?” she reportedly wrote to Epstein in 2011, effectively soliciting his input on legislation meant to keep predators in check. Epstein responded with self-serving suggestions—like adding lenient residency exemptions—to protect his own freedom of movement. It's not just a grotesque incompetence—it reads like willful subversion from someone supposed to protect the public.Even more vile: de Jongh didn't merely dialogue with Epstein over legislature; she allegedly helped arrange visas and tailored ESL classes for young women linked to him, enabling his trafficking network. These revelations aren't isolated lapses—they reveal a deeply compromised system where powerful officials invited a predator into the law‑making process, trading public safety for personal access. The corruption isn't metaphorical—it's documented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein consulted on Virgin Islands sex offender law (lawandcrime.com)

​Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent announcement regarding the FBI's delivery of a "truckload" of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents raises several concerns. The timing of this disclosure, following public disappointment over the initial release of largely redundant information, suggests a reactive rather than proactive approach to transparency. Bondi's claim that these documents were previously withheld by the FBI's New York office without clear justification further undermines confidence in the thoroughness and integrity of the investigationThe lack of new revelations in the earlier releases, coupled with the sudden appearance of these additional files, raises questions about the efficacy of the Justice Department's efforts to uncover the full extent of Epstein's network and activities. This situation highlights potential systemic issues within federal agencies regarding the handling and disclosure of critical evidence in high-profile cases.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Pam Bondi says 'truckload' of Epstein files have arrived from FBI, she plans to release 'as fast as we can' | Daily Mail Online

In her memoir, The Next Day, and in past interviews, Melinda French Gates didn't mince words: she found Bill's continued association with Jeffrey Epstein — a convicted sex offender — deeply unsettling and out of line with her values. She revealed that a single dinner with Epstein in 2013, during which she was visibly disturbed by the mansion's eerie ambiance and his behavior, marked a turning point. That encounter left her “unsettled,” and signaled deeper marital fissures. She later called Epstein “evil personified,” telling CBS she “did not like” Bill's meetings with him, and complaining that the relationship deeply betrayed both their marriage and her moral compass.Melinda's disgust with Epstein's presence went beyond emotional reaction—it entered the realm of moral accountability. She repeatedly voiced her objections and ultimately cited Bill's ties to Epstein as a contributing factor in their divorce, decisions that had been simmering since at least 2019. Her statements make clear that this wasn't a minor misstep but a fundamental breach of trust: one that required her to reckon with the reality that her marriage and her values could no longer coexist with that association.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10573431/Melinda-Gates-slams-Bills-friendship-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-CBS-interview.html

In private remarks, President Trump is reported—based on accounts from Rolling Stone citing two insiders—to have described some of Jeffrey Epstein's survivors, particularly those who appeared in the media, as being “clearly of a ‘Democrat' political affiliation.” He allegedly suggested that these individuals might be trying “to make him look bad” or implying wrongdoing during his past association with Epstein. The report further notes Trump speculated that they may be working with “prominent liberal attorneys or groups” to damage his reputation.The White House formally denied the report, labeling it false. A spokesperson dismissed the claims as a “desperate attempt by the failing Rolling Stone” to influence public perception..to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Trump has privately pondered if Epstein accusers are just ‘Democrats' trying to make him look bad, report claims | The Independent

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein's estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitationThe complaint underscores the plaintiffs' pursuit of justice against Epstein's estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein's crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein's victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his detailed 43‑page written opinion issued on January 12, 2022, Judge Kaplan firmly denied Prince Andrew's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Central to Andrew's defense was a previously sealed 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre, which his lawyers argued broadly released "any and all potential defendants" from liability. Judge Kaplan rejected this, calling the phrasing ambiguous and noting that it was unclear whether “potential defendants” truly included Andrew. He emphasized that only Epstein could clarify what he meant by that language, and without such clarity, the court could not extend the release to Andrew. Kaplan also rebuffed Andrew's remaining attempts to dismiss, including claims regarding Giuffre's residency and classification of her allegations under New York law. At this pre‑trial stage, he affirmed that all of Giuffre's factual claims must be accepted as true and thus the case could proceed.With dismissal refused, Judge Kaplan cleared the path for full discovery and, if necessary, a civil trial. He set a preliminary deposition schedule, signaling that both parties would be required to exchange documents and take sworn testimony—including from Prince Andrew. This decisively moved the case beyond preliminary legal wrangling and closer towards litigating its factual merits. Ultimately, though, in February 2022, the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice, preventing refiling, once the settlement was finalized.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf (uscourts.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bill Gates has consistently framed his association with Jeffrey Epstein as a “huge mistake,” claiming he naively believed the convicted sex offender could help advance global health philanthropy—an aspiration that never materialized. In interviews with The Wall Street Journal, Gates described his behavior as “foolish,” emphasized that he had no personal or business relationship with Epstein, and cut off contact by 2014. He lamented granting Epstein credibility by being seen with him, calling it one of the worst judgment calls of his life.Yet critics remain unconvinced. The repeated denial of substance—despite documented visits to Epstein's Manhattan townhouse, including one with his wife—smacks of damage control, not candor. The aftermath of the revelation played a key role in his divorce, and even public figures like Elon Musk have ridiculed Gates's moral credibility, saying he wouldn't trust him to babysit his own children. Gates's repeated invocation of “mistake” now feels like a defensive script designed to deflect deeper scrutiny rather than a genuine reckoningto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New photo shows Bill Gates posing with Epstein accuser years after his 2008 conviction: report (nypost.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his detailed 43‑page written opinion issued on January 12, 2022, Judge Kaplan firmly denied Prince Andrew's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Central to Andrew's defense was a previously sealed 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre, which his lawyers argued broadly released "any and all potential defendants" from liability. Judge Kaplan rejected this, calling the phrasing ambiguous and noting that it was unclear whether “potential defendants” truly included Andrew. He emphasized that only Epstein could clarify what he meant by that language, and without such clarity, the court could not extend the release to Andrew. Kaplan also rebuffed Andrew's remaining attempts to dismiss, including claims regarding Giuffre's residency and classification of her allegations under New York law. At this pre‑trial stage, he affirmed that all of Giuffre's factual claims must be accepted as true and thus the case could proceed.With dismissal refused, Judge Kaplan cleared the path for full discovery and, if necessary, a civil trial. He set a preliminary deposition schedule, signaling that both parties would be required to exchange documents and take sworn testimony—including from Prince Andrew. This decisively moved the case beyond preliminary legal wrangling and closer towards litigating its factual merits. Ultimately, though, in February 2022, the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice, preventing refiling, once the settlement was finalized.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf (uscourts.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein's estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitationThe complaint underscores the plaintiffs' pursuit of justice against Epstein's estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein's crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein's victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdfIf you'd like to help support my work:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support

In the wake of revelations that Harvard accepted over $9 million from Jeffrey Epstein before his 2008 conviction—and even allowed him frequent access and an office on campus—students and alumni responded with justified outrage. The university's half-measures, like funneling $200,000 in unspent Epstein funds into trafficking-victim charities, felt more like reputational polishing than real reckoning. Epstein's persistent presence within Harvard's academic spaces—including visits from 2010 to 2018—highlighted a culture that prioritized prestige and funding over ethics. Disgusted alumni began calling out the institution's moral failures, demanding accountability instead of quiet internal reviews.The Epstein scandal shattered the illusion that elite institutions operate above reproach, prompting fierce criticism from inside Harvard's own ranks. Students and faculty, who already questioned the university's donor vetting and governance, used Epstein as emblematic of a broken system—one where donors wield undue influence and internal safeguards are reactive at best. Many alumni, alarmed by the optics and ongoing resistance to reform, lamented how “too big to fail” universities become complicit through silence—and now, through calculated distancing.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/5/13/hks-dubin-fellows-wexner-ties/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein's estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitationThe complaint underscores the plaintiffs' pursuit of justice against Epstein's estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein's crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein's victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Hour 1 with Adam "Awadd" Epstein: Breaking News - Terry McLaurin is being taken off the PUP list / Grant Paulsen joins the show to talk about the McLaurin news / Terry's return will cause a big difference in this team / Callers weigh in on Terry's situation after being removed from the PUP list

Firefighters are battling brushfires on Oahu and Maui. Plus, what's next for the Honolulu Little League team after their first game in the Little League World Series.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As the lawsuit between the Epstein survivors and the USVI continues to take shape, we are getting a few hints about which way things are headed, especially considering that the USVI and their motion to dismiss has been denied, and they have now been hit with a second amended complaint.   Not only that, but they've been ordered by the Judge to respond.  In this episode, we take a trip back down to the USVI to get an update on the latest back and forth and to see where things currently stand with the lawsuit. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Amended Complaint Alleges V.I. Officials Conspired with Epstein for Financial Gain | St. Thomas Source (stthomassource.com)

Judge Jed S. Rakoff delivered a substantial legal victory for Combs, dismissing 21 of the 22 counts in Sara Rivers' $60 million lawsuit with prejudice, meaning those allegations cannot be refiled. The dismissed claims included accusations of racketeering, assault and battery, forced labor, sexual harassment, false imprisonment, and more—severe charges asserting a hostile and inhumane work environment during her time on Making the Band 2.The only count still pending is under the Gender‑Motivated Violence Protection Act—Count 15. Its future hinges on an appellate court ruling, as the judge paused a final decision on whether to dismiss it with or without prejudice.   Rivers' attorney, Ariel Mitchell, expressed intentions to appeal, stating they “look forward to more litigation specifically against Mr. Combs."  Meanwhile, Combs' camp praised the ruling, calling the claims “meritless, time‑barred, and legally deficient,” and thanked the court for its swift resolution of what they considered baseless accusations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'Making the Band' singer Sara Rivers' lawsuit against Diddy dismissed

Bill Gates has consistently framed his association with Jeffrey Epstein as a “huge mistake,” claiming he naively believed the convicted sex offender could help advance global health philanthropy—an aspiration that never materialized. In interviews with The Wall Street Journal, Gates described his behavior as “foolish,” emphasized that he had no personal or business relationship with Epstein, and cut off contact by 2014. He lamented granting Epstein credibility by being seen with him, calling it one of the worst judgment calls of his life.Yet critics remain unconvinced. The repeated denial of substance—despite documented visits to Epstein's Manhattan townhouse, including one with his wife—smacks of damage control, not candor. The aftermath of the revelation played a key role in his divorce, and even public figures like Elon Musk have ridiculed Gates's moral credibility, saying he wouldn't trust him to babysit his own children. Gates's repeated invocation of “mistake” now feels like a defensive script designed to deflect deeper scrutiny rather than a genuine reckoningto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New photo shows Bill Gates posing with Epstein accuser years after his 2008 conviction: report (nypost.com)

In her Second Amended Response to Maxwell's discovery demands, Virginia Giuffre pushed back aggressively, refusing to yield to Maxwell's attempts to broaden discovery into intrusive and irrelevant personal and psychological domains. She objected to Maxwell's sprawling requests as overly burdensome, unduly invasive, and aimed at discrediting her through unnecessary exposure rather than legitimate legal pursuit. Giuffre instead reinforced her focus on evidence directly tied to the defamation claims and trafficking allegations, contesting any effort by Maxwell to turn the process into a fishing expedition or reputation‑smearing exercise under the guise of legal procedure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:epstein-documents-943-pages - DocumentCloud

In her Second Amended Response to Maxwell's discovery demands, Virginia Giuffre pushed back aggressively, refusing to yield to Maxwell's attempts to broaden discovery into intrusive and irrelevant personal and psychological domains. She objected to Maxwell's sprawling requests as overly burdensome, unduly invasive, and aimed at discrediting her through unnecessary exposure rather than legitimate legal pursuit. Giuffre instead reinforced her focus on evidence directly tied to the defamation claims and trafficking allegations, contesting any effort by Maxwell to turn the process into a fishing expedition or reputation‑smearing exercise under the guise of legal procedure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:epstein-documents-943-pages - DocumentCloud

In the wake of revelations that Harvard accepted over $9 million from Jeffrey Epstein before his 2008 conviction—and even allowed him frequent access and an office on campus—students and alumni responded with justified outrage. The university's half-measures, like funneling $200,000 in unspent Epstein funds into trafficking-victim charities, felt more like reputational polishing than real reckoning. Epstein's persistent presence within Harvard's academic spaces—including visits from 2010 to 2018—highlighted a culture that prioritized prestige and funding over ethics. Disgusted alumni began calling out the institution's moral failures, demanding accountability instead of quiet internal reviews.The Epstein scandal shattered the illusion that elite institutions operate above reproach, prompting fierce criticism from inside Harvard's own ranks. Students and faculty, who already questioned the university's donor vetting and governance, used Epstein as emblematic of a broken system—one where donors wield undue influence and internal safeguards are reactive at best. Many alumni, alarmed by the optics and ongoing resistance to reform, lamented how “too big to fail” universities become complicit through silence—and now, through calculated distancing.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/5/13/hks-dubin-fellows-wexner-ties/

In July 2025, a subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee voted 8–2 to authorize subpoenas for the Department of Justice's complete cache of files related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking investigation. The move came just before Congress's summer recess, following growing public pressure and bipartisan calls for transparency on how Epstein was investigated, who he was connected to, and why certain prosecutorial decisions were made. Lawmakers framed the action as an accountability measure aimed at uncovering potential government mishandling or preferential treatment, while the timing suggested an intent to keep the issue in public focus during the legislative break.On August 5, 2025, Committee Chair James Comer formally issued the subpoenas, setting strict deadlines. The DOJ was ordered to produce documents by August 19. A series of deposition subpoenas were also sent to high-profile figures with dates spanning late summer into the fall: William Barr (Aug. 18), Alberto Gonzales (Aug. 26), Jeff Sessions (Aug. 28), Robert Mueller (Sept. 2), Loretta Lynch (Sept. 9), Eric Holder (Sept. 30), Merrick Garland (Oct. 2), Hillary Clinton (Oct. 9), and Bill Clinton (Oct. 14). This schedule positioned the investigation to unfold in stages, with a steady cadence of witness appearances leading into October.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein testimony: Will D.C. testimony be public or private?

In her Second Amended Response to Maxwell's discovery demands, Virginia Giuffre pushed back aggressively, refusing to yield to Maxwell's attempts to broaden discovery into intrusive and irrelevant personal and psychological domains. She objected to Maxwell's sprawling requests as overly burdensome, unduly invasive, and aimed at discrediting her through unnecessary exposure rather than legitimate legal pursuit. Giuffre instead reinforced her focus on evidence directly tied to the defamation claims and trafficking allegations, contesting any effort by Maxwell to turn the process into a fishing expedition or reputation‑smearing exercise under the guise of legal procedure.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:epstein-documents-943-pages - DocumentCloud

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf

Jeffrey Epstein's work release arrangement in 2008 was nothing short of a grotesque parody of justice. Framed as a “punishment,” it allowed a convicted sex offender—who had pleaded guilty to procuring a minor for prostitution—to spend most of his sentence in a cushy office, meeting associates and visitors with minimal supervision. He wasn't rotting in a cell; he was running his business empire from a desk while taxpayers funded the illusion of incarceration. The so-called restrictions were a joke, tailor-made to preserve his lifestyle while giving law enforcement and prosecutors political cover.This wasn't a lapse in judgment—it was a deliberate collaboration between Epstein's legal team, pliable officials, and a justice system that treats the wealthy as untouchable. The arrangement effectively told survivors their pain was worth nothing and told predators with enough money that the law could be bent into a concierge service. Every minute Epstein spent outside that cell was proof that accountability in America is conditional, negotiated, and available for purchase if your Rolodex is deep enough. Calling it “work release” was an insult to language—it was privilege disguised as punishment.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/former-epstein-work-release-guard-destroyed-pbso-records-are-the-smoking-gun/source:https://cbs12.com/news/local/pbso-disputes-claim-that-jeffrey-epstein-had-sex-on-work-release

*This is a preview, links to listen to the full podcast by following "Crime Wire Weekly" are below.In this episode of Crime Wire Weekly, hosts Jim Chapman and Kelly Jennings discuss a series of trending crime stories, including Donald Trump's takeover of crime in Washington DC, an LSU football player is arrested after (2) suspects for murder hide for weeks in his dorm room, A mass shooting at a Target store in Texas leaves (3) dead, a Florida woman is arrested after sharing nude pictures of a dating partner. These stories and more are on tap for today!(See topics below)Topics Crime Wire weekly Airing August 8th 2025Louisiana teen convicted as an adult for murder gets just 9 years in prison.Texas shooting kills (3) at a Target store.Donald Trump's DC takeover.Kentucky woman & (2) children abducted in bank robbery.LSU football player found to be harboring murder suspects in dorm room.Florida woman poses as nurse & treats thousands of patients.Maryland cold case solved after 20 years.North Carolina woman arrested for sharing revenge porn.Florida mom leaves kid and pet to party in Vegas.Links to Follow Crime Wire Weekly  https://linktr.ee/crimewireweeklyBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/exposed-scandalous-files-of-the-elite--6073723/support.

In a long-overdue act of transparency, a federal judge ordered the names of roughly 170 individuals—once shaded behind the label “John Doe” or “Jane Doe”—to be unsealed in court filings stemming from Virginia Giuffre's defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. The documents revealed luminaries like Bill Clinton (previously “Doe 36”), Prince Andrew (“actually Jane Doe 162” in context of testimony), hedge fund titan Glenn Dubin, modeling mogul Jean-Luc Brunel, and others represented alongside Epstein's victims, employees, and passersby.Rather than simple exposure of identities, this unmasking lifted the curtain on how deeply entrenched Epstein's network was, reaching into the upper echelons of finance, royalty, and politics.But make no mistake: public exposure doesn't mean public accountability. Unsealing the names confirmed countless high‑profile connections, yet it stops short of revealing misconduct or initiating investigations. In many cases, the inclusion in these documents wasn't tied to wrongdoing—people merely appeared in correspondence or witness lists. Still, the moral stain lingers. If Epstein's proximity wasn't disqualifying, what is? That these names remained cloaked so long—until a lawsuit ended in 2024—speaks volumes about the protection privilege continues to afford the powerful.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Over 170 of Jeffrey Epstein's high-profile associates will be NAMED in court documents set to be unsealed in the first days of 2024 | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Shamefully, newly uncovered emails show that Cecile de Jongh—former First Lady of the US Virgin Islands—invited convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to weigh in on updates to the territory's sex offender registration laws. “This is the suggested language; will it work for you?” she reportedly wrote to Epstein in 2011, effectively soliciting his input on legislation meant to keep predators in check. Epstein responded with self-serving suggestions—like adding lenient residency exemptions—to protect his own freedom of movement. It's not just a grotesque incompetence—it reads like willful subversion from someone supposed to protect the public.Even more vile: de Jongh didn't merely dialogue with Epstein over legislature; she allegedly helped arrange visas and tailored ESL classes for young women linked to him, enabling his trafficking network. These revelations aren't isolated lapses—they reveal a deeply compromised system where powerful officials invited a predator into the law‑making process, trading public safety for personal access. The corruption isn't metaphorical—it's documented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein consulted on Virgin Islands sex offender law (lawandcrime.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent announcement regarding the FBI's delivery of a "truckload" of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents raises several concerns. The timing of this disclosure, following public disappointment over the initial release of largely redundant information, suggests a reactive rather than proactive approach to transparency. Bondi's claim that these documents were previously withheld by the FBI's New York office without clear justification further undermines confidence in the thoroughness and integrity of the investigationThe lack of new revelations in the earlier releases, coupled with the sudden appearance of these additional files, raises questions about the efficacy of the Justice Department's efforts to uncover the full extent of Epstein's network and activities. This situation highlights potential systemic issues within federal agencies regarding the handling and disclosure of critical evidence in high-profile cases.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Pam Bondi says 'truckload' of Epstein files have arrived from FBI, she plans to release 'as fast as we can' | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein's so-called “model visa” scheme was a carefully engineered system that used the glamour of the modeling industry as a cover to import and control young women, many from overseas. Recruiters—often women in his inner circle—lured victims with promises of fashion careers, sometimes backed by legitimate-looking modeling agencies and brand associations like Victoria's Secret. Once targeted, women were moved through a network of immigration loopholes, sham marriages, and legal paperwork that appeared legitimate to authorities. Epstein's connections to modeling agents such as Jean-Luc Brunel expanded his international reach, while his money paid for immigration lawyers, housing, and travel to keep the operation running without attracting suspicion. This infrastructure allowed him to maintain a steady supply of victims under the protection of legal status, making escape difficult and silence almost certain.The system thrived in the blind spots between law enforcement agencies, exploiting the fact that visa fraud and marriage records are rarely scrutinized unless tied to larger investigations. Even after Epstein's death, elements of this network remain intact: lawyers, recruiters, and agencies still in operation, and government files containing the hidden paper trail. Survivors face lingering consequences—fraudulent marriages, precarious immigration status, and the trauma of having their lives rewritten on paper to mask abuse. The scheme's success shows how predators can twist legitimate systems into tools of exploitation, offering a blueprint that could be reused unless those vulnerabilities are confronted and closed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In private remarks, President Trump is reported—based on accounts from Rolling Stone citing two insiders—to have described some of Jeffrey Epstein's survivors, particularly those who appeared in the media, as being “clearly of a ‘Democrat' political affiliation.” He allegedly suggested that these individuals might be trying “to make him look bad” or implying wrongdoing during his past association with Epstein. The report further notes Trump speculated that they may be working with “prominent liberal attorneys or groups” to damage his reputation.The White House formally denied the report, labeling it false. A spokesperson dismissed the claims as a “desperate attempt by the failing Rolling Stone” to influence public perception..to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Trump has privately pondered if Epstein accusers are just ‘Democrats' trying to make him look bad, report claims | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In July 2025, a subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee voted 8–2 to authorize subpoenas for the Department of Justice's complete cache of files related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking investigation. The move came just before Congress's summer recess, following growing public pressure and bipartisan calls for transparency on how Epstein was investigated, who he was connected to, and why certain prosecutorial decisions were made. Lawmakers framed the action as an accountability measure aimed at uncovering potential government mishandling or preferential treatment, while the timing suggested an intent to keep the issue in public focus during the legislative break.On August 5, 2025, Committee Chair James Comer formally issued the subpoenas, setting strict deadlines. The DOJ was ordered to produce documents by August 19. A series of deposition subpoenas were also sent to high-profile figures with dates spanning late summer into the fall: William Barr (Aug. 18), Alberto Gonzales (Aug. 26), Jeff Sessions (Aug. 28), Robert Mueller (Sept. 2), Loretta Lynch (Sept. 9), Eric Holder (Sept. 30), Merrick Garland (Oct. 2), Hillary Clinton (Oct. 9), and Bill Clinton (Oct. 14). This schedule positioned the investigation to unfold in stages, with a steady cadence of witness appearances leading into October.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein testimony: Will D.C. testimony be public or private?If you'd like to help support my work:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support

Bernard J. Jansen submitted a sworn declaration affirming that, years prior, Virginia Roberts Giuffre had privately disclosed to him instances of sexual abuse inflicted by powerful individuals—among them, Alan Dershowitz—during her time being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. According to Jansen, Roberts consistently relayed these experiences without any indication of fabrication, embellishment, or ulterior motive. His testimony underscored that her public allegations stemmed from genuine, firsthand knowledge rather than fabricated claim.In essence, Jansen's report served to bolster Giuffre's credibility by confirming that her accounts had been shared in confidence long before the public spotlight, reinforcing that her voice was truthful and not motivated by defamation or personal gain. This expert opinion was intended to counter efforts to portray her claims as false or malicious.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

According to reporting, government files detailing Prince Andrew's decade-long tenure as the UK's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment will stay locked away until 2065—some 105 years after his birth—under royal family exemptions to Freedom of Information laws. In practice, this means the public banished from scrutinizing any records tied to his taxpayer-funded diplomatic role, just when transparency should be their highest priority following the Epstein debacle. This isn't mere protocol; it's a stonewall, shielding a scandal-riddled prince from public accountability under the guise of "royal privilege."The timing couldn't be more suspect: Prince Andrew's ties to Jeffrey Epstein have already cost him public trust, official titles, and patronages. Yet with the government's cloak of secrecy firmly in place, the ability to question how and why Epstein-linked business trips were arranged—or what exactly Andrew was doing on the public dime—vanishes into the archives. It's not just a blackout—it's institutional cover-up by omissionto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Prince Andrew files locked away until 2065 as royal biographer slams 'culture of secrecy' | Royal | News | Express.co.ukBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Jed S. Rakoff delivered a substantial legal victory for Combs, dismissing 21 of the 22 counts in Sara Rivers' $60 million lawsuit with prejudice, meaning those allegations cannot be refiled. The dismissed claims included accusations of racketeering, assault and battery, forced labor, sexual harassment, false imprisonment, and more—severe charges asserting a hostile and inhumane work environment during her time on Making the Band 2.The only count still pending is under the Gender‑Motivated Violence Protection Act—Count 15. Its future hinges on an appellate court ruling, as the judge paused a final decision on whether to dismiss it with or without prejudice.   Rivers' attorney, Ariel Mitchell, expressed intentions to appeal, stating they “look forward to more litigation specifically against Mr. Combs."  Meanwhile, Combs' camp praised the ruling, calling the claims “meritless, time‑barred, and legally deficient,” and thanked the court for its swift resolution of what they considered baseless accusations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'Making the Band' singer Sara Rivers' lawsuit against Diddy dismissedBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.