Podcasts about jp morgan

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein's activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank's defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.(commercial at 7:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein's activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank's defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.(commercial at 7:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The U.S. Virgin Islands' Memorandum in Support of Excluding Expert Testimony from JP Morgan was a direct strike at the bank's legal strategy of hiding behind highly paid specialists to sanitize its conduct. The filing argued that JP Morgan's proposed experts weren't there to provide neutral, technical insight—they were being deployed to confuse the jury, shift blame, and whitewash the bank's longstanding financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI pointed out that these experts attempted to dress up common sense issues—like due diligence, suspicious transactions, and regulatory compliance—as matters of complex banking science, when in reality the facts spoke plainly: the bank continued to profit off Epstein long after his 2008 conviction and obvious red flags. In essence, the memorandum framed JP Morgan's “experts” as mouthpieces meant to cloud responsibility, not clarify it.By moving to bar this testimony, the USVI was making a broader argument about accountability. If JP Morgan was allowed to weaponize expert witnesses to downplay its failures, the survivors' pursuit of justice would be buried under jargon and pseudo-objectivity. The memorandum emphasized that letting these experts testify would not only mislead the jury but also distort the purpose of the trial, turning it into a battle of résumés rather than a reckoning with the bank's choices. The USVI's position was clear: the facts don't need interpretation from consultants paid millions to protect a financial giant—they need to be weighed on their own merits. This was an attempt to strip away the camouflage JP Morgan hoped to use, forcing the court to confront the bank's role in sustaining Epstein's trafficking operation without distraction or distortion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Virgin Islands' Memorandum in Support of Excluding Expert Testimony from JP Morgan was a direct strike at the bank's legal strategy of hiding behind highly paid specialists to sanitize its conduct. The filing argued that JP Morgan's proposed experts weren't there to provide neutral, technical insight—they were being deployed to confuse the jury, shift blame, and whitewash the bank's longstanding financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI pointed out that these experts attempted to dress up common sense issues—like due diligence, suspicious transactions, and regulatory compliance—as matters of complex banking science, when in reality the facts spoke plainly: the bank continued to profit off Epstein long after his 2008 conviction and obvious red flags. In essence, the memorandum framed JP Morgan's “experts” as mouthpieces meant to cloud responsibility, not clarify it.By moving to bar this testimony, the USVI was making a broader argument about accountability. If JP Morgan was allowed to weaponize expert witnesses to downplay its failures, the survivors' pursuit of justice would be buried under jargon and pseudo-objectivity. The memorandum emphasized that letting these experts testify would not only mislead the jury but also distort the purpose of the trial, turning it into a battle of résumés rather than a reckoning with the bank's choices. The USVI's position was clear: the facts don't need interpretation from consultants paid millions to protect a financial giant—they need to be weighed on their own merits. This was an attempt to strip away the camouflage JP Morgan hoped to use, forcing the court to confront the bank's role in sustaining Epstein's trafficking operation without distraction or distortion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank's standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank's standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein's activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank's defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

n June 2023, lawyers representing Jeffrey Epstein's victims sued JPMorgan asked U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff to recall Jamie Dimon—and two other executives—for fresh depositions. They argued the bank strategically delayed production of key documents—such as a 22-page email timeline and internal Epstein-related review materials—delivered only after Dimon's May 26 deposition, thereby depriving plaintiffs the chance to question him on them. The late disclosure, including documents produced “5:45 p.m. on a Sunday,” was described by one attorney as “untimely” and “inexplicably slow”Judge Rakoff flatly denied the request for additional depositions of Dimon and other JPMorgan officials, ruling the existing record was sufficient and closing the door on calls for re-questioning. Thus, although plaintiffs sought to enhance accountability and clarity using newly surfaced evidence, the expected opportunity to revisit Dimon's testimony never materialized.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein accuser wants to question JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon again | Fox BusinessBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein's activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank's defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.(commercial at 7:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Monday August 25, 2025 JP Morgan to Pay $330 Million to Settle Federal Charges

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank's standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank's standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In early August 2025, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff sharply cautioned JPMorgan Chase and its attorneys during the discovery phase of litigation over Jeffrey Epstein-related claims. He accused the bank of a “blatant slow walk of evidence,” signaling that delaying or withholding documents would not be tolerated, and explicitly warned that the court would hold JPMorgan in contempt if it failed to comply with the agreed-upon production schedule.Despite this stern warning, there's been no widely reported follow-up indicating that JPMorgan faced any actual sanctions or contempt findings as a result. In other words, while the judge clearly articulated the stakes, the expected consequences—like court-imposed penalties or expedited orders—apparently never materialized. The implicit message: the warning raised expectations of enforcement, but no tangible disciplinary action seems to have followed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge warns JPMorgan Chase in Jeffrey Epstein evidence issue (cnbc.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In 2023, JPMorgan Chase paid nearly $365 million in settlements tied to Jeffrey Epstein—$290 million to survivors of his abuse and another $75 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands, which accused the bank of enabling his trafficking operations. Survivors argued the bank ignored glaring red flags while continuing to profit from Epstein as a client. These settlements provided financial compensation but allowed JPMorgan to resolve the cases without admitting wrongdoing or exposing itself to deeper legal liability.What was expected after such payouts—sweeping institutional reform, regulatory overhauls, or real accountability—never materialized. JPMorgan treated the settlements as a cost of doing business, and because the sums were small relative to its vast revenues, the financial and reputational damage was limited. No new compliance mandates were imposed, no executives faced consequences, and the systemic issues that allowed Epstein to operate remained largely untouched. The money changed hands, but the reckoning never came.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:JPMorgan's Epstein settlement will change how all banks act (afr.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On the Trust the Plan Podcast, Nick Hopwood, CFP®, and Preston Gee, CFP® of Peak Wealth dive into insights from the J.P. Morgan Guide to Retirement, offering practical ideas and concepts around getting started with saving, preparing for, and living in retirement. They emphasize the importance of evaluating Roth contributions at various life stages, noting that younger investors often benefit most from Roth accounts due to lower current tax brackets, while those in peak earning years may need to weigh traditional vs. Roth options carefully. The discussion encourages listeners to think strategically about retirement planning early on, adapting their approach as financial circumstances evolve. — Peak Wealth Management is a financial planning and wealth management firm in Plymouth, MI. We believe by providing education and guidance, we inspire our clients to make great decisions so they can Retire With Peace of Mind. Stay Connected With Us: Podbean: findingtruewealth.podbean.com YouTube: / @peakwealthmgmt Apple: rb.gy/1jqp6 (Trust the Plan Podcast) Facebook: Facebook.com/PeakWealthManagement Twitter: Twitter.com/nhopwood1 www.peakwm.com

Listen to this podcast episode for a recap of top catastrophe bond, insurance-linked securities and alternative reinsurance capital news, from the week-ending August 24th 2025. Listen to a recap of Artemis' most read catastrophe bond and insurance-linked securities (ILS) news of the last week. We hope this summary provides an easy way to listen to a recap of some of last week's top stories. This week we covered: Hannover Re launching a new Bermuda ILS platform; Swiss Re taking over from Munich Re at the top of AM Best's ranking of the world's largest reinsurers for companies that report under IFRS 17; JP Morgan saying cat bonds are not the main source of price pressure; AM Best on the soft but still profitable reinsurance market; how cat bonds are assuming more wildfire risk; VP Bank saying ILS remains one of the best diversifying asset classes; Antares CEO commenting on the property retro space; Howden Re on property cat pricing; life and annuity sidecar expansion; and more.

According to eyewitnesses reported by The Daily Beast, Kathryn Ruemmler—who served as White House Counsel under both the Clinton and Obama administrations—was present at Jeffrey Epstein's arraignment in July 2019. Observers noted she was seated behind Epstein's defense team, and characterized her presence as a “professional relationship,” possibly serving as a show of support. Importantly, Epstein's longtime attorney, Martin Weinberg, clarified that Ruemmler did not represent Epstein, stating with certainty that she had not appeared at any hearing on his behalf.Further press coverage and court filings revealed that even after her White House tenure, Ruemmler had multiple interactions with Epstein. The Wall Street Journal noted Epstein's schedule included dozens of meetings with her between her White House service and her later work at Goldman Sachs. He had entries for planned meetings in Paris in 2015 and on his private Caribbean island in 2017; Ruemmler denied that those occasions occurred. She also commented in those reports: “I regret ever knowing Jeffrey Epstein.”(commercial at 12:40)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein referred Obama White House counsel to JPMorgan (cnbc.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) filed a motion opposing JPMorgan Chase's request to dismiss the lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI argues that JPMorgan played a crucial role in enabling and facilitating Epstein's illegal activities by maintaining his accounts and providing financial services, despite knowing about his criminal conduct. The motion asserts that the bank ignored numerous red flags and allowed Epstein to conduct transactions that supported his sex trafficking operation.The USVI contends that JPMorgan's actions or lack thereof contributed significantly to the harm caused by Epstein and his network. The motion further emphasizes that the lawsuit is valid and should proceed, as it seeks to hold the bank accountable for its alleged complicity in Epstein's activities, despite JPMorgan's efforts to dismiss the case. The USVI aims to prove that the bank's involvement goes beyond mere negligence, arguing that it knowingly benefited from its relationship with Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.48.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) filed a motion opposing JPMorgan Chase's request to dismiss the lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI argues that JPMorgan played a crucial role in enabling and facilitating Epstein's illegal activities by maintaining his accounts and providing financial services, despite knowing about his criminal conduct. The motion asserts that the bank ignored numerous red flags and allowed Epstein to conduct transactions that supported his sex trafficking operation.The USVI contends that JPMorgan's actions or lack thereof contributed significantly to the harm caused by Epstein and his network. The motion further emphasizes that the lawsuit is valid and should proceed, as it seeks to hold the bank accountable for its alleged complicity in Epstein's activities, despite JPMorgan's efforts to dismiss the case. The USVI aims to prove that the bank's involvement goes beyond mere negligence, arguing that it knowingly benefited from its relationship with Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.48.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

In July 2024, Delegate Stacey Plaskett filed a lawsuit under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the attorney representing six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. Plaskett argued that the amended lawsuit against her was frivolously filed, lacked any factual or legal foundation, and was intended to harass rather than pursue a legitimate legal claim. She sought sanctions to penalize and deter what she viewed as a baseless and politically motivated suit.However, the court denied her Rule 11 motion, concluding that the survivors' filing was neither frivolous nor made for improper purposes. The ruling underscored that the suit was grounded in sufficient factual and legal claims, and that the plaintiffs' allegations merited judicial consideration rather than sanctions. In essence, the denial affirmed that the litigation could proceed on substantive grounds.Also....In the released segment of her May 9, 2023 deposition, Stacey Plaskett was pressed on her awareness of Jeffrey Epstein's role in the Virgin Islands and the extent of his influence with local officials and institutions. The questioning focused on whether she had knowledge of Epstein's financial relationships, his political donations, or his contacts with Virgin Islands leadership during the period when he was operating in the territory. Plaskett largely distanced herself from Epstein, stating that she had no direct involvement with him and little knowledge of his activities beyond what was publicly known.Attorneys also asked Plaskett about government oversight, her interactions with agencies connected to Epstein's business holdings, and whether she had ever received benefits, contributions, or favors traceable to Epstein or his companies. In the available transcript, she denied having such connections and emphasized that she was not involved in decisions related to Epstein's finances or residency. While limited to roughly 25 pages, the deposition underscores how central Virgin Islands political figures were to JPMorgan's defense and the USVI's allegations—whether officials ignored red flags about Epstein or knowingly permitted him to operate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The USVI, in its legal filings, demanded that JPMorgan produce documents related to more than $1.1 million in Epstein-associated payments processed by the bank after Epstein ceased being a client in 2013. The government contends these transactions include continued financial flows to his associates and possibly the victims themselves, well beyond the bank's termination of Epstein's accounts—and even after he was a convicted sex offender. This pursuit of documentation underscores the territory's allegations that JPMorgan maintained an operational pipeline that sustained parts of Epstein's trafficking network despite ostensibly cutting ties with himThese alleged post-retention payments are crucial to the USVI's broader argument: that JPMorgan's oversight and compliance failures enabled Epstein's sex trafficking enterprise. According to filings, the bank continued to handle suspicious payments—including to individuals previously flagged as recruiters or trafficked individuals—arguing that JPMorgan should have recognized red flags and severed all related financial activity promptly rather than allowing it to persist in defiance of legal and ethical obligations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:V.I. Seeks JPMorgan Documents Relating to $1.1M in Epstein Payments | St. Thomas Source (stthomassource.com)

The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) filed a motion opposing JPMorgan Chase's request to dismiss the lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI argues that JPMorgan played a crucial role in enabling and facilitating Epstein's illegal activities by maintaining his accounts and providing financial services, despite knowing about his criminal conduct. The motion asserts that the bank ignored numerous red flags and allowed Epstein to conduct transactions that supported his sex trafficking operation.The USVI contends that JPMorgan's actions or lack thereof contributed significantly to the harm caused by Epstein and his network. The motion further emphasizes that the lawsuit is valid and should proceed, as it seeks to hold the bank accountable for its alleged complicity in Epstein's activities, despite JPMorgan's efforts to dismiss the case. The USVI aims to prove that the bank's involvement goes beyond mere negligence, arguing that it knowingly benefited from its relationship with Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.48.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Even in death, Jeffrey Epstein remains a spectral presence in global finance. His actions have left banks like JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank, and Barclays scrambling to defend decades of questionable client relations—as regulatory probes, lawsuits, and U.S. Virgin Islands settlements continue to reverberate. The chilling reality: Epstein's systemic influence didn't die with him. His network outlived him, and institutions complicit in his crimes are still facing the consequences—proof that financial wrongdoing can outlive the criminal itself, with reputational and monetary costs that linger, decade after decade.Yet this tangled legacy also ignited some unexpected reform. Regulators have slapped Deutsche Bank with massive fines for ignoring red flags, while JPMorgan's settlements—totaling hundreds of millions—force the bank to face human trafficking implications tied to Epstein. The fallout has inspired proposals for tougher compliance standards, better oversight of “high risk” clients, and enhanced anti-money laundering measures. It's a vivid reminder that institutional inertia can perpetuate abuse, but Epstein's exposure has also made financial gatekeepers more alert—reluctantly, and under duress.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Hiltzik: Making Epstein's banks pay for his crimes - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) filed a motion opposing JPMorgan Chase's request to dismiss the lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI argues that JPMorgan played a crucial role in enabling and facilitating Epstein's illegal activities by maintaining his accounts and providing financial services, despite knowing about his criminal conduct. The motion asserts that the bank ignored numerous red flags and allowed Epstein to conduct transactions that supported his sex trafficking operation.The USVI contends that JPMorgan's actions or lack thereof contributed significantly to the harm caused by Epstein and his network. The motion further emphasizes that the lawsuit is valid and should proceed, as it seeks to hold the bank accountable for its alleged complicity in Epstein's activities, despite JPMorgan's efforts to dismiss the case. The USVI aims to prove that the bank's involvement goes beyond mere negligence, arguing that it knowingly benefited from its relationship with Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.48.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

As usual, AI slop shownotes for anyone who wants to read them. Enjoy! -----------------------------------------------Content warning: violent crime, child deaths, war, famine, and historical mass-casualty events.— Description — Jack the Insider and Hong Kong Jack cover a packed week: the Erin Patterson verdict and sentencing expectations; the Folbigg exoneration and compensation debate; AI's promised productivity vs. creators' rights; New Zealand politics and travel flows; Australia's recognition of Palestine and the “day-after” security problem in Gaza; the 80th anniversary debate over Hiroshima/Nagasaki; U.S. housing, tariffs, and political incentives; food-stamp restrictions; Trump–Putin optics; pasta wars over cacio e pepe; plus NRL, AFL, cricket (Darwin's case for a Test), and rugby's Giteau Law change. They finish with an Iranian TV claim on “weather manipulation” and call it a week.Summary of key pointsCourts & media: Patterson likely long sentence; Folbigg's payout criticized; cautionary tales of media rush-to-judgment.Tech & policy: AI productivity promises vs. creator consent; scraping controversies; children's online safety beyond blunt bans.Geopolitics: Australia to recognize Palestine; post-war Gaza security unsolved; Hiroshima/Nagasaki debate reopened.Economics: U.S. housing pressures; tariffs as stealth consumption tax; political incentives realign.Sport: NRL finals picture tightening; AFL contenders wobble; cricket's northern push; Wallabies selection flexibility returns.— Timestamped segments — 00:00:01 — Cold open & banterHong Kong heat, black short-sleeve “uniform,” bulk-buying Marks & Spencer basics.Light teasing about Melbourne's love of black attire.00:01:22 — Erin Patterson: new disclosures, appeal posture, sentencingResurfaced material about alleged prior poison attempts on Simon Patterson (penne bolognese, chicken korma, vegetable wrap).Serious illness and surgery for Simon Patterson after the korma.Expectation of a long sentence for premeditated murder; talk of 35–45 years non-parole.Prison remand at Dame Phyllis Frost; media rumors inside; psychiatric assessments and caution about conflating autism with criminality.John Ferguson's reporting; documentaries and books incoming; a true crime podcaster's about-face post-disclosures.Confidence in trial thoroughness; appeal anticipated but unlikely to overturn on process.00:12:30 — Kathleen Folbigg: exoneration, “skinny” compensation, media reckoningNSW offers ~$2m after 20 years in prison; hosts call it low given Lindy Chamberlain's historical payout and inflation.Books still in print labeling Folbigg a serial killer; calls for accountability among journalists.Comparison with Patterson media handling—less rush to judgment this time.00:19:19 — Productivity Commission on AI: 4.3% productivity vs. IP rightsLight-touch copyright reforms vs. creators' consent/compensation.Corporate uptake (e.g., JPMorgan's uplift) and the productivity juggernaut.Tech scraping (e.g., use of pirated libraries) and lawsuits (e.g., Sarah Silverman case).Social media harms and late-stage regulation; kids outmaneuvering adult-written rules.Data demands to verify age -> more privacy tradeoffs; grooming on gaming platforms; neurodivergent vulnerability.00:29:05 — New Zealand: travel flows, cost of living, politicsKiwis using Australia as a launchpad; departures muddying migration stats.Cost of living pressures; coalition under Chris Luxon trailing in polling.Dairy dependence on China moderated; Christchurch rebuild once boosted the economy, now cooled.00:33:32 — Australia to recognize Palestine: symbolism vs. securityPlanned announcements at the UNGA alongside France/UK/Canada.Netanyahu's pushback; everyone says “no role for Hamas” in the day-after.Israeli protests against extended occupation; Arab League reluctance to police Gaza.A (half-flippant) British “mandate” idea vs. feasibility; Somalia as an example of regional peacekeeping success; current leadership gap to assemble an Arab-led force.00:43:05 — Hiroshima & Nagasaki at 80: necessity debate revisitedImmediate vs. long-tail casualties; cancer and birth defects; legal actions in Japan.Senior U.S. military figures (Eisenhower, Nimitz, others) cited as skeptical of necessity; Soviets' late entry in the Pacific war as a factor.Recommendation to read widely; Paul Ham's “Hiroshima Nagasaki” as a starting point.00:53:29 — U.S. housing and politics: who sets the agenda?First-home median age moving from ~28 to ~38; 2008's lingering scars.Young men shifting toward Trump; Democrats' reactive posture.Tariffs as a consumption tax; pass-through risks to inflation; corporate strain and loan-taking; watch upcoming indicators.01:01:50 — Food stamps & junk food limits12 U.S. states considering restrictions (especially sodas).Government paternalism vs. personal choice; cooking skills gap; case for basic food education over bans.01:04:51 — Trump–Putin in Alaska; Ukraine reality checkOptics of a meeting; Ukraine constitution forbids ceding land; Crimea's intractability.Reliability issues with Moscow agreements; tariffs complicating Alaska supply via Canada.01:07:27 — Cacio e pepe wars (BBC vs. Rome)Purist recipe (pasta, pepper, pecorino), emulsion with pasta water—no butter/cream.Finger-wagging at British “improvements,” with a side of hypocrisy charges in summer variations.Carbonara authenticity chat (guanciale; no cream).01:10:01 — NRL: ladder shifts and a trainer's “gamesmanship”Panthers surge; Storm and Raiders in the mix; Broncos hammered by Roosters.Trainer stepping into a kicker's line—five-week ban, $50k fine; learning from AFL's runner reforms.01:14:55 — AFL culture & form linesGabba crowd scuffle; how crowds have changed since the suburban-era melees.Scott Pendlebury on track for 400; Collingwood and Brisbane wobble despite talent.Isaac Heaney's purple patch as Brownlow “smokey”; nine sides for eight spots; big fixtures loom.Carlton locks in Michael Voss through 2026; list-management changes brewing.01:26:24 — Cricket: T20 streak, Darwin's Test pitch, Ashes selectionAustralia's T20 run; Tim David's monster hitting; iconic crowd catch.Case for a winter Test in Darwin to diversify venues/opponents.Ashes schedule (Perth, Brisbane D/N, Adelaide, MCG, SCG) compresses rest windows; pace rotation likely.Opener conundrum: Labuschagne with Khawaja risks slow starts; Boland automatic at the MCG.01:34:27 — Rugby: Giteau Law scrappedWallabies free to pick more overseas-based players.Manage workloads for key big men (e.g., Will Skelton) ahead of major tournaments.01:36:21 — Iran drought & “weather manipulation” claim; sign-offIranian TV guest alleges U.S./Israel redirect rain clouds; hosts file under conspiracy.Wrap and see-you-next-week.— Notable moments & quotes —00:05:14 — Hong Kong Jack: “Premeditated deliberate … murder.”00:05:26 — Jack the Insider: “Planned, organised and designed to cause maximum injury and pain.”00:13:38 — Hong Kong Jack (on Folbigg payout): “Bit skinny. I would have thought.”00:25:40 — Hong Kong Jack: “In a battle on a tech issue, I'll back the 13- and 14-year-olds every day of the week.”00:39:17 — Hong Kong Jack (half-flippant): “Go back to 1946 and have another Palestine mandate … give it to the Brits to run as a colony.”00:47:20 — Jack the Insider (quoting Eisenhower): Japan was “already defeated … dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.”00:59:33 — Hong Kong Jack: “Trump controls the Democrats' narrative … He's in charge of both parties.”01:10:45 — Hong Kong Jack (NRL trainer): “That was gamesmanship.”01:22:11 — Hong Kong Jack (on Heaney): “He's my smokey for a Brownlow.”01:33:12 — Jack the Insider (Ashes): “There's nowhere to hide if you're a bit injured.”

In this episode of Screaming in the Cloud, Corey Quinn talks with Jonathan Schneider, CEO of Moderne and author on Java microservices and automated code remediation. They explore why upgrading legacy systems is so hard, Schneider's journey from Netflix to building large-scale code transformation tools like OpenRewrite, and how major companies like Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft use it.They also discuss AI in software development, cutting through the hype to show where it genuinely helps, and the human and technical challenges of modernization. The conversation offers a practical look at how AI and automation can boost productivity without replacing the need for expert oversight.Show Highlights(2:07) Book Writing and the Pain of Documentation(4:03) Why Software Modernization Is So Hard(6:53) Automating Software Modernization at Netflix(8:07) Culture and Modernization: Netflix vs. Google vs. JP Morgan(10:40) Social Engineering Problems in Software Modernization(13:20) The Geometric Explosion of Software Complexity(17:57) The Foundation for LLMs in Software Modernization(21:16) AI Coding Assistants: Confidence, Fallibility, and Collaboration(22:37) The Python 2 to 3 Migration: Lessons for Modernization(27:56) The Human Element: Responsibility, Skepticism, and the Future of WorkLinksCrying Out Cloud Podcast & Newsletter: https://www.wiz.io/crying-out-cloudModern (Jonathan Schneider's company): https://modern.aiLinkedIn (Jonathan Schneider): https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanschneider/

In July 2024, Delegate Stacey Plaskett filed a lawsuit under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the attorney representing six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. Plaskett argued that the amended lawsuit against her was frivolously filed, lacked any factual or legal foundation, and was intended to harass rather than pursue a legitimate legal claim. She sought sanctions to penalize and deter what she viewed as a baseless and politically motivated suit.However, the court denied her Rule 11 motion, concluding that the survivors' filing was neither frivolous nor made for improper purposes. The ruling underscored that the suit was grounded in sufficient factual and legal claims, and that the plaintiffs' allegations merited judicial consideration rather than sanctions. In essence, the denial affirmed that the litigation could proceed on substantive grounds.Also....In the released segment of her May 9, 2023 deposition, Stacey Plaskett was pressed on her awareness of Jeffrey Epstein's role in the Virgin Islands and the extent of his influence with local officials and institutions. The questioning focused on whether she had knowledge of Epstein's financial relationships, his political donations, or his contacts with Virgin Islands leadership during the period when he was operating in the territory. Plaskett largely distanced herself from Epstein, stating that she had no direct involvement with him and little knowledge of his activities beyond what was publicly known.Attorneys also asked Plaskett about government oversight, her interactions with agencies connected to Epstein's business holdings, and whether she had ever received benefits, contributions, or favors traceable to Epstein or his companies. In the available transcript, she denied having such connections and emphasized that she was not involved in decisions related to Epstein's finances or residency. While limited to roughly 25 pages, the deposition underscores how central Virgin Islands political figures were to JPMorgan's defense and the USVI's allegations—whether officials ignored red flags about Epstein or knowingly permitted him to operate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley's image as Jeffrey Epstein's “white knight” at JPMorgan is not just embarrassing—it's damning. The idea that one of Wall Street's most powerful executives bent over backwards to shield Epstein, even as serious red flags about his predatory behavior piled up, shows exactly how deep the rot ran inside JPMorgan. Staley didn't merely tolerate Epstein—he actively vouched for him, defended him, and worked to keep him in the bank's orbit, even after Epstein's 2008 conviction. That wasn't the act of a naïve executive; it was the conscious choice of someone who put profit, connections, and loyalty to a wealthy predator above basic decency. For years, he was the fixer, the gatekeeper, the man who lent Epstein credibility inside one of the largest financial institutions in the world.JPMorgan, meanwhile, enabled all of it. The bank has tried to paint Staley as an outlier, the “bad apple” who went rogue, but that spin doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Epstein banked there for years, using JPMorgan accounts to move suspicious sums of money, fund his network, and maintain access to the elite circles that protected him. Compliance concerns were brushed aside, oversight was practically nonexistent, and the relationship continued because men like Staley treated Epstein as untouchable. The “white knight” label isn't some exaggeration—it's a reminder that JPMorgan didn't just look the other way; through Staley, it played an active role in legitimizing Epstein and helping him thrive when he should have been cut off and cast out.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://nypost.com/2022/01/26/jes-staley-reportedly-backed-jeffrey-epstein-at-jp-morgan/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On this episode: The Federal Reserve has been at the center of America's biggest economic turning points for more than a century as one of the country's most powerful institutions. Former Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker joins host Norm Leahy to trace that story—from the banking panics that led to its creation in 1913 to JP Morgan's role in corralling Wall Street leaders. He explains how Congress set up 12 regional reserve banks, why the Fed's role shifted during the Great Depression and World War II, and how the 1951 Treasury-Fed Accord cemented its independence. Lacker also shares how presidents from Lyndon Johnson to Richard Nixon tried to influence Fed decisions, and why Paul Volcker's fight against inflation in the late 1970s remains a defining moment. Today's debates over the Fed's authority, independence, and accountability echo all the way back to the Reserve's founding — and learning its history can help make sense of where the institution may go in the months and years ahead.Learn more about our guest: https://www.jeffreylacker.org/ Learn more about the Federal Reserve: https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_Reserve_System Complete a brief 5 minute survey to review the show and share some feedback: https://forms.gle/zPxYSog5civyvEKX6 Sign up for our Newsletters: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Email_Updates Stream "On the Ballot" on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have questions, comments, or love for BP, feel free to reach out at ontheballot@ballotpedia.org or on X (formerly Twitter) @Ballotpedia.*On The Ballot is a conversational podcast featuring interviews with guests across the political spectrum. The views and opinions expressed by them are solely their own and are not representative of the views of the host or Ballotpedia as a whole.

Shan Aggarwal, Chief Business Officer at Coinbase, joined me to discuss JPMorgan and PNC Bank's partnership with Coinbase to offer crypto services to their clients.Topics:- JPMorgan & PNC Bank partnerships- Banks and Financial Institutions entry into crypto- Opyn Markets & Liquifi acquisition- Coinbase Tokenized Stocks and 24/7 markets- AI integration on Coinbase and in markets- Crypto legislation & market outlookShow Sponsor -

The lawsuits stem from parallel cases in the Southern District of New York: one brought by Jane Doe on behalf of Epstein's victims and another by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, both targeting JPMorgan Chase for its alleged role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. JPMorgan, in turn, filed third-party claims against former executive James Edward Staley, arguing that he should bear responsibility for any liability tied to Epstein, given his close personal and professional ties to the financier. These cases became highly significant in exposing the financial networks that allegedly allowed Epstein's crimes to flourish.In response, Staley filed a motion to exclude JPMorgan Chase's proffered expert opinions, challenging the credibility and admissibility of the bank's expert witnesses. His brief sought to limit the evidence that could be used against him, aiming to weaken JPMorgan's case for shifting liability onto him. This move reflects Staley's broader defense strategy of resisting being scapegoated as the primary enabler within JPMorgan, while the bank itself faced mounting scrutiny for its role in maintaining Epstein as a client despite numerous red flags.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

In 2011, court filings from JPMorgan revealed that Jeffrey Epstein—already a registered sex offender—paid a $25,000 tuition bill at Skidmore College for one of Cecile de Jongh's children, upon her direct request via email subject‑lined “Please approve.” This was no act of charity; this was influence-peddling in plain sight. At the same time, de Jongh was coordinating policy to benefit Epstein, soliciting his input on softening a sex‑offender law to allow him freer movement within the territory. By drawing up legislation that Epstein could personally exploit while cashing in on his largesse, de Jongh blurred the line between public service and private profiteering.Moreover, the tuition payment fits into a broader pattern of de Jongh being Epstein's political and logistical conduit in the U.S. Virgin Islands. JPMorgan labeled her as his “primary conduit for spreading money and influence” within the territory, citing other ways she facilitated his trafficking network—from arranging visas to crafting cover‑class schemes.^1 The tuition bill is far less an isolated favor and far more an emblem of how Epstein weaponized connections with public officials to shield his abuse. De Jongh's actions weren't innocent oversights—they were integral to maintaining a corrupt system of protection and impunity.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein had close ties to U.S. Virgin Islands First Family | FortuneBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)

The lawsuits stem from parallel cases in the Southern District of New York: one brought by Jane Doe on behalf of Epstein's victims and another by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, both targeting JPMorgan Chase for its alleged role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. JPMorgan, in turn, filed third-party claims against former executive James Edward Staley, arguing that he should bear responsibility for any liability tied to Epstein, given his close personal and professional ties to the financier. These cases became highly significant in exposing the financial networks that allegedly allowed Epstein's crimes to flourish.In response, Staley filed a motion to exclude JPMorgan Chase's proffered expert opinions, challenging the credibility and admissibility of the bank's expert witnesses. His brief sought to limit the evidence that could be used against him, aiming to weaken JPMorgan's case for shifting liability onto him. This move reflects Staley's broader defense strategy of resisting being scapegoated as the primary enabler within JPMorgan, while the bank itself faced mounting scrutiny for its role in maintaining Epstein as a client despite numerous red flags.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley, the former JPMorgan executive, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against him by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed to pre-trial evidence gathering..Staley is accused of protecting Epstein during his tenure at JPMorgan, where he worked from 1979 to 2013. The bank claims that Staley was instrumental in maintaining Epstein's business relationship with JPMorgan despite Epstein's criminal activities. JPMorgan seeks to make Staley financially responsible for any damages the bank might incur from other related lawsuits and to recover compensation paid to him from 2006 to 2013. Staley has denied these allegations, stating that JPMorgan is using him as a scapegoat for its own supervisory failures and claims he was unaware of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MTD Mem. of Law - (11148357.16).docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

While the vast majority of the legacy media seems to think that the USVI smacking JP Morgan for a 75 million dollar fee over their role in facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise is some sort of victory, we are once again taking a look deeper than just the surface level and pulling back the curtain to get a real look at what's inside the room.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein leaves small mark on Wall Street | ReutersBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In sworn deposition testimony in May 2023, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon claimed he had no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein or his activities until Epstein's 2019 arrest. He denied ever meeting or speaking with Epstein and said any suggestions otherwise were based on misunderstandings. Dimon characterized Epstein as a “disaster” and said he was horrified by the revelations of trafficking and abuse, emphasizing that decisions regarding Epstein's client relationship were handled by other executives at the bank. He maintained that he played no role in approving or maintaining Epstein as a client during or after his criminal conviction.While continuing to deny legal liability for JPMorgan, Dimon acknowledged the bank's association with Epstein was a mistake, admitting “we unfortunately continued to bank him” even after his 2008 guilty plea. He expressed regret for not acting sooner to sever ties and involve law enforcement more decisively. Dimon offered a personal apology to Epstein's victims—not for wrongdoing on his own part, but for the bank's failure to act more quickly—saying he would apologize directly to them for any harm that may have been compounded by JPMorgan's continued dealings with Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon regrets Jeffrey Epstein relationship (cnbc.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In March 2023, JPMorgan Chase filed a lawsuit against Jes Staley—its former head of private banking—alleging that he concealed knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking in order to maintain Epstein as a lucrative client. The bank sought to claw back eight years' worth of compensation—potentially over $80 million—and held Staley financially accountable for any penalties stemming from lawsuits brought against JPMorgan by the U.S. Virgin Islands and an Epstein survivor known as Jane Doe 1. JPMorgan accused Staley of prioritizing his own and Epstein's interests over those of the firm, seeking punitive damages for his alleged failure to disclose key information.    A federal judge allowed the case to proceed, declining to dismiss it, which enabled JPMorgan to continue its legal push.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:JP Morgan sues former executive over claims he hid Jeffrey Epstein's sex abuse | Daily Mail OnlineBecome 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.

Leaked correspondence between Jes Staley—former CEO of Barclays and long-time JPMorgan executive—and Jeffrey Epstein laid bare more than just casual business exchanges; they revealed a troubling bond rooted in intimacy, trust, and privilege. In one exchange, Staley mused, “That was fun. Say hi to Snow White,” to which Epstein replied, “What character would you like next?” Staley coyly responded, “Beauty and the Beast,” turning their relationship into a grotesque pantomime. More damningly, Staley described Epstein as “family” and spoke of a “profound” connection, while photos of young women were also swapped—all under the guise of everyday correspondence. Far from distancing himself, Staley sustained contact well past Epstein's 2008 conviction, even joining him on his private island in 2009—behavior that defied any claim of a “purely professional” relationship.The fallout was swift—and deserved. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) concluded that Staley “recklessly misled” both Barclays and regulators by downplaying the closeness of his ties with Epstein. A £1.8 million fine (later reduced to £1.1 million) and a lifetime ban from senior financial roles followed. The Upper Tribunal upheld the sanctions, emphasizing that Staley knowingly took a calculated risk, hoping the truth would stay buried. But the emails, held up like digital incriminators, ensured his downfall. His denials, evasive demeanor in court, and attempt to frame the relationship as innocuous only magnified the breach of trust. In financial leadership, reputation is everything—and Staley burned his.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Staley Emails Reveal Friendship Forged at JPMorgan (yahoo.com)

Leaked correspondence between Jes Staley—former CEO of Barclays and long-time JPMorgan executive—and Jeffrey Epstein laid bare more than just casual business exchanges; they revealed a troubling bond rooted in intimacy, trust, and privilege. In one exchange, Staley mused, “That was fun. Say hi to Snow White,” to which Epstein replied, “What character would you like next?” Staley coyly responded, “Beauty and the Beast,” turning their relationship into a grotesque pantomime. More damningly, Staley described Epstein as “family” and spoke of a “profound” connection, while photos of young women were also swapped—all under the guise of everyday correspondence. Far from distancing himself, Staley sustained contact well past Epstein's 2008 conviction, even joining him on his private island in 2009—behavior that defied any claim of a “purely professional” relationship.The fallout was swift—and deserved. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) concluded that Staley “recklessly misled” both Barclays and regulators by downplaying the closeness of his ties with Epstein. A £1.8 million fine (later reduced to £1.1 million) and a lifetime ban from senior financial roles followed. The Upper Tribunal upheld the sanctions, emphasizing that Staley knowingly took a calculated risk, hoping the truth would stay buried. But the emails, held up like digital incriminators, ensured his downfall. His denials, evasive demeanor in court, and attempt to frame the relationship as innocuous only magnified the breach of trust. In financial leadership, reputation is everything—and Staley burned his.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Staley Emails Reveal Friendship Forged at JPMorgan (yahoo.com)

Leaked correspondence between Jes Staley—former CEO of Barclays and long-time JPMorgan executive—and Jeffrey Epstein laid bare more than just casual business exchanges; they revealed a troubling bond rooted in intimacy, trust, and privilege. In one exchange, Staley mused, “That was fun. Say hi to Snow White,” to which Epstein replied, “What character would you like next?” Staley coyly responded, “Beauty and the Beast,” turning their relationship into a grotesque pantomime. More damningly, Staley described Epstein as “family” and spoke of a “profound” connection, while photos of young women were also swapped—all under the guise of everyday correspondence. Far from distancing himself, Staley sustained contact well past Epstein's 2008 conviction, even joining him on his private island in 2009—behavior that defied any claim of a “purely professional” relationship.The fallout was swift—and deserved. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) concluded that Staley “recklessly misled” both Barclays and regulators by downplaying the closeness of his ties with Epstein. A £1.8 million fine (later reduced to £1.1 million) and a lifetime ban from senior financial roles followed. The Upper Tribunal upheld the sanctions, emphasizing that Staley knowingly took a calculated risk, hoping the truth would stay buried. But the emails, held up like digital incriminators, ensured his downfall. His denials, evasive demeanor in court, and attempt to frame the relationship as innocuous only magnified the breach of trust. In financial leadership, reputation is everything—and Staley burned his.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Staley Emails Reveal Friendship Forged at JPMorgan (yahoo.com)

In this episode we are joined by David Duong to uncover JPMorgan and PNC partnering with Coinbase , The stablecoin markets expansion and Ethereum surging to all time highs followed by TA from Chris Inks to see where Altcoins are headed next. Lets Go!

Leaked correspondence between Jes Staley—former CEO of Barclays and long-time JPMorgan executive—and Jeffrey Epstein laid bare more than just casual business exchanges; they revealed a troubling bond rooted in intimacy, trust, and privilege. In one exchange, Staley mused, “That was fun. Say hi to Snow White,” to which Epstein replied, “What character would you like next?” Staley coyly responded, “Beauty and the Beast,” turning their relationship into a grotesque pantomime. More damningly, Staley described Epstein as “family” and spoke of a “profound” connection, while photos of young women were also swapped—all under the guise of everyday correspondence. Far from distancing himself, Staley sustained contact well past Epstein's 2008 conviction, even joining him on his private island in 2009—behavior that defied any claim of a “purely professional” relationship.The fallout was swift—and deserved. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) concluded that Staley “recklessly misled” both Barclays and regulators by downplaying the closeness of his ties with Epstein. A £1.8 million fine (later reduced to £1.1 million) and a lifetime ban from senior financial roles followed. The Upper Tribunal upheld the sanctions, emphasizing that Staley knowingly took a calculated risk, hoping the truth would stay buried. But the emails, held up like digital incriminators, ensured his downfall. His denials, evasive demeanor in court, and attempt to frame the relationship as innocuous only magnified the breach of trust. In financial leadership, reputation is everything—and Staley burned his.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Staley Emails Reveal Friendship Forged at JPMorgan (yahoo.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leaked correspondence between Jes Staley—former CEO of Barclays and long-time JPMorgan executive—and Jeffrey Epstein laid bare more than just casual business exchanges; they revealed a troubling bond rooted in intimacy, trust, and privilege. In one exchange, Staley mused, “That was fun. Say hi to Snow White,” to which Epstein replied, “What character would you like next?” Staley coyly responded, “Beauty and the Beast,” turning their relationship into a grotesque pantomime. More damningly, Staley described Epstein as “family” and spoke of a “profound” connection, while photos of young women were also swapped—all under the guise of everyday correspondence. Far from distancing himself, Staley sustained contact well past Epstein's 2008 conviction, even joining him on his private island in 2009—behavior that defied any claim of a “purely professional” relationship.The fallout was swift—and deserved. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) concluded that Staley “recklessly misled” both Barclays and regulators by downplaying the closeness of his ties with Epstein. A £1.8 million fine (later reduced to £1.1 million) and a lifetime ban from senior financial roles followed. The Upper Tribunal upheld the sanctions, emphasizing that Staley knowingly took a calculated risk, hoping the truth would stay buried. But the emails, held up like digital incriminators, ensured his downfall. His denials, evasive demeanor in court, and attempt to frame the relationship as innocuous only magnified the breach of trust. In financial leadership, reputation is everything—and Staley burned his.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Staley Emails Reveal Friendship Forged at JPMorgan (yahoo.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley and his relatioship with Jeffrey Epstein was well known to everyone by the time he was hired by Barclays, yet it was not an issue when they decided to bring him on board. After he was hired, and the scrutiny began over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, Barclays was forced to initiate an internal investigation. Upon completion of this investigation, the board and the company backed Jes Staley, even though they were aware of the disturbing messages that Staley was trading back and forth with Jeffrey Epstein. In this episode, we take a look at how Barclays protected Staley from the storm and how their motivations for doing so, seem to be driven by nothing other than the bottom line. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein's long shadow falls on JPMorgan and Barclays once more | Financial Times (ft.com)