POPULARITY
Trump's latest back-and-forth with an ABC reporter has the internet screaming “PIGGYGATE!” as a new clip explodes across social media. Meanwhile, MTG is back on the “I'm the victim” tour with a messy Epstein-files moment and an even messier rebrand attempt. And to top it off, Stacey Plaskett jumps in with a defensive scramble that raised more questions than answers.Plus Trump met with the Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia, Zohran is asking people for MORE donations, and AI is getting terrifying! SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!Get the best tips on your dog's health with naturopathic Dr. Black's new book, A Natural Path to Pet Health. Visit https://RuffGreens.com/book Nourish your hair, skin, and nails with HealthyCell's Vibrant Hair, Skin & Nails—get 20% off your first order at https://HealthyCell.com/CHICKS with promo code CHICKSRegister now for the free Webinar on November 20th, schedule your free Know Your Risk Portfolio Review, and subscribe to Zach's Daily Market Recap at https://KnowYourRiskPodcast.comBlack Friday has come early at Cozy Earth. Stack code CHICKS for up to 40% off sitewide at https://CozyEarth.com Raise a glass to good wine and great debates this Thanksgiving with https://RepublicanRed.com. Use code CHICKS to save $5.
For more coverage on the issues that matter to you, download the WMAL app, visit WMAL.com or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 9:00am-12:00pm Monday-Friday To join the conversation, check us out on Twitter @WMAL and @ChrisPlanteShow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
For more coverage on the issues that matter to you, download the WMAL app, visit WMAL.com or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 9:00am-12:00pm Monday-Friday To join the conversation, check us out on Twitter @WMAL and @ChrisPlanteShow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Join Jim and Greg for the Wednesday 3 Martini Lunch as they applaud ICE for rescuing 30,000 migrant children that the Biden administration lost track of, Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett absurdly accusing several Republicans of ties to Jeffrey Epstein, and lefties in Maryland pushing a $25 minimum wage that would make the cost of living even worseFirst, they welcome Border Czar Tom Homan's revelation that the Trump administration has located 30,000 of the 300,000 migrant kids the Biden administration lost and never tried to find. Jim also highlights a Pulitzer Prize-winning 2023 investigation showing migrant children being forced into labor for major U.S. companies. Why is there so little political or media outrage?Next, they laugh and fume as Rep. Crockett accuses GOP lawmakers of taking donations from Jeffrey Epstein, only for it to be exposed that none of the contributions came from that Jeffrey Epstein. If Crockett runs for U.S. Senate in Texas and wins the nomination, it will be one of the greatest gifts the GOP ever received.Finally, activists in Maryland want a statewide referendum in 2026 to impose a $25 minimum wage through a constitutional amendment. Jim and Greg explain why the policy would worsen the cost of living and argue that if a higher minimum wage were truly the path to affordability, why not raise it much higher?Please visit our great sponsors:Cancel unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money at https://RocketMoney.com/MARTINI Give your liver the support it deserves with Dose Daily. Save 35% on your first month when you subscribe at https://DoseDaily.co/3ML or enter code 3ML at checkout. Before you check out for the holidays, do one smart thing for your future with Noble Gold. Open a qualified account and receive TEN 1-oz commemorative Silver Holiday Coins. Visit https://NobleGoldInvestments.com/3ML
In part one of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, as the Epstein files case begins to unravel, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., was ridiculed as "dishonest" and "sick" after arguing from the House floor that his former law school student and colleague was only "taking a phone call from her constituent" when she was texting disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 House hearing. Republicans on Tuesday, led by Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., introduced a resolution to censure Plaskett for "inappropriate coordination with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein," which it says "reflects discreditably on the House of Representatives." The House voted 427-1 to open the files. Also voters blame the GOP for healthcare increases, a close look at the cost of living increases and a breakdown of populous by city of children under the age of five. For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Jon Herold unpacks a chaotic news cycle with equal parts analysis, frustration, and humor as he dives into the latest Epstein bill drama, Trump's remarks, congressional backroom deals, and why the media is spinning the vote as a humiliation. He questions whether the trillion-dollar Saudi commitments have produced any real-world investment yet, breaks down Trump's messaging on the MBS meeting, and highlights the White House's carefully crafted optics. Jon dissects Clay Higgins' lone “no” vote, MTG's claims about Plaskett's Epstein-era texts, and the bipartisan maneuvering that kept multiple censure resolutions off the table. He explores the psyop landscape, bots, infiltrators, influencers, suppression, and attempts to fracture Trump's base under the guise of “America First.” Jon also confronts the Comey indictment meltdown as DOJ attorneys admit the grand jury never saw the operative indictment, raising the possibility of dismissal on a procedural failure. With side tangents on scissoring, shrooms, Badlanders meetups, Twitter chaos, dental trauma, and the Gong Show energy of modern politics, Jon delivers a dense, irreverent, and revealing walk through Clown World's latest chapter.
The Epstein Files have backfired on the Democrats. The House and Senate have both voted nearly unanimously to force the release of the remaining Epstein Files. Democrat Rep Stacey Plaskett was coached via text by Epstein during a Congressional hearing Plaskett also took campaign money from Epstein after his 2008 conviction. Hakeem Jeffries also solicited Epstein's money after pleading guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor. Elise Stefanik narrows the gap with independents against Kathy Hochul. Join UNGOVERNED on LFA TV every MONDAY - FRIDAY from 10am to 11am EASTERN! www.FarashMedia.com www.LFATV.us www.OFPFarms.com www.OldGloryBank.com www.SLNT.com/SHAWN www.CaptainSchiddys.com
As the old saying goes, "be careful what you wish for". The democrats wanted the Epstein files released and now that it's coming, they will be the ones struggling with the aftermath rather than President Trump. Representative Plaskett can't explain her text communication with Epstein, and neither can Hakeem Jefferies explain emails asking Epstein for campaign donations. A group of Dem senators put out an ad urging US Armed forces to not obey orders they don't agree with, hmmm, there's a word for that, oh yeah, SEDITION! Plus, Homan in NYC, Chicago teachers use public funds for vacations, Joy Reid, Trump slams ABC, and the Conservative Circus W(r)ap Up.
Representative of the US Virgen Islands, Stacey Plaskett, was discovered to have been contacting Jeffery Epstein via text during a congressional hearing eight years ago. When put in the spotlight during all the Epstein drama, Rep. Plaskett was quick to point out she was only in contact with a constituent.
Candace Owens is at it again — calling us “deep state soldiers” and making wild claims about TPUSA! But that's not all… Trump dominates the Impact Summit, making big pledges to Americans, and new Epstein-Plaskett texts have just been revealed. In this episode, we break down:Candace Owens' shocking accusations and what they really meanTrump's standout moments at the Impact SummitExplosive Epstein texts between House DemocratsCrazy stories, hot takes, and what you won't hear on mainstream mediaSUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!Whatever Fall throws at you, make sure you're prepared—visit https://ReadyWise.com/ and use code CHICKS10 for 10% off your order today!Get the best tips on your dog's health with naturopathic Dr. Black's new book, A Natural Path to Pet Health. Visit https://RuffGreens.com/bookLock in 30% off sitewide with code CHICKS and save on the wireless Chef iQ Sense meat thermometer—perfect cooking every time! Visit https://Chefiq.comGet 25% off your entire order of Cowboy Colostrum. Visit https://CowboyColostrum.com with code CHICKS at checkout! Please support our show by letting them know we sent you after your purchase.Register now for the free Webinar on November 20th, schedule your free Know Your Risk Portfolio Review, and subscribe to Zach's Daily Market Recap at https://KnowYourRiskPodcast.com
Jump into The Alan Sanders Show – Ep. 219 as bombshells drop related to Rep. Stacey Plaskett getting caught live-texting Jeffrey Epstein for political dirt on Trump. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene reignites her public feud with President Trump. What's really behind the clash? New revelations expose the FBI's ongoing stonewalling on the 2021 pipe bomber case, but Director Patel says they will release something soon. As we close, we break down the growing push for "Communalism" ideology in America and then examine the concept of Federally created HSAs that could return competition to healthcare. Fast-paced, fact-packed and unfiltered, join for another no-spin episode of The Alan Sanders Show. Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR, TRUTH Social and YouTube by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!
Angel Studios https://Angel.com/Herman Join the Angel Guild today where you can stream Thank You, Dr. Fauci and be part of the conversation demanding truth and accountability. Renue Healthcare https://Renue.Healthcare/ToddYour journey to a better life starts at Renue Healthcare. Visit https://Renue.Healthcare/Todd Bulwark Capital https://KnowYourRiskPodcast.comRegister now for the free Review/Preview Webinar THIS Thursday 3:30pm Pacific, schedule your free Know Your Risk Portfolio Review, and subscribe to Zach's Daily Market Recap at Know Your Risk Podcast dot com. Alan's Soaps https://www.AlansArtisanSoaps.comUse coupon code TODD to save an additional 10% off the bundle price.Bonefrog https://BonefrogCoffee.com/ToddThe new GOLDEN AGE is here! Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions.LISTEN and SUBSCRIBE at:The Todd Herman Show - Podcast - Apple PodcastsThe Todd Herman Show | Podcast on SpotifyWATCH and SUBSCRIBE at: Todd Herman - The Todd Herman Show - YouTubeCongrats, AOC: Girls Are Afraid to Marry // A Devil Named Epstein and a Demon Named Plaskett // God's Masterpiece Vs. Google's ScientistsEpisode Links:Bill Maher: “The number one thing men are afraid of is girls. It's f—king lightning. It's girls.”12th grade girls are less likely than boys to say they want to get married somedayNew Epstein files show Rep. @StaceyPlaskett got real-time help via text messages from Jeffrey Epstein on how to hurt Trump during 2019 congressional hearing with former Trump attorney. Plaskett is the person who smeared us during Twitter Files hearing & falsely accused @mtaibbiMissing context in this story is the fact that Del. Stacey Plaskett previously served in the Virgin Islands gov in a role helping give Epstein tax carve-outs, then worked for Epstein's fixer on the island before getting elected to Congress.Dr. P.McCullough says: ”One shot of Lupron (PUBERTY BLOCKER) in a prepubescent boy will PERMANENTLY impair his intellectual development” - He will “NEVER develop a full IQ” - And he will never orgasm - And will likely remain infertileRay Kurzweil, Dir. of Engineering, Google, calls for an end to humanity, stating - “Our brains will be largely non-biological so - We will BE BASICALLY MACHINES” What Does God's Word Say?Ephesians 2:10New Living Translation10 For we are God's masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago.Psalm 139:13-1413 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.2 Thessalonians 2:8-10New Living Translation8 Then the man of lawlessness will be revealed, but the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by the splendor of his coming.9 This man will come to do the work of Satan with counterfeit power and signs and miracles. 10 He will use every kind of evil deception to fool those on their way to destruction, because they refuse to love and accept the truth that would save them.
Stacey Plaskett has been exposed in newly released emails showing she was actively messaging Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing, a revelation that detonated her carefully crafted public image as a defender of justice. Despite long-standing knowledge of Epstein's reputation as a trafficker and blackmail broker for the powerful, Plaskett not only took his money, but fought to keep it until political pressure left her no escape route. Survivors have accused her of enabling Epstein's network, yet the political establishment responded with silence and excuse-making, revealing a system that protects itself rather than victims. Her downfall has become a symbol of the deep, bipartisan rot that allowed Epstein to exist in the first place, and her scrambling defenders expose how quickly principles evaporate when careers are threatened.The scandal isn't an isolated accident or a partisan attack—it is a flashing red warning sign that the corruption surrounding Epstein was never limited to one party or one figure, but woven into the fabric of power itself. If the public is expected to demand accountability from Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, and every other elite linked to Epstein, then Stacey Plaskett cannot receive a pass because she wears the right jersey. Her refusal to resign, the establishment's sudden amnesia, and the survivors' continued fight all underscore the same truth: the age of selective outrage is over, and consequences can no longer be optional. The reckoning has arrived, and there is no spinning, silencing, or burying this one.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
CannCon and Zak Paine tear into a massive morning of political chaos, media spin, and narrative warfare in this loaded episode of Badlands Daily. They break down USAID-funded media collapse, the absurdity of the Epstein email frenzy, and how every “bombshell” continues to blow back on Democrats instead of Trump. As the hosts walk through Dershowitz clips, Politico narratives, Plaskett's exposed text messages, and Trump's pointed Truth Social posts demanding the release of Epstein files, they lay out why the story looks less like a scandal for Trump, and more like a trap sprung on his enemies. The conversation intensifies with new hit pieces from NPR and Media Matters targeting Badlands hosts, dissecting why establishment media is suddenly panicked about the “Trump-as-informant” theory. CannCon and Zak dive into the mechanics of lawfare, DOJ maneuvers, Pam Bondi's involvement, SDNY strategy, the unfolding J6 pipe bomber controversy, and the timing of federal investigations hinted at by Cash Patel. With humor, receipts, and sharp analysis, they expose the layers of psyops, midterm setups, and narrative control attempts swirling through the political ecosystem.
Stacey Plaskett has been exposed in newly released emails showing she was actively messaging Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing, a revelation that detonated her carefully crafted public image as a defender of justice. Despite long-standing knowledge of Epstein's reputation as a trafficker and blackmail broker for the powerful, Plaskett not only took his money, but fought to keep it until political pressure left her no escape route. Survivors have accused her of enabling Epstein's network, yet the political establishment responded with silence and excuse-making, revealing a system that protects itself rather than victims. Her downfall has become a symbol of the deep, bipartisan rot that allowed Epstein to exist in the first place, and her scrambling defenders expose how quickly principles evaporate when careers are threatened.The scandal isn't an isolated accident or a partisan attack—it is a flashing red warning sign that the corruption surrounding Epstein was never limited to one party or one figure, but woven into the fabric of power itself. If the public is expected to demand accountability from Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, and every other elite linked to Epstein, then Stacey Plaskett cannot receive a pass because she wears the right jersey. Her refusal to resign, the establishment's sudden amnesia, and the survivors' continued fight all underscore the same truth: the age of selective outrage is over, and consequences can no longer be optional. The reckoning has arrived, and there is no spinning, silencing, or burying this one.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Stacey Plaskett has been exposed in newly released emails showing she was actively messaging Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing, a revelation that detonated her carefully crafted public image as a defender of justice. Despite long-standing knowledge of Epstein's reputation as a trafficker and blackmail broker for the powerful, Plaskett not only took his money, but fought to keep it until political pressure left her no escape route. Survivors have accused her of enabling Epstein's network, yet the political establishment responded with silence and excuse-making, revealing a system that protects itself rather than victims. Her downfall has become a symbol of the deep, bipartisan rot that allowed Epstein to exist in the first place, and her scrambling defenders expose how quickly principles evaporate when careers are threatened.The scandal isn't an isolated accident or a partisan attack—it is a flashing red warning sign that the corruption surrounding Epstein was never limited to one party or one figure, but woven into the fabric of power itself. If the public is expected to demand accountability from Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, and every other elite linked to Epstein, then Stacey Plaskett cannot receive a pass because she wears the right jersey. Her refusal to resign, the establishment's sudden amnesia, and the survivors' continued fight all underscore the same truth: the age of selective outrage is over, and consequences can no longer be optional. The reckoning has arrived, and there is no spinning, silencing, or burying this one.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
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
Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, became the lone remaining defendant in a civil case filed by six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse after the court dismissed the claims against other parties. The survivors alleged that Plaskett was complicit in Epstein's sex trafficking operation, accusations that she forcefully denied. In April 2025, a second amended complaint reiterated the charges, to which Plaskett responded by filing a motion to dismiss, calling the claims baseless and defamatory. She has consistently framed the lawsuit as politically motivated and lacking in legal merit.Prior to this, in July 2024, Plaskett filed a motion under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the survivors' attorney. Rule 11 motions are designed to punish parties or lawyers for filing frivolous, unfounded, or harassing litigation. Plaskett argued that the case against her was precisely that.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.127.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
In a March 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed nearly all claims against every defendant except Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, thereby ordering the case to proceed to trial against her in her individual capacity. The court found that Plaskett's conduct—including soliciting campaign contributions from Jeffrey Epstein at his New York residence, accepting loans and political support, and approving substantial tax breaks for his businesses—created sufficient ties to New York to establish personal jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute. Consequently, Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and negligence claims against her were allowed to move forward, while related claims against other Virgin Islands officials were dismissed on jurisdictional and legal grounds.The judge also rejected the plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery, concluding they had failed to make a prima facie showing to justify it. With all other defendants out of the picture, Plaskett stands as the sole defendant facing trial in this high-profile case. The court further invited motions from both sides regarding venue transfers and potential defenses such as immunity, providing a clear path for the next legal phase.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdf
In a March 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed nearly all claims against every defendant except Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, thereby ordering the case to proceed to trial against her in her individual capacity. The court found that Plaskett's conduct—including soliciting campaign contributions from Jeffrey Epstein at his New York residence, accepting loans and political support, and approving substantial tax breaks for his businesses—created sufficient ties to New York to establish personal jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute. Consequently, Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and negligence claims against her were allowed to move forward, while related claims against other Virgin Islands officials were dismissed on jurisdictional and legal grounds.The judge also rejected the plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery, concluding they had failed to make a prima facie showing to justify it. With all other defendants out of the picture, Plaskett stands as the sole defendant facing trial in this high-profile case. The court further invited motions from both sides regarding venue transfers and potential defenses such as immunity, providing a clear path for the next legal phase.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, became the lone remaining defendant in a civil case filed by six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse after the court dismissed the claims against other parties. The survivors alleged that Plaskett was complicit in Epstein's sex trafficking operation, accusations that she forcefully denied. In April 2025, a second amended complaint reiterated the charges, to which Plaskett responded by filing a motion to dismiss, calling the claims baseless and defamatory. She has consistently framed the lawsuit as politically motivated and lacking in legal merit.Prior to this, in July 2024, Plaskett filed a motion under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the survivors' attorney. Rule 11 motions are designed to punish parties or lawyers for filing frivolous, unfounded, or harassing litigation. Plaskett argued that the case against her was precisely that.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.127.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
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.
In a March 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed nearly all claims against every defendant except Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, thereby ordering the case to proceed to trial against her in her individual capacity. The court found that Plaskett's conduct—including soliciting campaign contributions from Jeffrey Epstein at his New York residence, accepting loans and political support, and approving substantial tax breaks for his businesses—created sufficient ties to New York to establish personal jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute. Consequently, Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and negligence claims against her were allowed to move forward, while related claims against other Virgin Islands officials were dismissed on jurisdictional and legal grounds.The judge also rejected the plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery, concluding they had failed to make a prima facie showing to justify it. With all other defendants out of the picture, Plaskett stands as the sole defendant facing trial in this high-profile case. The court further invited motions from both sides regarding venue transfers and potential defenses such as immunity, providing a clear path for the next legal phase.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, became the lone remaining defendant in a civil case filed by six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse after the court dismissed the claims against other parties. The survivors alleged that Plaskett was complicit in Epstein's sex trafficking operation, accusations that she forcefully denied. In April 2025, a second amended complaint reiterated the charges, to which Plaskett responded by filing a motion to dismiss, calling the claims baseless and defamatory. She has consistently framed the lawsuit as politically motivated and lacking in legal merit.Prior to this, in July 2024, Plaskett filed a motion under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the survivors' attorney. Rule 11 motions are designed to punish parties or lawyers for filing frivolous, unfounded, or harassing litigation. Plaskett argued that the case against her was precisely that.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.127.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)
Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)
Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
This week, the Maier's get together with a new bi-weekly recording schedule to discuss: updates, human weather vane, fall drinks, back lane noises, RibFest, Wyndham Clark, Blue Jays, SOW, radio station, and the Dream Cafe. Reach Us: @kmaemaier @chrimaierbc @hwywhoney hwywhoney@gmail.com
Stacey Plaskett's long-standing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and his associates is far more damning than she publicly admits—and no amount of political backpedaling can wash the stench off. As revealed in depositions and legal filings, Plaskett personally solicited a $30,000 donation from Epstein in 2018, visiting his Manhattan mansion years after his 2008 sex crime conviction was national news. The money was initially accepted and only returned when it failed vetting. Plaskett's ties to Epstein run deeper than a one-off meeting; she previously worked at the law firm of Erika Kellerhals, Epstein's personal attorney in the Virgin Islands, and later became a key figure in the same Economic Development Authority that granted Epstein's companies hundreds of millions of dollars in tax benefits. Her claim that she had no idea who or what Epstein really was, even as she stood in his house asking for money, is beyond implausible—it's insulting.Even worse, Plaskett is the only individual still facing active civil litigation from Epstein victims after a federal judge tossed out broader claims against the Virgin Islands government but allowed the trafficking-related counts to proceed against her personally. That's not a smear—it's a legal reality. The survivors accuse her of helping facilitate an environment that enabled Epstein to operate with impunity in the territory, and the court agrees there's enough meat on those allegations to warrant a trial. Her attempt to sanitize the donations by giving them to charity doesn't erase the fact that she sought out Epstein's support well after he was a registered sex offender. Plaskett's carefully managed public persona as a crusader for justice clashes violently with the uncomfortable accusation: she helped normalize, enable, and politically legitimize a known predator, and now she's scrambling to rewrite history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How Jeffrey Epstein's Island Politics Helped Elect Stacey Plaskett (businessinsider.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Plaintiffs allege that Plaskett knowingly participated in and helped facilitate Epstein's sex trafficking operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. They claim she visited Epstein's New York mansion to solicit direct campaign contributions—repeatedly requesting $30,000 for her campaigns and the Democratic National Committee—and that Epstein then used his political influence to influence policies in the Virgin Islands. As general counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority, Plaskett allegedly approved approximately $300 million in tax breaks that benefited Epstein's businesses after receiving financial and professional support, including a job at a law firm connected to Epstein's network.The survivors also contend that Plaskett leveraged her political leverage to pressure local authorities—such as customs, Coast Guard, and airport officials—to relax oversight and allow Epstein to transport women and girls between New York and the Virgin Islands without encountering legal scrutiny. The plaintiffs argue that these actions weren't isolated misjudgments but part of a calculated pattern enabling a broader trafficking enterprise, with Plaskett's contributions and interventions central to Epstein's unimpeded operation and global network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Plaskett's attorney vows to fight 'baseless' lawsuit by Epstein victims | News | virginislandsdailynews.com
Plaintiffs allege that Plaskett knowingly participated in and helped facilitate Epstein's sex trafficking operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. They claim she visited Epstein's New York mansion to solicit direct campaign contributions—repeatedly requesting $30,000 for her campaigns and the Democratic National Committee—and that Epstein then used his political influence to influence policies in the Virgin Islands. As general counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority, Plaskett allegedly approved approximately $300 million in tax breaks that benefited Epstein's businesses after receiving financial and professional support, including a job at a law firm connected to Epstein's network.The survivors also contend that Plaskett leveraged her political leverage to pressure local authorities—such as customs, Coast Guard, and airport officials—to relax oversight and allow Epstein to transport women and girls between New York and the Virgin Islands without encountering legal scrutiny. The plaintiffs argue that these actions weren't isolated misjudgments but part of a calculated pattern enabling a broader trafficking enterprise, with Plaskett's contributions and interventions central to Epstein's unimpeded operation and global network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Plaskett's attorney vows to fight 'baseless' lawsuit by Epstein victims | News | virginislandsdailynews.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Plaintiffs allege that Plaskett knowingly participated in and helped facilitate Epstein's sex trafficking operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. They claim she visited Epstein's New York mansion to solicit direct campaign contributions—repeatedly requesting $30,000 for her campaigns and the Democratic National Committee—and that Epstein then used his political influence to influence policies in the Virgin Islands. As general counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority, Plaskett allegedly approved approximately $300 million in tax breaks that benefited Epstein's businesses after receiving financial and professional support, including a job at a law firm connected to Epstein's network.The survivors also contend that Plaskett leveraged her political leverage to pressure local authorities—such as customs, Coast Guard, and airport officials—to relax oversight and allow Epstein to transport women and girls between New York and the Virgin Islands without encountering legal scrutiny. The plaintiffs argue that these actions weren't isolated misjudgments but part of a calculated pattern enabling a broader trafficking enterprise, with Plaskett's contributions and interventions central to Epstein's unimpeded operation and global network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Plaskett's attorney vows to fight 'baseless' lawsuit by Epstein victims | News | virginislandsdailynews.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
On today's episode, Andy & DJ are joined in the studio by Ohio-based racer, car builder, YouTube personality, and Putsch Auto Media owner, Casey Putsch. They discuss the FBI busting the alleged LA riot leader, and Democrat Stacey Plaskett lashing out at a critic.
Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett joins Michael Steele on the podcast. She describes the frustration of hearing people say that Democrats aren't doing anything, despite their efforts in the House and the Senate. Rep. Plaskett also discusses not being allowed to vote for Speaker as a representative for the Virgin Islands, how Medicaid cuts would hurt Americans, Senator Joni Ernst's bizarre comments about people dying and David Hogg's disruption of the DNC. Join Michael Steele, Molly Jong-Fast, Elie Mystal, Lucy Caldwell, John Fugelsang and Karen Hunter for Part II of our barbershop livestream on Tuesday, June 10th at 10am ET on The Bulwark's YouTube page.
Rep. Al Green already filed Articles of Impeachment against Trump. Trump posts that Taylor Swift is not hot. The House fails to get a budget out of committee. Former FBI Director James Comey posts an Instagram photo insinuating Trump should be assassinated. Kid Rock says we have a low birth rate in America because “who's going to sleep with these ugly ass broke liberal women”. Delegate Plaskett tells Congress to “take away some shit from the rich as well”. Squad Member Ayanna Presley demands slavery reparations NOW. Dana explains how this is historically inept. Democrats continue to turn heel about Biden's cognitive decline. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the word “injunction” like Adam Sandler's Cajun Man character. Bernie Sanders admits dems are afraid to get attacked by Super PACs if they speak against the war on Gaza. Historian and Former MO Treasurer, Karan Pujji, explains how the separation of Balochistan from Pakistan could affect a shift in Western Civilization. Thank you for supporting our sponsors that make The Dana Show possible…Relief Factorhttps://relieffactor.com OR CALL 1-800-4-RELIEFTurn the clock back on pain with Relief Factor. Get their 3-week Relief Factor Quick Start for only $19.95 today! Goldcohttps://DanaLikesGold.com My personal gold company - get your GoldCo 2025 Gold & Silver Kit. PLUS, you could qualify for up to 10% in BONUS silver.Byrnahttps://byrna.com/danaGet your hands on the new compact Byrna CL. Visit Byrna.com/Dana receive 10% off. Patriot Mobilehttps://patriotmobile.com/DanaDana's personal cell phone provider is Patriot Mobile. Get a FREE MONTH of service code DANA.HumanNhttps://humann.comSupport your metabolism and healthy blood sugar levels with Superberine by HumanN. Find it now at your local Sam's Club next to SuperBeets Heart Chews. KelTechttps://KelTecWeapons.comSee the third generation of the iconic SUB2000 and the NEW PS57 - Keltec Innovation & Performance at its best.All Family Pharmacyhttps://AllFamilyPharmacy.com/DanaCode Dana10 for 10% off your entire order.PreBornhttps://Preborn.com/DanaWith your help, we can hit the goal of 1,000 ultrasounds this month! Just dial #250 and say “Baby”. Ancient Nutritionhttp://ancientnutrition.com/DanaCollagen and wellness, powered by Ancient Nutrition—get 25% off your first order with promo code DANA.Home Title Lockhttps://hometitlelock.com/danaProtect your home! Get a FREE title history report + 14 days of coverage with code DANA. Check out the Million Dollar TripleLock—terms apply.Ground Newshttps://Groundnews.com/DANAGet 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan.
Nova Scotia musician Joel Plaskett got a special surprise for his 50th birthday, a cover album of his own songs — secretly recorded by his friends and some of the biggest names in Canadian music, including Sloan and Arkells. Plaskett talks to Matt Galloway in Halifax about the album, Songs from the Gang, and why it was so fascinating to hear what other people hear in his music.
In the case of Jane Doe 1 et al. v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands et al., the plaintiffs—six anonymous women—allege that they were coerced into commercial sex acts by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. They claim that the defendants, including the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several USVI political figures, facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking operations by providing various forms of assistance and, in return, received financial benefits such as loans, payments, and campaign donations. The plaintiffs assert violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and New York tort law.Upon review, the court dismissed all claims except those against Stacey Plaskett, the USVI's delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. The court found insufficient evidence to establish personal jurisdiction over the other defendants or to substantiate the claims against them. As a result, the case will proceed solely against Plaskett, focusing on her alleged involvement in facilitating Epstein's activities during her tenure as General Counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdf
In the case of Jane Doe 1 et al. v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands et al., the plaintiffs—six anonymous women—allege that they were coerced into commercial sex acts by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. They claim that the defendants, including the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several USVI political figures, facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking operations by providing various forms of assistance and, in return, received financial benefits such as loans, payments, and campaign donations. The plaintiffs assert violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and New York tort law.Upon review, the court dismissed all claims except those against Stacey Plaskett, the USVI's delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. The court found insufficient evidence to establish personal jurisdiction over the other defendants or to substantiate the claims against them. As a result, the case will proceed solely against Plaskett, focusing on her alleged involvement in facilitating Epstein's activities during her tenure as General Counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdf
In the case of Jane Doe 1 et al. v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands et al., the plaintiffs—six anonymous women—allege that they were coerced into commercial sex acts by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. They claim that the defendants, including the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several USVI political figures, facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking operations by providing various forms of assistance and, in return, received financial benefits such as loans, payments, and campaign donations. The plaintiffs assert violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and New York tort law.Upon review, the court dismissed all claims except those against Stacey Plaskett, the USVI's delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. The court found insufficient evidence to establish personal jurisdiction over the other defendants or to substantiate the claims against them. As a result, the case will proceed solely against Plaskett, focusing on her alleged involvement in facilitating Epstein's activities during her tenure as General Counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdf
In a recent ruling, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed most claims in a lawsuit filed by six anonymous women against the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several officials, alleging complicity in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants such as former Governors John de Jongh and Kenneth Mapp, former Attorney General Vincent Frazer, and former Senators Celestino White and Carlton Dowe, leading to the dismissal of claims against them. Additionally, claims against former First Lady Cecile de Jongh were barred due to a prior settlement agreementHowever, the court allowed claims against Delegate to Congress Stacey Plaskett to proceed, citing sufficient ties to New York through alleged activities such as visiting Epstein's New York residence and soliciting campaign donations there. The court found plausible allegations under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and negligence claims, asserting that Plaskett's alleged receipt of financial and political support from Epstein in exchange for favorable political actions warranted further proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge Dismisses Jane Does' Epstein Complaint Against All But Plaskett | St. Thomas Source
In the case of Jane Doe 1 et al. v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands et al., the plaintiffs—six anonymous women—allege that they were coerced into commercial sex acts by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. They claim that the defendants, including the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several USVI political figures, facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking operations by providing various forms of assistance and, in return, received financial benefits such as loans, payments, and campaign donations. The plaintiffs assert violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and New York tort law.Upon review, the court dismissed all claims except those against Stacey Plaskett, the USVI's delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. The court found insufficient evidence to establish personal jurisdiction over the other defendants or to substantiate the claims against them. As a result, the case will proceed solely against Plaskett, focusing on her alleged involvement in facilitating Epstein's activities during her tenure as General Counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the case of Jane Doe 1 et al. v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands et al., the plaintiffs—six anonymous women—allege that they were coerced into commercial sex acts by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. They claim that the defendants, including the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several USVI political figures, facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking operations by providing various forms of assistance and, in return, received financial benefits such as loans, payments, and campaign donations. The plaintiffs assert violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and New York tort law.Upon review, the court dismissed all claims except those against Stacey Plaskett, the USVI's delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. The court found insufficient evidence to establish personal jurisdiction over the other defendants or to substantiate the claims against them. As a result, the case will proceed solely against Plaskett, focusing on her alleged involvement in facilitating Epstein's activities during her tenure as General Counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the case of Jane Doe 1 et al. v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands et al., the plaintiffs—six anonymous women—allege that they were coerced into commercial sex acts by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. They claim that the defendants, including the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several USVI political figures, facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking operations by providing various forms of assistance and, in return, received financial benefits such as loans, payments, and campaign donations. The plaintiffs assert violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and New York tort law.Upon review, the court dismissed all claims except those against Stacey Plaskett, the USVI's delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. The court found insufficient evidence to establish personal jurisdiction over the other defendants or to substantiate the claims against them. As a result, the case will proceed solely against Plaskett, focusing on her alleged involvement in facilitating Epstein's activities during her tenure as General Counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In a recent ruling, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed most claims in a lawsuit filed by six anonymous women against the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several officials, alleging complicity in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants such as former Governors John de Jongh and Kenneth Mapp, former Attorney General Vincent Frazer, and former Senators Celestino White and Carlton Dowe, leading to the dismissal of claims against them. Additionally, claims against former First Lady Cecile de Jongh were barred due to a prior settlement agreementHowever, the court allowed claims against Delegate to Congress Stacey Plaskett to proceed, citing sufficient ties to New York through alleged activities such as visiting Epstein's New York residence and soliciting campaign donations there. The court found plausible allegations under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and negligence claims, asserting that Plaskett's alleged receipt of financial and political support from Epstein in exchange for favorable political actions warranted further proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge Dismisses Jane Does' Epstein Complaint Against All But Plaskett | St. Thomas SourceBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Stacey Plaskett, Democrat and Delegate to Congress from the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), has been actively seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit, which targets various officials from the USVI, accuses them of enabling Epstein's sex trafficking activities. Plaskett has described the suit as "legally and factually frivolous" and argues that the claims against her lack any substantial basis, suggesting that her inclusion is an attempt to unfairly malign her reputation due to her high profile.Plaskett's legal team contends that the lawsuit does not meet the necessary pleading standards and that there is no evidence connecting her to Epstein's criminal activities. They argue that her interactions with Epstein, including accepting campaign donations from him, do not imply any knowledge or involvement in his illegal actions. Plaskett asserts that the lawsuit is a scattershot attempt at monetary gain, aiming to exploit her public status to increase the case's visibility and pressure for a settlement.(commercial at 8:39)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)
Stacey Plaskett, Democrat and Delegate to Congress from the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), has been actively seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit, which targets various officials from the USVI, accuses them of enabling Epstein's sex trafficking activities. Plaskett has described the suit as "legally and factually frivolous" and argues that the claims against her lack any substantial basis, suggesting that her inclusion is an attempt to unfairly malign her reputation due to her high profile.Plaskett's legal team contends that the lawsuit does not meet the necessary pleading standards and that there is no evidence connecting her to Epstein's criminal activities. They argue that her interactions with Epstein, including accepting campaign donations from him, do not imply any knowledge or involvement in his illegal actions. Plaskett asserts that the lawsuit is a scattershot attempt at monetary gain, aiming to exploit her public status to increase the case's visibility and pressure for a settlement.(commercial at 8:39)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)