Proclamation of fundamental rights to citizens of a polity
POPULARITY
4 episodes with rights act
3 episodes with rights act
2 episodes with rights act
4 episodes with rights act
3 episodes with rights act
4 episodes with rights act
3 episodes with rights act
2 episodes with rights act
2 episodes with rights act
In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf
In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf
Courtney Wild, one of Jeffrey Epstein's underage victims, has waged a prolonged legal battle asserting that federal prosecutors violated her statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly crafting a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) shielding Epstein and his co-conspirators without notifying or consulting her—her “right to confer” and be treated fairly were emphatically ignored. After the district court acknowledged the CVRA violation but declined to provide relief on jurisdictional grounds following Epstein's death, Wild pressed her case through the Eleventh Circuit. In a contentious en banc ruling, the court recognized the profound injustice yet held that the CVRA does not allow victims to enforce their rights via standalone legal action absent a formal criminal proceeding. Feeling thwarted by this interpretation, Wild and her attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this critical question of whether the CVRA's protections extend to pre‑charge, behind‑the‑scenes deals that effectively nullify accountability.Wild's Supreme Court petition presents what she and her legal team call a “now-or-never opportunity” for the Court to buttress victim protections and clarify that the government cannot clandestinely dispense with criminal accountability while ignoring victims entirely—especially when the accused wield immense wealth and influence. Without such reckoning, the Justice Department may continue negotiating secret deals that nullify the statutory rights Congress fought to grant crime victims. Despite the urgency and gravity of the case, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal—effectively allowing the Eleventh Circuit's restrictive interpretation to stand and signaling that victims in similar predicaments may remain legally powerless when prosecutors circumvent the formal charging process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victim seeks US Supreme Court review of prosecutors' secret deal - ABC News
Courtney Wild, one of Jeffrey Epstein's underage victims, has waged a prolonged legal battle asserting that federal prosecutors violated her statutory rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly crafting a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) shielding Epstein and his co-conspirators without notifying or consulting her—her “right to confer” and be treated fairly were emphatically ignored. After the district court acknowledged the CVRA violation but declined to provide relief on jurisdictional grounds following Epstein's death, Wild pressed her case through the Eleventh Circuit. In a contentious en banc ruling, the court recognized the profound injustice yet held that the CVRA does not allow victims to enforce their rights via standalone legal action absent a formal criminal proceeding. Feeling thwarted by this interpretation, Wild and her attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this critical question of whether the CVRA's protections extend to pre‑charge, behind‑the‑scenes deals that effectively nullify accountability.Wild's Supreme Court petition presents what she and her legal team call a “now-or-never opportunity” for the Court to buttress victim protections and clarify that the government cannot clandestinely dispense with criminal accountability while ignoring victims entirely—especially when the accused wield immense wealth and influence. Without such reckoning, the Justice Department may continue negotiating secret deals that nullify the statutory rights Congress fought to grant crime victims. Despite the urgency and gravity of the case, the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the appeal—effectively allowing the Eleventh Circuit's restrictive interpretation to stand and signaling that victims in similar predicaments may remain legally powerless when prosecutors circumvent the formal charging process.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victim seeks US Supreme Court review of prosecutors' secret deal - ABC NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf
In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdf
In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the mid-2000s, Jeffrey Epstein faced mounting allegations in Palm Beach, Florida, that he had sexually abused dozens of underage girls under the guise of paying them for massages. The case began in 2005 when the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported him to local police, prompting a months-long investigation that uncovered a network of young girls—many recruited by other minors—who said they were coerced into sexual acts at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. Police gathered statements, physical evidence, and corroborating accounts, ultimately identifying over 30 potential victims. The Palm Beach Police Department recommended multiple felony charges, including unlawful sexual activity with minors and lewd and lascivious acts.Instead of proceeding to a state trial, the case was taken over by the U.S. Attorney's Office, leading to the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA). Brokered behind closed doors, the NPA allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two lesser prostitution-related charges—one involving a minor—in exchange for federal prosecutors agreeing not to pursue broader sex trafficking charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail under a work-release program that let him leave six days a week. The deal also granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding alleged enablers from prosecution. This resolution, kept secret from victims in violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, became a flashpoint for public outrage and later federal litigation when it was revealed just how sweeping and lenient the agreement had been.In this episode, we see that corruption in action as we hear from one of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers during a deposition given in 2008.to contact me:gov.uscourts.flsd.318730.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
The Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is widely regarded as one of the most disgraceful failures in the history of American justice. Structured to shield not just Epstein but a host of unnamed co-conspirators, the NPA granted sweeping immunity, all negotiated in secret and without the knowledge or consent of Epstein's victims—an apparent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Far from being a standard plea deal, the NPA was a calculated firewall built by powerful actors within the Department of Justice to protect a broader network of elite individuals. Its open-ended language, lack of transparency, and immunity clauses served not justice, but systemic protectionism for the well-connected. For over a decade, this deal has prevented real accountability, emboldened Epstein's enablers, and sent the chilling message that influence and wealth can overwrite the rule of law.Yet the NPA is not untouchable. Legal avenues still exist, from challenging its violation of victim rights, to pursuing civil lawsuits, state-level prosecutions, FOIA litigation, and even appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ's misconduct. Public pressure, congressional oversight, and relentless investigative work could still expose the names hidden behind its broad immunity clauses. What's needed now is moral courage, not more institutional silence. The DOJ must either rescind the NPA, investigate those who crafted it, and pursue those it protected—or be remembered not as an agency of justice, but as the architect of the most shameful cover-up in modern legal history. The survivors deserve more than platitudes—they deserve action. Because the NPA may have buried the truth once, but it doesn't get to bury it forever.to contact me: bobbcapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
The Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is widely regarded as one of the most disgraceful failures in the history of American justice. Structured to shield not just Epstein but a host of unnamed co-conspirators, the NPA granted sweeping immunity, all negotiated in secret and without the knowledge or consent of Epstein's victims—an apparent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Far from being a standard plea deal, the NPA was a calculated firewall built by powerful actors within the Department of Justice to protect a broader network of elite individuals. Its open-ended language, lack of transparency, and immunity clauses served not justice, but systemic protectionism for the well-connected. For over a decade, this deal has prevented real accountability, emboldened Epstein's enablers, and sent the chilling message that influence and wealth can overwrite the rule of law.Yet the NPA is not untouchable. Legal avenues still exist, from challenging its violation of victim rights, to pursuing civil lawsuits, state-level prosecutions, FOIA litigation, and even appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ's misconduct. Public pressure, congressional oversight, and relentless investigative work could still expose the names hidden behind its broad immunity clauses. What's needed now is moral courage, not more institutional silence. The DOJ must either rescind the NPA, investigate those who crafted it, and pursue those it protected—or be remembered not as an agency of justice, but as the architect of the most shameful cover-up in modern legal history. The survivors deserve more than platitudes—they deserve action. Because the NPA may have buried the truth once, but it doesn't get to bury it forever.to contact me: bobbcapucci@protonmail.com
The Jeffrey Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is widely regarded as one of the most disgraceful failures in the history of American justice. Structured to shield not just Epstein but a host of unnamed co-conspirators, the NPA granted sweeping immunity, all negotiated in secret and without the knowledge or consent of Epstein's victims—an apparent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Far from being a standard plea deal, the NPA was a calculated firewall built by powerful actors within the Department of Justice to protect a broader network of elite individuals. Its open-ended language, lack of transparency, and immunity clauses served not justice, but systemic protectionism for the well-connected. For over a decade, this deal has prevented real accountability, emboldened Epstein's enablers, and sent the chilling message that influence and wealth can overwrite the rule of law.Yet the NPA is not untouchable. Legal avenues still exist, from challenging its violation of victim rights, to pursuing civil lawsuits, state-level prosecutions, FOIA litigation, and even appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ's misconduct. Public pressure, congressional oversight, and relentless investigative work could still expose the names hidden behind its broad immunity clauses. What's needed now is moral courage, not more institutional silence. The DOJ must either rescind the NPA, investigate those who crafted it, and pursue those it protected—or be remembered not as an agency of justice, but as the architect of the most shameful cover-up in modern legal history. The survivors deserve more than platitudes—they deserve action. Because the NPA may have buried the truth once, but it doesn't get to bury it forever.to contact me: bobbcapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)
In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)
In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)
In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)
Jeffrey Epstein's so-called “deal of the century” wasn't earned—it was engineered. In 2008, despite facing evidence of molesting and trafficking dozens of underage girls, Epstein walked away with a sweetheart plea deal that saw him serve just 13 months in a private wing of the Palm Beach County jail. He was allowed to leave the facility six days a week for 12 hours a day under “work release,” even though his office visits were unsupervised and often involved young female visitors. The deal—brokered in secret—granted Epstein immunity not only for himself, but also for “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and others from prosecution. Federal prosecutors didn't even notify the victims, a clear violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. This wasn't justice—it was protection, delivered by a system that bent the knee to wealth, influence, and possibly much darker forces.The man who publicly signed off on the deal was then–U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, but he wasn't the architect—he was the middleman. The real decision to cut Epstein loose came from the very top of the Bush-era Justice Department: then–Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip. They quietly pulled the strings behind the scenes, elevating the matter above Acosta's authority and ensuring that Epstein's prosecution would be neutered. This wasn't about a weak local prosecutor making a bad call—it was a deliberate move by the most powerful legal officials in the country to shut down a case that risked exposing too much. Whether it was done to protect intelligence assets, political allies, or institutional reputations, the result was the same: Epstein got a free pass, his victims were betrayed, and the system showed the world that justice is selective, rigged, and for sale when the right names are involved.
In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Jeffrey Epstein's so-called “deal of the century” wasn't earned—it was engineered. In 2008, despite facing evidence of molesting and trafficking dozens of underage girls, Epstein walked away with a sweetheart plea deal that saw him serve just 13 months in a private wing of the Palm Beach County jail. He was allowed to leave the facility six days a week for 12 hours a day under “work release,” even though his office visits were unsupervised and often involved young female visitors. The deal—brokered in secret—granted Epstein immunity not only for himself, but also for “any potential co-conspirators,” effectively shielding Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, and others from prosecution. Federal prosecutors didn't even notify the victims, a clear violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. This wasn't justice—it was protection, delivered by a system that bent the knee to wealth, influence, and possibly much darker forces.The man who publicly signed off on the deal was then–U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, but he wasn't the architect—he was the middleman. The real decision to cut Epstein loose came from the very top of the Bush-era Justice Department: then–Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip. They quietly pulled the strings behind the scenes, elevating the matter above Acosta's authority and ensuring that Epstein's prosecution would be neutered. This wasn't about a weak local prosecutor making a bad call—it was a deliberate move by the most powerful legal officials in the country to shut down a case that risked exposing too much. Whether it was done to protect intelligence assets, political allies, or institutional reputations, the result was the same: Epstein got a free pass, his victims were betrayed, and the system showed the world that justice is selective, rigged, and for sale when the right names are involved.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In response to Maxwell's Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell's characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell's filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell's framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell's assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell's denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team moved aggressively to block Sarah Ransome from delivering a victim impact statement at the June 28, 2022 sentencing, arguing that Ransome did not qualify as a statutory “crime victim” under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Maxwell's defenders claimed Ransome was an adult at the time of her interactions with Epstein and Maxwell—outside the timeframe of the charges—and thus lacked legal standing to speak in the sentencing phase. The defense specifically argued that Ransome was not part of the indictment or trial record and that her allegations occurred years after the periods under scrutiny, positioning her voice as irrelevant to the court's legal determinationCritics saw this tactic as a cynical effort to silence survivors by exploiting narrow technicalities, rather than addressing the broader harm experienced by individuals Maxwell helped traffic. Ransome, who alleges threats, abuse, and coercion during her adult years with Epstein and Maxwell, had powerful testimony—including descriptions of being treated as a "sex toy" and forced to attempt escape from Epstein's island. Her exclusion from speaking would have denied the court a fuller understanding of Maxwell's pattern of behavior and the real-life consequences of her crimes—even beyond the window covered by the charges. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10941223/Ghislaine-Maxwell-trying-stop-victim-Sarah-Ransome-testifying-against-sentencing.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Justice Minister, Paul Goldsmith, recently announced a proposal to the Electoral Act and Constitution Act, removing the ability for an individual to enrol on election day. Alongside this comes the proposal of halting the ability to enrol during the advanced voting period. This move has received backlash - including from within the government. This morning, Attorney-General, Judith Collins KC, says the move goes against the Bill of Rights Act. During the 2023 general election, over 450,000 enrolled in the 12-day period, with 110,000 enrolling on election day. A significant proportion of those later enrolments consist of young people, and in areas of bigger Māori, Pacific, and Asian communities. In light of this move, ACT Party Leader, David Seymour, says those who have left voting to the last minute are “drop-kicks”. As well as this, the ACT Party's justice spokesperson, Todd Stephenson, added to this, saying “Democracy works best when voters are informed, engaged, and take the process seriously,” and that “It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.” For our weekly catchup with the ACT Party's Simon Court, News and Editorial Director and Monday Wire Host, Joel spoke to him about this move.
It's a dangerous time to be uninformed as a UK property investorThere's the imminent advent of the Renters' Rights Act.The much mooted changes to EPC regulations, Not to mention the mounting speculation over the need for large tax rises to cover the multibillion-pound shortfall in public finances. So where does this all leave you as a UK property investor. This episode will help you decide as I talk to Graham Kinnear.In a career spanning four decades, Graham has turned his hand to most sectors of the industry.Among other things, he's an Associate of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, a Chartered Building Engineer, Chartered Construction Manager and an expert in anything and everything to do with Party Walls.He undertakes Building surveys, fire risk assessments property dispute resolution and energy surveys. And of course , he's a property investor.During the episode, we discuss:· Current Market Conditions· Landlord Profitability Challenges· Impact of Pending Legislation· HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) Trends· Supply & Demand Paradox· Concerns About EPC Upgrades· Skepticism Over Government Targets· Investment Strategies for Expats· Creative Deal Sourcing· Long-Term Property OutlookI'd Like Help With Setting My GoalsLeave a reviewJoin our WhatsApp group / access 37 Question Due Diligence Checklist / 23 Step Guide to Buying Property at AuctionInstagramExclusive Property Engine discounts (Code: EXPAT)Starter package: 30 day trialPro package 30 day trial, then 3 months 1/2 price, Ultimate package, 1/2 price 3 monthsKeywordsUK property podcast, Expat Property Story podcast, UK property investment podcast, British property market podcast, UK housing market podcast, UK buy to let podcast, Remote investing in UK property, Property investment for expats, UK buy-to-let advice podcast, HMO property investing UK, UK property market trends, UK rental property podcast, Expat landlord guidance UK, UK property expert interviews, UK property investor tips, UK Renters Rights Act, UK EPC regulation changes, UK property tax changes podcast, Clause 24 property implications, Stamp duty advice UK, UK HMO market trends, Single let property UK, UK property cashflow strategies, UK property portfolio advice, UK property cycle, Investing in Kent property, Norfolk buy-to-let market, County Durham property market UK, Property as retirement income UK, UK pension alternatives property, UK property yields, High yield property UK, UK property planning permission delays, Converting commercial to residential UK, Creative property investing UK, Buy to let creative strategies UK
In this solo episode of Sexual Assault Survivor Stories (The SASS Podcast), host Dave Markel takes the mic alone to deliver a powerful, reflective, and informative monologue. While there's no guest again this week, the episode is anything but empty. Instead, it offers a thoughtful exploration of recent survivor stories making headlines, along with an in-depth look at survivor-led advocacy, cultural change, and resources for healing. Dave begins by spotlighting three courageous individuals: Alex Cooper, host of Call Her Daddy, who recently spoke out about the harassment she endured as a Division I athlete at Boston University; Tina Johnson, a Roy Moore accuser whose home was destroyed under suspicious circumstances after she came forward; and Nicky Campbell, a UK broadcaster whose disclosure of childhood abuse sparked a wave of similar testimonies from others silenced for decades. Each of these stories reveals the complex layers of trauma—ranging from institutional betrayal to physical triggers—and illustrates how public disclosures can ignite change and connection. The episode also honors the work of prominent survivor-advocates like Amanda Nguyen, founder of , who authored the Sexual Assault Survivors' Rights Act (passed unanimously by Congress in 2016). Nguyen's legislation has inspired over 67 similar laws across the U.S., while her global What Were You Wearing? exhibits continue to dismantle victim-blaming narratives in powerful and public ways. Also highlighted is Chanel Miller, formerly known as “Emily Doe” in the Brock Turner case, whose viral victim impact statement and bestselling memoir, Know My Name, redefined the survivor's voice in modern discourse. This episode closes by offering a collection of vital resources for survivors. If you or someone you know is in need of support, please reach out: · – 24/7 hotline: 800-656-HOPE · – Support specifically for male survivors · – Education and national hotline for harassment survivors · – Survivor-led legislative training and advocacy · Even without a traditional interview, this episode is filled with substance, reflection, and a deep commitment to the healing process. It's a powerful reminder that survivor stories don't stop when the mic does—and that advocacy can take many forms, including quiet reflection. This one is for every voice that hasn't been heard yet—and every listener who's ready to believe, support, and speak up. An important side note: if you're finding value in these episodes, please take a moment to leave a 5-star rating on your podcast platform. AND, please send me a note of support. I can't tell you how much your emails mean to me—they fuel my passion to keep this podcast going. Here's my email address: I truly look forward to hearing from you! On another note: I am a strong advocate and supporter of Survivor School (SS), founded and directed by CEO Arci Grey (another former guest on SASS). In fact, Arci has made me a consultant to SS as she maneuvers the intricacies of directing and managing the content and growth of her amazing organization. I encourage you to strongly consider becoming a member of SS, and as an affiliate would appreciate it, if you do decide to become a member, to use this link: Thanks again for listening! As always, listed below are some additional important and meaningful websites I hope you'll take a look at and learn more about. My email address: It's time to Normalize the Conversation.™ And please remember to Start by Believing…because we all know someone whose life has been impacted by rape or sexual assault.
In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein's victims as required by the Crime Victims' Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein's high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government's unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein's lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein's exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney's Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein's abuse to continue for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:dl (justice.gov)
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
