Podcasts about summary judgement

Justin Baldoni has just released new video footage and text messages to prove his innocence against Blake Lively's claims of SH against him. Let's review his new Motion for Summary Judgement.    Don't miss out on early Black Friday deals. Head to https://www.wayfair.com/ now to shop Wayfair's Black Friday deals for up to 70% off.    Eat smart at https://www.factormeals.com/nofilter50off use code nofilter50off to get 50% off your first box, plus Free Breakfast for 1 Year.    Find out why Nutrafol is the best-selling hair growth supplement brand at https://nutrafol.com/ and use promo code NOFILTER.    Over 2 Million Butts Love TUSHY. Get 10% off TUSHY with the code NOFILTER at https://hellotushy.com/NOFILTER    Become a Member of No Filter: ALL ACCESS: https://allaccess.supercast.com/     Shop New Merch now: https://merchlabs.com/collections/zack-peter?srsltid=AfmBOoqqnV3kfsOYPubFFxCQdpCuGjVgssGIXZRXHcLPH9t4GjiKoaio    Watch Disaster Daters: https://open.spotify.com/show/3L4GLnKwz9Uy5dT8Ey1VPi    Book a personalized message on Cameo: https://v.cameo.com/e/QxWQhpd1TIb 

New documents have hit the docket in Blake Lively's legal battle with Justin Baldoni and his team. Jennifer Able drops shocking new Motion for Summary Judgement claims. Plus, The Highwire's Del Bigtree talks 'An Inconvenient Study' (www.aninconvenientstudy.com)    Don't miss out on early Black Friday deals. Head to https://www.wayfair.com/ now to shop Wayfair's Black Friday deals for up to 70% off.    Eat smart at https://www.factormeals.com/nofilter50off use code nofilter50off to get 50% off your first box, plus Free Breakfast for 1 Year.    Find out why Nutrafol is the best-selling hair growth supplement brand at https://nutrafol.com/ and use promo code NOFILTER.    Over 2 Million Butts Love TUSHY. Get 10% off TUSHY with the code NOFILTER at https://hellotushy.com/NOFILTER    Become a Member of No Filter: ALL ACCESS: https://allaccess.supercast.com/    Shop New Merch now: https://merchlabs.com/collections/zack-peter?srsltid=AfmBOoqqnV3kfsOYPubFFxCQdpCuGjVgssGIXZRXHcLPH9t4GjiKoaio    Watch Disaster Daters: https://open.spotify.com/show/3L4GLnKwz9Uy5dT8Ey1VPi   Book a personalized message on Cameo: https://v.cameo.com/e/QxWQhpd1TIb 

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein's financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein's wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank's knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI's motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn't win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein's financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein's wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank's knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI's motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn't win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein's financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein's wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank's knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI's motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn't win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein's financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein's wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank's knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI's motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn't win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein's financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein's wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank's knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI's motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn't win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the now-concluded civil case Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., the USVI sought a partial summary judgment before the case was settled, arguing that the evidence overwhelmingly showed JPMorgan knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operation. The filing claimed that internal emails, compliance reports, and testimony proved the bank ignored repeated red flags about Epstein's financial activity—including large cash withdrawals, suspicious wire transfers, and employee warnings linking him to underage abuse. The USVI contended that JPMorgan profited from Epstein's wealth and social connections while turning a blind eye to clear indicators of criminal conduct, violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) by financially enabling a known sex trafficker. In essence, the government asked the court to rule that JPMorgan was civilly liable on key elements of the case before it ever reachedJPMorgan denied wrongdoing and opposed the motion, insisting that there were factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, particularly regarding the bank's knowledge and intent. The court ultimately declined to grant the USVI's motion, finding that the issues were complex enough to warrant continued litigation—but the case ended shortly thereafter in December 2023, when JPMorgan agreed to a $75 million settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands. The agreement included commitments for JPMorgan to enhance its compliance and anti-trafficking procedures while denying any admission of liability. Though the USVI didn't win its partial summary judgment outright, the motion itself played a crucial role in forcing discovery that exposed internal JPMorgan communications and helped push the bank toward settlement.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.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 his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.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 his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.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 his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.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 his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.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 his ruling dated April 27, 2017, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case could not be dismissed before trial because there were triable issues of material fact—meaning that reasonable jurors could differ on key factual elements required to resolve the defamation claims. Additionally, he held that the pre‑litigation privilege Maxwell invoked (a legal shield often applied to internal or preliminary communications before a lawsuit is filed) did not apply to bar the claim. Consequently, the motion could not succeed as a matter of law. Judge Sweet also directed the parties to submit a proposed redacted version of the opinion consistent with the protective order or to notify the court if no redactions were necessary, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the materials involvedThis decision ensured that Maxwell's defamation case would proceed, allowing for full adjudication of disputable facts rather than prematurely ending the litigation. Moreover, although the summary judgment denial was itself sealed under protective orders—primarily due to concerns about privacy and confidentiality—the Second Circuit later determined that such judicial records should generally be accessible to the public, underscoring the importance of transparency in decisions impacting public interest; the appellate court directed review and unsealing of summary judgment materials following a careful balance of privacy interests.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.

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloud

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloud

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the case Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR), the U.S. Virgin Islands filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that JPMorgan Chase knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by continuing to provide him with banking services despite mounting evidence of criminal conduct. The memorandum asserts that the bank had repeated opportunities to sever ties with Epstein but instead chose profit over compliance, turning a blind eye to suspicious transactions, large cash withdrawals, and internal warnings. The Government contends that JPMorgan ignored numerous red flags—including sex abuse allegations and Epstein's 2008 conviction—because he was viewed as a “high-value client,” thereby making the bank legally and financially liable for aiding and abetting his criminal enterprise.Additionally, JPMorgan, acting as a Third-Party Plaintiff, has tried to shift blame to James “Jes” Staley, its former senior executive, claiming he misled the bank about Epstein's behavior and maintained an unusually close relationship with the disgraced financier. The Virgin Islands government argues, however, that JPMorgan's own internal communications and compliance failures show the misconduct was institutional, not isolated to Staley. Their summary judgment motion aims to have the court rule, without trial, that JPMorgan violated anti-trafficking and anti-money laundering laws, positioning the bank as a central financial enabler of Epstein's decades-long abuse. This motion, if granted, would significantly advance the territory's case and increase pressure on the bank to settle or face further reputational and legal fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (bwbx.io)

In the case Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR), the U.S. Virgin Islands filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that JPMorgan Chase knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by continuing to provide him with banking services despite mounting evidence of criminal conduct. The memorandum asserts that the bank had repeated opportunities to sever ties with Epstein but instead chose profit over compliance, turning a blind eye to suspicious transactions, large cash withdrawals, and internal warnings. The Government contends that JPMorgan ignored numerous red flags—including sex abuse allegations and Epstein's 2008 conviction—because he was viewed as a “high-value client,” thereby making the bank legally and financially liable for aiding and abetting his criminal enterprise.Additionally, JPMorgan, acting as a Third-Party Plaintiff, has tried to shift blame to James “Jes” Staley, its former senior executive, claiming he misled the bank about Epstein's behavior and maintained an unusually close relationship with the disgraced financier. The Virgin Islands government argues, however, that JPMorgan's own internal communications and compliance failures show the misconduct was institutional, not isolated to Staley. Their summary judgment motion aims to have the court rule, without trial, that JPMorgan violated anti-trafficking and anti-money laundering laws, positioning the bank as a central financial enabler of Epstein's decades-long abuse. This motion, if granted, would significantly advance the territory's case and increase pressure on the bank to settle or face further reputational and legal fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (bwbx.io)

In the case Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR), the U.S. Virgin Islands filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that JPMorgan Chase knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by continuing to provide him with banking services despite mounting evidence of criminal conduct. The memorandum asserts that the bank had repeated opportunities to sever ties with Epstein but instead chose profit over compliance, turning a blind eye to suspicious transactions, large cash withdrawals, and internal warnings. The Government contends that JPMorgan ignored numerous red flags—including sex abuse allegations and Epstein's 2008 conviction—because he was viewed as a “high-value client,” thereby making the bank legally and financially liable for aiding and abetting his criminal enterprise.Additionally, JPMorgan, acting as a Third-Party Plaintiff, has tried to shift blame to James “Jes” Staley, its former senior executive, claiming he misled the bank about Epstein's behavior and maintained an unusually close relationship with the disgraced financier. The Virgin Islands government argues, however, that JPMorgan's own internal communications and compliance failures show the misconduct was institutional, not isolated to Staley. Their summary judgment motion aims to have the court rule, without trial, that JPMorgan violated anti-trafficking and anti-money laundering laws, positioning the bank as a central financial enabler of Epstein's decades-long abuse. This motion, if granted, would significantly advance the territory's case and increase pressure on the bank to settle or face further reputational and legal fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (bwbx.io)

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the defamation case Virginia Giuffre brought against Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2015, Maxwell responded with a motion for summary judgment—arguing that Giuffre's allegations were not legally defamatory and that Maxwell was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That motion aimed to avoid a trial by asserting that even if all of Giuffre's allegations were true, they did not meet the legal threshold for defamation. The motion, along with supporting documents, was filed under seal during pre-trial proceedings. Ultimately, the district court did not grant the motion, and the case was later settled out of court under confidentiality terms in 2017.When third parties later moved to unseal portions of the sealed record, particularly filings related to the summary judgment motion, the courts determined that these materials were judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. A federal appeals court ordered their partial release because Maxwell had not shown sufficient reasons to overcome the public's right of access. In other words, although Maxwell sought to dispose of the case quietly and legally via summary judgment—and shield that process from public view—those efforts were rejected, and important portions of the case were ultimately made part of the public record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre's response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell's attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell's statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre's legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein's trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR), the U.S. Virgin Islands filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that JPMorgan Chase knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by continuing to provide him with banking services despite mounting evidence of criminal conduct. The memorandum asserts that the bank had repeated opportunities to sever ties with Epstein but instead chose profit over compliance, turning a blind eye to suspicious transactions, large cash withdrawals, and internal warnings. The Government contends that JPMorgan ignored numerous red flags—including sex abuse allegations and Epstein's 2008 conviction—because he was viewed as a “high-value client,” thereby making the bank legally and financially liable for aiding and abetting his criminal enterprise.Additionally, JPMorgan, acting as a Third-Party Plaintiff, has tried to shift blame to James “Jes” Staley, its former senior executive, claiming he misled the bank about Epstein's behavior and maintained an unusually close relationship with the disgraced financier. The Virgin Islands government argues, however, that JPMorgan's own internal communications and compliance failures show the misconduct was institutional, not isolated to Staley. Their summary judgment motion aims to have the court rule, without trial, that JPMorgan violated anti-trafficking and anti-money laundering laws, positioning the bank as a central financial enabler of Epstein's decades-long abuse. This motion, if granted, would significantly advance the territory's case and increase pressure on the bank to settle or face further reputational and legal fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (bwbx.io)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR), the U.S. Virgin Islands filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that JPMorgan Chase knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by continuing to provide him with banking services despite mounting evidence of criminal conduct. The memorandum asserts that the bank had repeated opportunities to sever ties with Epstein but instead chose profit over compliance, turning a blind eye to suspicious transactions, large cash withdrawals, and internal warnings. The Government contends that JPMorgan ignored numerous red flags—including sex abuse allegations and Epstein's 2008 conviction—because he was viewed as a “high-value client,” thereby making the bank legally and financially liable for aiding and abetting his criminal enterprise.Additionally, JPMorgan, acting as a Third-Party Plaintiff, has tried to shift blame to James “Jes” Staley, its former senior executive, claiming he misled the bank about Epstein's behavior and maintained an unusually close relationship with the disgraced financier. The Virgin Islands government argues, however, that JPMorgan's own internal communications and compliance failures show the misconduct was institutional, not isolated to Staley. Their summary judgment motion aims to have the court rule, without trial, that JPMorgan violated anti-trafficking and anti-money laundering laws, positioning the bank as a central financial enabler of Epstein's decades-long abuse. This motion, if granted, would significantly advance the territory's case and increase pressure on the bank to settle or face further reputational and legal fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (bwbx.io)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR), the U.S. Virgin Islands filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment arguing that JPMorgan Chase knowingly facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation by continuing to provide him with banking services despite mounting evidence of criminal conduct. The memorandum asserts that the bank had repeated opportunities to sever ties with Epstein but instead chose profit over compliance, turning a blind eye to suspicious transactions, large cash withdrawals, and internal warnings. The Government contends that JPMorgan ignored numerous red flags—including sex abuse allegations and Epstein's 2008 conviction—because he was viewed as a “high-value client,” thereby making the bank legally and financially liable for aiding and abetting his criminal enterprise.Additionally, JPMorgan, acting as a Third-Party Plaintiff, has tried to shift blame to James “Jes” Staley, its former senior executive, claiming he misled the bank about Epstein's behavior and maintained an unusually close relationship with the disgraced financier. The Virgin Islands government argues, however, that JPMorgan's own internal communications and compliance failures show the misconduct was institutional, not isolated to Staley. Their summary judgment motion aims to have the court rule, without trial, that JPMorgan violated anti-trafficking and anti-money laundering laws, positioning the bank as a central financial enabler of Epstein's decades-long abuse. This motion, if granted, would significantly advance the territory's case and increase pressure on the bank to settle or face further reputational and legal fallout.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (bwbx.io)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Murderer, the Memoirist & the Mystery That LingersOn episode 123 of The Fifth Court, we're joined by Mark O'Connell, Irish Times contributor and author of the acclaimed A Thread of Violence, his gripping account of the life — and crimes — of Malcolm MacArthur.In conversation with barristers Peter Leonard BL and Mark Tottenham BL, and recorded at the inaugural Kilkenny Law Festival 2025, O'Connell reflects on:The extraordinary access he had to MacArthurThe unsettling contradictions at the heart of the man and the murdersAnd the personal and ethical tightrope of writing about someone capable of extreme violenceHe also shares behind-the-scenes stories and details that didn't make it into the book — including a few surprises even seasoned observers may not know such as his preoccupation with dust...If you thought you knew the MacArthur story… think again.The episode also includes recent important cases drawn from the Decisis casebook and discussed by Mark Tottenham BL and Peter Leonard BL.These cases are brought to you thanks to Charltons Solicitors and Collaborative Practitioners, Georges St. Dun Laoghaire, Dublin.This episodes cases include;A professional negligence action against two firms of solicitorsA Judicial Review of a Compulsory Purchase Order of a farm brought against a Local AuthorityAnd, a Summary Judgement case involving a loan that had a number of previous 'owners'. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts or at thefifthcourt.ie#TheFifthCourt #IrishCrime #TrueCrimePodcast #LegalPodcast #MarkOConnell #ATreadofViolence #MalcolmMacArthur #IrishLaw #TrueCrimeIreland #IrishWriters #BarristersView #PodcastRecommendation #LinkedInVoices Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The judge in the TikTok Psychic Defamation Case denied her Motion to Alter or Amend Judgement. The judge said that the Summary Judgement against her was fair and will move forward with a hearing to asses damages.Another option is to come to an agreed settlement with the professor. I'll continue to monitor movements on this case. The judge has been incredibly patient and the plaintiff deserves to be remedied for the false accusations that caused an online campaign of hate against them. Watch the full coverage: https://www.youtube.com/live/-AAmjQbR2RM?t=870sRESOURCESTikTok Psychic Defamation Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gJhnNYbw7Go9agKxL9poNLvThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

The case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR involves the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) against JPMorgan Chase & Co. The case primarily focuses on the allegations that JPMorgan Chase facilitated and benefited from Jeffrey Epstein's illegal activities, particularly his sex trafficking enterprise.Summary of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Partial Summary JudgmentBackground and Legal Context:The USVI government argues that JPMorgan Chase had actual knowledge of Epstein's illegal activities and continued to provide banking services to him, thereby facilitating his operations. The bank is accused of turning a blind eye to these activities due to the lucrative business Epstein brought to the institution.Key Arguments:Knowledge and Facilitation: The memorandum emphasizes that JPMorgan Chase had ample evidence of Epstein's illegal conduct through various suspicious transactions and internal communications. The USVI government contends that despite this knowledge, the bank continued its relationship with Epstein, making it complicit in his criminal activities.Financial Benefits: It is argued that JPMorgan Chase financially benefited from its relationship with Epstein, which provided significant fees and business opportunities. The USVI government claims that the bank prioritized profits over legal compliance and ethical considerations.Breach of Duty: The memorandum argues that JPMorgan Chase breached its duty to report suspicious activities as required under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). By failing to report Epstein's suspicious transactions, the bank is accused of aiding and abetting his sex trafficking operations.Legal Standards and Precedent:The USVI government supports its arguments by referencing relevant legal standards and case law that outline the responsibilities of financial institutions to report and prevent illegal activities, particularly when there is clear evidence of wrongdoing.Request for Partial Summary Judgment:The USVI government is seeking a partial summary judgment, which would establish JPMorgan Chase's liability for facilitating Epstein's criminal enterprise without the need for a full trial. The government argues that the evidence is clear and overwhelming, and thus a trial is unnecessary to prove the bank's liability.Conclusion:The memorandum concludes by urging the court to grant the motion for partial summary judgment, holding JPMorgan Chase liable for its role in enabling Epstein's illegal activities. The USVI government asserts that this judgment is essential to ensure accountability and to prevent similar situations in the future.The document is part of the ongoing legal battle to hold JPMorgan Chase accountable for its alleged role in facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network through its banking services.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (courtlistener.com)

The case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR involves the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) against JPMorgan Chase & Co. The case primarily focuses on the allegations that JPMorgan Chase facilitated and benefited from Jeffrey Epstein's illegal activities, particularly his sex trafficking enterprise.Summary of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Partial Summary JudgmentBackground and Legal Context:The USVI government argues that JPMorgan Chase had actual knowledge of Epstein's illegal activities and continued to provide banking services to him, thereby facilitating his operations. The bank is accused of turning a blind eye to these activities due to the lucrative business Epstein brought to the institution.Key Arguments:Knowledge and Facilitation: The memorandum emphasizes that JPMorgan Chase had ample evidence of Epstein's illegal conduct through various suspicious transactions and internal communications. The USVI government contends that despite this knowledge, the bank continued its relationship with Epstein, making it complicit in his criminal activities.Financial Benefits: It is argued that JPMorgan Chase financially benefited from its relationship with Epstein, which provided significant fees and business opportunities. The USVI government claims that the bank prioritized profits over legal compliance and ethical considerations.Breach of Duty: The memorandum argues that JPMorgan Chase breached its duty to report suspicious activities as required under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). By failing to report Epstein's suspicious transactions, the bank is accused of aiding and abetting his sex trafficking operations.Legal Standards and Precedent:The USVI government supports its arguments by referencing relevant legal standards and case law that outline the responsibilities of financial institutions to report and prevent illegal activities, particularly when there is clear evidence of wrongdoing.Request for Partial Summary Judgment:The USVI government is seeking a partial summary judgment, which would establish JPMorgan Chase's liability for facilitating Epstein's criminal enterprise without the need for a full trial. The government argues that the evidence is clear and overwhelming, and thus a trial is unnecessary to prove the bank's liability.Conclusion:The memorandum concludes by urging the court to grant the motion for partial summary judgment, holding JPMorgan Chase liable for its role in enabling Epstein's illegal activities. The USVI government asserts that this judgment is essential to ensure accountability and to prevent similar situations in the future.The document is part of the ongoing legal battle to hold JPMorgan Chase accountable for its alleged role in facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network through its banking services.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (courtlistener.com)

In the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Judge Robert W. Sweet presided over Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss Giuffre's claims without proceeding to trial. In his opinion and order, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion, determining that genuine disputes over material facts existed, particularly concerning the truthfulness of the statements made by both parties. This decision underscored the necessity for a jury to evaluate the credibility of the conflicting accounts presented.Judge Sweet's ruling emphasized that the central issue in the case was the veracity of Maxwell's public statements denying Giuffre's allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking. By denying the motion for summary judgment, he allowed the defamation claims to proceed to trial, highlighting the importance of a thorough examination of the evidence and testimonies from both sides. This decision reflected the court's recognition of the complexities involved in cases alleging defamation intertwined with serious accusations of misconduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Judge Robert W. Sweet presided over Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss Giuffre's claims without proceeding to trial. In his opinion and order, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion, determining that genuine disputes over material facts existed, particularly concerning the truthfulness of the statements made by both parties. This decision underscored the necessity for a jury to evaluate the credibility of the conflicting accounts presented.Judge Sweet's ruling emphasized that the central issue in the case was the veracity of Maxwell's public statements denying Giuffre's allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking. By denying the motion for summary judgment, he allowed the defamation claims to proceed to trial, highlighting the importance of a thorough examination of the evidence and testimonies from both sides. This decision reflected the court's recognition of the complexities involved in cases alleging defamation intertwined with serious accusations of misconduct.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment in the 2015 defamation lawsuit, Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts) contended that substantial evidence supported her claims, warranting a trial. Giuffre's legal team presented documentation and testimony alleging that Maxwell had recruited her as a minor for Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation and later defamed her by publicly denying these allegations. They argued that Maxwell's statements labeling Giuffre's claims as "obvious lies" were not only false but also damaging to Giuffre's reputation.Giuffre's opposition emphasized that the case hinged on the veracity of both parties' statements, highlighting disputes over material facts that should be resolved by a jury. The court agreed, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly concerning the truthfulness of Maxwell's denials and the credibility of Giuffre's allegations. Consequently, the judge denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, allowing the defamation lawsuit to proceed toward trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment in the 2015 defamation lawsuit, Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts) contended that substantial evidence supported her claims, warranting a trial. Giuffre's legal team presented documentation and testimony alleging that Maxwell had recruited her as a minor for Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation and later defamed her by publicly denying these allegations. They argued that Maxwell's statements labeling Giuffre's claims as "obvious lies" were not only false but also damaging to Giuffre's reputation.Giuffre's opposition emphasized that the case hinged on the veracity of both parties' statements, highlighting disputes over material facts that should be resolved by a jury. The court agreed, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly concerning the truthfulness of Maxwell's denials and the credibility of Giuffre's allegations. Consequently, the judge denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, allowing the defamation lawsuit to proceed toward trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for summary judgment in the 2015 defamation lawsuit, Virginia Giuffre (née Roberts) contended that substantial evidence supported her claims, warranting a trial. Giuffre's legal team presented documentation and testimony alleging that Maxwell had recruited her as a minor for Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation and later defamed her by publicly denying these allegations. They argued that Maxwell's statements labeling Giuffre's claims as "obvious lies" were not only false but also damaging to Giuffre's reputation.Giuffre's opposition emphasized that the case hinged on the veracity of both parties' statements, highlighting disputes over material facts that should be resolved by a jury. The court agreed, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed, particularly concerning the truthfulness of Maxwell's denials and the credibility of Giuffre's allegations. Consequently, the judge denied Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, allowing the defamation lawsuit to proceed toward trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com