Podcasts about usvi

​Denise George, a seasoned attorney from the U.S. Virgin Islands, served as the territory's Attorney General from 2019 until her dismissal in December 2022. During her tenure, she was recognized for her unwavering commitment to justice, notably leading significant legal actions against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein.In early 2020, George filed a civil enforcement lawsuit against Epstein's estate under the Virgin Islands' Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (CICO). This legal action aimed to hold Epstein's estate accountable for alleged criminal activities, including human trafficking and sexual exploitation within the Virgin Islands. Her efforts culminated in a settlement in November 2022, wherein the estate agreed to pay the Virgin Islands over $105 million and half of the proceeds from the sale of Little St. James, Epstein's private island.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The USVI claims JPMorgan Chase knowingly enabled and profited from Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. According to court filings, the bank kept Epstein as a client for years—even after red flags such as his 2006 arrest and subsequent criminal behavior—and continued some business with him until not long before his 2019 arrest. The USVI also alleges that JPMorgan ignored internal warnings, accepted referrals to Epstein, financed transactions tied to his operations (including payments to his associates and victims), and helped facilitate his activities through cash and wire transfers.On top of that, the USVI says that local officials helped Epstein by granting him tax incentives, waiving requirements for monitoring registered sex offenders, and looking the other way in certain regulatory and oversight functions—all in exchange for donations, cash, or other benefits from Epstein. The territory alleges that through its banking relationship and its influence operations, JPMorgan played a role in concealing Epstein's abuses and limiting the enforcement of laws meant to protect victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein had 'close ties' to Gov. Albert Bryan: Doc (lawandcrime.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

JP Morgan, in its legal battle with the U.S. Virgin Islands, alleged that Jeffrey Epstein wielded outsized influence over local officials and used his wealth to bend the territory's government to his will. Court filings accused Epstein of cultivating cozy relationships with USVI leadership, pouring money into charities, and leveraging donations to secure favorable treatment. According to the bank's claims, Epstein wasn't just a wealthy resident — he was essentially a political power broker, able to shape policy and deflect scrutiny even after his 2008 conviction. This narrative painted the islands not as an innocent victim of Epstein's crimes but as an active partner that tolerated, and in some cases allegedly enabled, his activities because of the money and influence he brought.One of the most disturbing allegations JP Morgan raised was that Epstein tried to directly manipulate the territory's sex offender laws. The filings claim he lobbied for changes that would have made it easier for him to move in and out of the islands without the restrictions normally placed on registered offenders. In practice, this would have weakened oversight of his travel and residency, allowing him to continue operating with far less interference. While USVI officials have denied knowingly aiding Epstein's schemes, JP Morgan argued that the combination of political access, donations, and attempts to rewrite offender regulations shows a deeper level of complicity than the territory has admitted.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein consulted on Virgin Islands sex offender law (lawandcrime.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Part 1 - Neville James speaks with the National Weather Service as they are tracking Invest AL91 with a 60% chance of development in 48 hours and 90% in seven days, warning the system could be near the Lesser Antilles next week. USVI residents are urged to prepare.

The USVI and JP Morgan Chase are back at inside of the courtroom where both sides have traded some seriously concerning allegations. In this latest salvo, we have the USVI alleging that the former JP Morgan CEO Doug "Sandy" Warner was the one that made the introduction of Jes Staley to Jeffrey Epstein in 2000. This goes along with the rest of the allegations that have been introduced by the USVI that have alleged that JP Morgan as an entity and not just Jes Staley are liable for the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. In this episode, we take a look at the latest allegations and where the explosive lawsuit currently stands. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ex-JPMorgan CEO: Jes Staley should meet Jeffrey Epstein | FortuneBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

As the sordid tale of Jeffrey Epstein and his decades long crime spree started to come into a much more clear focus, it was obvious that the man and those who enabled him were involved in some of the most heinous behavior one could imagine.Now, after the court case that has been building in the USVI has progressed, we are getting a better look behind the curtain and the scene is as dingy and disgusting as you could imagine.In this episode, we hear about Epstein and his busting at the seams schedule that was loaded with up to 7 visits from young women per day.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein 'entertained' up to seven young girls a day, private calendars reveal | Daily Mail OnlineBecome 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. (No. 22-cv-10904-JSR), JPMorgan Chase Bank filed a reply memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss certain claims brought against it. The motion was partially successful.The court granted JPMorgan's motion to dismiss claims under the Virgin Islands Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Virgin Islands Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Counts II, III, and IV of the Second Amended Complaint). These claims were dismissed because they were unchanged from previous versions that the court had already ruled on.However, the court denied JPMorgan's motion to dismiss the claims related to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). The court had previously considered JPMorgan's arguments against these claims in an earlier motion and had rejected them. JPMorgan reasserted these arguments mainly to preserve them for appeal.This ruling represents a partial victory for both sides: while some claims were dismissed, others, particularly those related to the TVPA, will proceed in the litigation.(commercial 8:09)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.56.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Julie K. Brown, the investigative reporter for the Miami Herald, not only reignited the Jeffrey Epstein case by exposing the sweetheart non-prosecution agreement in Florida but also turned her spotlight to Epstein's Caribbean operations. In a 2023 Miami Herald piece titled “U.S. Virgin Islands cozied up to Jeffrey Epstein. Now they're profiting from his sex crimes,” Brown detailed how Epstein benefited from deep ties to the territory's institutions—securing lavish tax breaks and beneficial financial dealings through shell companies like Southern Trust. Her reporting underscored how USVI authorities, including those in positions of power, either overlooked or enabled Epstein's operations, which later came under legal scrutiny through lawsuits and settlements.In the piece, Brown argued that the USVI not only allowed Epstein to operate with little interference but later positioned itself to collect financial benefits through penalties and settlements after his death. This framing suggested that the government was both complicit in allowing the criminal enterprise to flourish and opportunistic in profiting from its collapse. The article sparked strong pushback, including from the University of the Virgin Islands, which issued a public response disputing some of the claims. The controversy reflected the tension between investigative reporting that sought to highlight systemic failures and local institutions that rejected the characterization of their role.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:U.S. Virgin Islands profiting from Jeffrey Epstein's crimes | Miami HeraldBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In early 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Virgin Islands Superior Court seeking the reimbursement of legal fees, security, and relocation costs from the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. In response, the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), led by then‑Attorney General Denise George, filed a motion to intervene in both the Maxwell lawsuit and the estate's probate proceedings. The USVI argued that it had a direct interest in the estate's assets due to its ongoing enforcement action under the territory's Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (CICO) Act—a legal framework aimed at recovering assets linked to Epstein's sex trafficking operation. By intervening, the USVI sought to protect its interest in ensuring that estate funds would remain available to satisfy potential judgments in its own case against Epstein's estate.The Superior Court ultimately denied the USVI's motion to intervene under Rule 24 of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure, determining that the territory lacked standing to intervene as an involved party in the probate matter. The court advised that the USVI instead pursue its claims by filing as a claimant under probate statutes, which would allow it to assert its legal rights within the proper procedural framework. The USVI appealed the decision, arguing that its interest as a CICO plaintiff warranted direct participation in the proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Virgin Islands became a central player in the aftermath of Jeffrey Epstein's death because of his properties there, most notably Little St. James. Under Attorney General Denise George, the USVI invoked its Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (CICO) Act to place liens on Epstein's estate, effectively freezing assets tied to his criminal enterprise. These liens were designed to ensure that money and property could not be moved or dissipated before victims received compensation. George also opposed efforts by the estate to push through a victim compensation fund that included broad legal releases shielding Epstein's co-conspirators, arguing such maneuvers were a way to protect his network rather than provide accountability.The estate's co-executors, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, fought to have these liens removed, claiming they were overly broad, interfered with probate, and restricted the estate's ability to pay expenses or liquidate assets to fund victim settlements. Their position was that not every encumbered asset was directly tied to Epstein's crimes, and therefore the government had overstepped in freezing so much of the estate. The USVI resisted, holding that the liens were necessary to prevent further shielding of Epstein's co-conspirators and to guarantee victims would see justice. The clash underscored the tension between the estate's desire to control the narrative and finances, and the USVI's insistence on accountability and redress for those harmed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Doe 1 v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (1:22-cv-10019), Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued an opinion and order on a motion to unseal judicial records filed by The New York Times. The motion sought to unseal certain exhibits that were submitted with summary judgment motions and class certification motions.Judge Rakoff's ruling granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the judge denied the motion to unseal the exhibits submitted with the summary judgment motions, but he granted the motion to unseal the exhibits submitted with the motion for class certification. However, this was conditioned on redactions to protect the anonymity of Jane Doe and other victims involved in the case. Judge Rakoff directed class counsel to submit proposed redactions for the court's review within two weeks of the order​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.367.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

In the case of Doe 1 v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (1:22-cv-10019), Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued an opinion and order on a motion to unseal judicial records filed by The New York Times. The motion sought to unseal certain exhibits that were submitted with summary judgment motions and class certification motions.Judge Rakoff's ruling granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the judge denied the motion to unseal the exhibits submitted with the summary judgment motions, but he granted the motion to unseal the exhibits submitted with the motion for class certification. However, this was conditioned on redactions to protect the anonymity of Jane Doe and other victims involved in the case. Judge Rakoff directed class counsel to submit proposed redactions for the court's review within two weeks of the order​.(commercial at 9:21)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.367.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

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

In the case of Doe 1 v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (1:22-cv-10019), Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued an opinion and order on a motion to unseal judicial records filed by The New York Times. The motion sought to unseal certain exhibits that were submitted with summary judgment motions and class certification motions.Judge Rakoff's ruling granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the judge denied the motion to unseal the exhibits submitted with the summary judgment motions, but he granted the motion to unseal the exhibits submitted with the motion for class certification. However, this was conditioned on redactions to protect the anonymity of Jane Doe and other victims involved in the case. Judge Rakoff directed class counsel to submit proposed redactions for the court's review within two weeks of the order​.(commercial at 9:21)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.367.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Virgin Islands' Memorandum in Support of Excluding Expert Testimony from JP Morgan was a direct strike at the bank's legal strategy of hiding behind highly paid specialists to sanitize its conduct. The filing argued that JP Morgan's proposed experts weren't there to provide neutral, technical insight—they were being deployed to confuse the jury, shift blame, and whitewash the bank's longstanding financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI pointed out that these experts attempted to dress up common sense issues—like due diligence, suspicious transactions, and regulatory compliance—as matters of complex banking science, when in reality the facts spoke plainly: the bank continued to profit off Epstein long after his 2008 conviction and obvious red flags. In essence, the memorandum framed JP Morgan's “experts” as mouthpieces meant to cloud responsibility, not clarify it.By moving to bar this testimony, the USVI was making a broader argument about accountability. If JP Morgan was allowed to weaponize expert witnesses to downplay its failures, the survivors' pursuit of justice would be buried under jargon and pseudo-objectivity. The memorandum emphasized that letting these experts testify would not only mislead the jury but also distort the purpose of the trial, turning it into a battle of résumés rather than a reckoning with the bank's choices. The USVI's position was clear: the facts don't need interpretation from consultants paid millions to protect a financial giant—they need to be weighed on their own merits. This was an attempt to strip away the camouflage JP Morgan hoped to use, forcing the court to confront the bank's role in sustaining Epstein's trafficking operation without distraction or distortion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The U.S. Virgin Islands' Memorandum in Support of Excluding Expert Testimony from JP Morgan was a direct strike at the bank's legal strategy of hiding behind highly paid specialists to sanitize its conduct. The filing argued that JP Morgan's proposed experts weren't there to provide neutral, technical insight—they were being deployed to confuse the jury, shift blame, and whitewash the bank's longstanding financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI pointed out that these experts attempted to dress up common sense issues—like due diligence, suspicious transactions, and regulatory compliance—as matters of complex banking science, when in reality the facts spoke plainly: the bank continued to profit off Epstein long after his 2008 conviction and obvious red flags. In essence, the memorandum framed JP Morgan's “experts” as mouthpieces meant to cloud responsibility, not clarify it.By moving to bar this testimony, the USVI was making a broader argument about accountability. If JP Morgan was allowed to weaponize expert witnesses to downplay its failures, the survivors' pursuit of justice would be buried under jargon and pseudo-objectivity. The memorandum emphasized that letting these experts testify would not only mislead the jury but also distort the purpose of the trial, turning it into a battle of résumés rather than a reckoning with the bank's choices. The USVI's position was clear: the facts don't need interpretation from consultants paid millions to protect a financial giant—they need to be weighed on their own merits. This was an attempt to strip away the camouflage JP Morgan hoped to use, forcing the court to confront the bank's role in sustaining Epstein's trafficking operation without distraction or distortion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.289.0_2.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

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

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

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

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein's activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank's defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.(commercial at 7:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein's activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank's defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

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

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

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

The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) filed a motion opposing JPMorgan Chase's request to dismiss the lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI argues that JPMorgan played a crucial role in enabling and facilitating Epstein's illegal activities by maintaining his accounts and providing financial services, despite knowing about his criminal conduct. The motion asserts that the bank ignored numerous red flags and allowed Epstein to conduct transactions that supported his sex trafficking operation.The USVI contends that JPMorgan's actions or lack thereof contributed significantly to the harm caused by Epstein and his network. The motion further emphasizes that the lawsuit is valid and should proceed, as it seeks to hold the bank accountable for its alleged complicity in Epstein's activities, despite JPMorgan's efforts to dismiss the case. The USVI aims to prove that the bank's involvement goes beyond mere negligence, arguing that it knowingly benefited from its relationship with Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.48.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) filed a motion opposing JPMorgan Chase's request to dismiss the lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI argues that JPMorgan played a crucial role in enabling and facilitating Epstein's illegal activities by maintaining his accounts and providing financial services, despite knowing about his criminal conduct. The motion asserts that the bank ignored numerous red flags and allowed Epstein to conduct transactions that supported his sex trafficking operation.The USVI contends that JPMorgan's actions or lack thereof contributed significantly to the harm caused by Epstein and his network. The motion further emphasizes that the lawsuit is valid and should proceed, as it seeks to hold the bank accountable for its alleged complicity in Epstein's activities, despite JPMorgan's efforts to dismiss the case. The USVI aims to prove that the bank's involvement goes beyond mere negligence, arguing that it knowingly benefited from its relationship with Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.48.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

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

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

Even after his 2008 conviction and infamous plea deal, Jeffrey Epstein remained undeterred—continuing to lure minors to his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Lawsuits filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General allege that Epstein trafficked girls as young as 12 to Little Saint James as recently as 2018, using deceptive promises of jobs, education, and money to ensnare them. This wasn't a residual crime—it was active, methodical exploitation that spanned well into the era when he was a registered sex offender and should have been cut off entirely.What's more infuriating is how systemic this was—despite being a known predator, Epstein's abuses persisted up to the brink of his arrest. Surveillance data later revealed that nearly 200 mobile devices visited his so‑called “pedophile island” between 2016 and 2019, underscoring that his elite network, and the trafficking operation on his island, remained in full swing. These weren't the isolated misdeeds of an untouchable man—they were the consequences of unchecked power and corruption that allowed an incarcerated predator to keep committing atrocities until he was finally arrested.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jeffrey-epstein-suicide-victims-girls-virgin-islands-lawsuit-trafficking-a9285536.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

In July 2024, Delegate Stacey Plaskett filed a lawsuit under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the attorney representing six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. Plaskett argued that the amended lawsuit against her was frivolously filed, lacked any factual or legal foundation, and was intended to harass rather than pursue a legitimate legal claim. She sought sanctions to penalize and deter what she viewed as a baseless and politically motivated suit.However, the court denied her Rule 11 motion, concluding that the survivors' filing was neither frivolous nor made for improper purposes. The ruling underscored that the suit was grounded in sufficient factual and legal claims, and that the plaintiffs' allegations merited judicial consideration rather than sanctions. In essence, the denial affirmed that the litigation could proceed on substantive grounds.Also....In the released segment of her May 9, 2023 deposition, Stacey Plaskett was pressed on her awareness of Jeffrey Epstein's role in the Virgin Islands and the extent of his influence with local officials and institutions. The questioning focused on whether she had knowledge of Epstein's financial relationships, his political donations, or his contacts with Virgin Islands leadership during the period when he was operating in the territory. Plaskett largely distanced herself from Epstein, stating that she had no direct involvement with him and little knowledge of his activities beyond what was publicly known.Attorneys also asked Plaskett about government oversight, her interactions with agencies connected to Epstein's business holdings, and whether she had ever received benefits, contributions, or favors traceable to Epstein or his companies. In the available transcript, she denied having such connections and emphasized that she was not involved in decisions related to Epstein's finances or residency. While limited to roughly 25 pages, the deposition underscores how central Virgin Islands political figures were to JPMorgan's defense and the USVI's allegations—whether officials ignored red flags about Epstein or knowingly permitted him to operate.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

In 2011, court filings from JPMorgan revealed that Jeffrey Epstein—already a registered sex offender—paid a $25,000 tuition bill at Skidmore College for one of Cecile de Jongh's children, upon her direct request via email subject‑lined “Please approve.” This was no act of charity; this was influence-peddling in plain sight. At the same time, de Jongh was coordinating policy to benefit Epstein, soliciting his input on softening a sex‑offender law to allow him freer movement within the territory. By drawing up legislation that Epstein could personally exploit while cashing in on his largesse, de Jongh blurred the line between public service and private profiteering.Moreover, the tuition payment fits into a broader pattern of de Jongh being Epstein's political and logistical conduit in the U.S. Virgin Islands. JPMorgan labeled her as his “primary conduit for spreading money and influence” within the territory, citing other ways she facilitated his trafficking network—from arranging visas to crafting cover‑class schemes.^1 The tuition bill is far less an isolated favor and far more an emblem of how Epstein weaponized connections with public officials to shield his abuse. De Jongh's actions weren't innocent oversights—they were integral to maintaining a corrupt system of protection and impunity.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein had close ties to U.S. Virgin Islands First Family | FortuneBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

The Government of the United States Virgin Islands, through its Attorney General, filed a civil complaint against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, his 1953 Trust, and several affiliated companies including Plan D, LLC, Great St. Jim, LLC, Nautilus, Inc., Hyperion Air, LLC, and Poplar, Inc., along with unnamed John and Jane Doe defendants. The lawsuit was brought in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, seeking damages and demanding a jury trial. The filing emphasizes the Attorney General's authority to protect the public interest, safety, and well-being of residents under Virgin Islands law.The action highlights the government's effort to hold Epstein's estate and business entities accountable for alleged violations of Virgin Islands statutes tied to his criminal enterprise. By targeting the estate and related shell companies, the complaint seeks to recover damages and address the systemic abuse and misconduct that Epstein was able to perpetuate within the territory.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Government of the United States Virgin Islands, through its Attorney General, filed a civil complaint against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, his 1953 Trust, and several affiliated companies including Plan D, LLC, Great St. Jim, LLC, Nautilus, Inc., Hyperion Air, LLC, and Poplar, Inc., along with unnamed John and Jane Doe defendants. The lawsuit was brought in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, seeking damages and demanding a jury trial. The filing emphasizes the Attorney General's authority to protect the public interest, safety, and well-being of residents under Virgin Islands law.The action highlights the government's effort to hold Epstein's estate and business entities accountable for alleged violations of Virgin Islands statutes tied to his criminal enterprise. By targeting the estate and related shell companies, the complaint seeks to recover damages and address the systemic abuse and misconduct that Epstein was able to perpetuate within the territory.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Government of the United States Virgin Islands, through its Attorney General, filed a civil complaint against the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, his 1953 Trust, and several affiliated companies including Plan D, LLC, Great St. Jim, LLC, Nautilus, Inc., Hyperion Air, LLC, and Poplar, Inc., along with unnamed John and Jane Doe defendants. The lawsuit was brought in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, seeking damages and demanding a jury trial. The filing emphasizes the Attorney General's authority to protect the public interest, safety, and well-being of residents under Virgin Islands law.The action highlights the government's effort to hold Epstein's estate and business entities accountable for alleged violations of Virgin Islands statutes tied to his criminal enterprise. By targeting the estate and related shell companies, the complaint seeks to recover damages and address the systemic abuse and misconduct that Epstein was able to perpetuate within the territory.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:GVI v Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein Et Al - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

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

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

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

As the lawsuit between the Epstein survivors and the USVI continues to take shape, we are getting a few hints about which way things are headed, especially considering that the USVI and their motion to dismiss has been denied, and they have now been hit with a second amended complaint.   Not only that, but they've been ordered by the Judge to respond.  In this episode, we take a trip back down to the USVI to get an update on the latest back and forth and to see where things currently stand with the lawsuit. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Amended Complaint Alleges V.I. Officials Conspired with Epstein for Financial Gain | St. Thomas Source (stthomassource.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In its lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase alleging the bank facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) sought to subpoena billionaire Les Wexner—Epstein's longtime client and former financier. Prosecutors tried at least seven times to serve Wexner in person at both his home and office, but each attempt was thwarted by his security detail and staff. Because personal service repeatedly failed, the USVI asked a Manhattan federal judge for permission to serve the subpoena via certified mail insteadIn February 2023, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff ruled that Wexner could indeed be served by certified mail, legally clearing the path for the USVI to pursue his testimony about his relationship with Epstein and payments made through entities tied to Epstein, such as “Enhanced Education,” which transferred around $124,232 to Wexner via JPMorganto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Legal filing describes Wexner effort to avoid subpoena in Epstein case (dispatch.com)

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)