Podcasts about usvi

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.

At the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell, the impact statements read by her victims painted a stark portrait of lifelong harm, trauma, and betrayal. They described how Maxwell's grooming and facilitation of abuse destroyed their trust in their own judgment, left them wracked with shame and guilt, and haunted them with nightmares, panic attacks, and suicidal thoughts. One victim spoke of how Maxwell “lulled” her into a false sense of safety before abuse, triggering waves of shame and anxiety for decades; others recounted how their lives were derailed, their sense of safety permanently shattered, and their voices suppressed over years of silence.The lawsuit by Epstein survivors against the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) originated from the territory's own legal efforts to hold accountable those who allegedly enabled Epstein's sex trafficking enterprise there. In January 2020, the USVI's then–Attorney General, Denise George, filed suit in the Virgin Islands Superior Court, accusing Epstein, his estate, and related entities of operating a decades-long sex trafficking conspiracy on his private islands, using a network of shell companies and concealing crimes through financial and legal maneuvers.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

At the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell, the impact statements read by her victims painted a stark portrait of lifelong harm, trauma, and betrayal. They described how Maxwell's grooming and facilitation of abuse destroyed their trust in their own judgment, left them wracked with shame and guilt, and haunted them with nightmares, panic attacks, and suicidal thoughts. One victim spoke of how Maxwell “lulled” her into a false sense of safety before abuse, triggering waves of shame and anxiety for decades; others recounted how their lives were derailed, their sense of safety permanently shattered, and their voices suppressed over years of silence.The lawsuit by Epstein survivors against the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) originated from the territory's own legal efforts to hold accountable those who allegedly enabled Epstein's sex trafficking enterprise there. In January 2020, the USVI's then–Attorney General, Denise George, filed suit in the Virgin Islands Superior Court, accusing Epstein, his estate, and related entities of operating a decades-long sex trafficking conspiracy on his private islands, using a network of shell companies and concealing crimes through financial and legal maneuvers.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Part 2 - Dr. Tai Hunte-Ceasar, Chief Medical Officer of the Virgin Islands Department of Health, joins the Table Talk with Neville James, Rocky Liburd, and Willard Tutein. Currently, the USVI is under a heat advisory, and Dr. Hunte-Ceasar recommends residents to stay hydrated. Saharan Dust is also sweeping through the area, affecting air quality, particularly for people with respiratory issues.

Former U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Denise George aggressively pursued a civil racketeering (CICO) investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's operations in the territory, focusing on how he used his private island, banks, and shell companies as part of a trafficking network. As part of that effort, she issued a wide wave of subpoenas targeting some of the most powerful players connected to Epstein's financial web, including banking giants like JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank, as well as figures tied to his estate and charitable foundations. George sought extensive records on accounts, transfers, and relationships that could demonstrate not just Epstein's individual crimes but a broader pattern of institutional complicity.The scope of her subpoenas rattled both Wall Street and political elites, because it suggested her office was building a case that Epstein had not acted alone—that there were enablers and beneficiaries. Critics allege that her firing in early 2023 by the Virgin Islands' governor, announced just days after she filed suit against JPMorgan, was directly connected to her aggressive tactics. While she is no longer in office, her investigations laid the groundwork for ongoing litigation by the Virgin Islands government, which has since extracted large settlements from banks and forced disclosures that continue to reveal how deep Epstein's financial ties ran.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Former U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Denise George aggressively pursued a civil racketeering (CICO) investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's operations in the territory, focusing on how he used his private island, banks, and shell companies as part of a trafficking network. As part of that effort, she issued a wide wave of subpoenas targeting some of the most powerful players connected to Epstein's financial web, including banking giants like JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank, as well as figures tied to his estate and charitable foundations. George sought extensive records on accounts, transfers, and relationships that could demonstrate not just Epstein's individual crimes but a broader pattern of institutional complicity.The scope of her subpoenas rattled both Wall Street and political elites, because it suggested her office was building a case that Epstein had not acted alone—that there were enablers and beneficiaries. Critics allege that her firing in early 2023 by the Virgin Islands' governor, announced just days after she filed suit against JPMorgan, was directly connected to her aggressive tactics. While she is no longer in office, her investigations laid the groundwork for ongoing litigation by the Virgin Islands government, which has since extracted large settlements from banks and forced disclosures that continue to reveal how deep Epstein's financial ties ran.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Former U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Denise George aggressively pursued a civil racketeering (CICO) investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's operations in the territory, focusing on how he used his private island, banks, and shell companies as part of a trafficking network. As part of that effort, she issued a wide wave of subpoenas targeting some of the most powerful players connected to Epstein's financial web, including banking giants like JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank, as well as figures tied to his estate and charitable foundations. George sought extensive records on accounts, transfers, and relationships that could demonstrate not just Epstein's individual crimes but a broader pattern of institutional complicity.The scope of her subpoenas rattled both Wall Street and political elites, because it suggested her office was building a case that Epstein had not acted alone—that there were enablers and beneficiaries. Critics allege that her firing in early 2023 by the Virgin Islands' governor, announced just days after she filed suit against JPMorgan, was directly connected to her aggressive tactics. While she is no longer in office, her investigations laid the groundwork for ongoing litigation by the Virgin Islands government, which has since extracted large settlements from banks and forced disclosures that continue to reveal how deep Epstein's financial ties ran.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Part 1 - Delegate to Congress Stacey Plaskett joins Neville James as residents in the USVI and other territories outside the U.S. Customs Zone are facing new shipping burdens after an Executive Order eliminated the duty-free exemption for goods valued at $800 or less. Neville James speaks with Sommer Sibilly-Brown, founder and executive director of Virgin Islands Good Food Coalition after 75% of her federal funding was cut to end farmer-assistance programs.

Jeffrey Epstein was able to secure political cover in the U.S. Virgin Islands through a combination of money, influence, and strategic alliances with elected officials. Court filings and investigative reports show that he funneled donations to politicians like Delegate Stacey Plaskett and leveraged his relationship with Cecile de Jongh, the former First Lady of the USVI, to shape local politics and policy in his favor. Epstein even enlisted de Jongh to help him track which politicians to support, while he quietly pushed for changes to sex-offender monitoring laws that would make it easier for him to move young women in and out of the territory. Despite his conviction, he continued to receive lucrative tax incentives and regulatory leniency, illustrating how deeply entrenched his influence was across the island's power structure.The cover extended beyond donations into active suppression of accountability. Former Attorney General Denise George secured a $105 million settlement from Epstein's estate and sued JPMorgan Chase for enabling his trafficking network, only to be abruptly fired shortly after filing the lawsuit. That firing, combined with legal dismissals in lawsuits alleging government complicity, reinforced suspicions that the USVI's political establishment protected Epstein for years. While Epstein used the islands as his base of operations, the government that should have policed him instead appeared to enable him, providing the façade of legitimacy that allowed his crimes to continue unchecked.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein was able to secure political cover in the U.S. Virgin Islands through a combination of money, influence, and strategic alliances with elected officials. Court filings and investigative reports show that he funneled donations to politicians like Delegate Stacey Plaskett and leveraged his relationship with Cecile de Jongh, the former First Lady of the USVI, to shape local politics and policy in his favor. Epstein even enlisted de Jongh to help him track which politicians to support, while he quietly pushed for changes to sex-offender monitoring laws that would make it easier for him to move young women in and out of the territory. Despite his conviction, he continued to receive lucrative tax incentives and regulatory leniency, illustrating how deeply entrenched his influence was across the island's power structure.The cover extended beyond donations into active suppression of accountability. Former Attorney General Denise George secured a $105 million settlement from Epstein's estate and sued JPMorgan Chase for enabling his trafficking network, only to be abruptly fired shortly after filing the lawsuit. That firing, combined with legal dismissals in lawsuits alleging government complicity, reinforced suspicions that the USVI's political establishment protected Epstein for years. While Epstein used the islands as his base of operations, the government that should have policed him instead appeared to enable him, providing the façade of legitimacy that allowed his crimes to continue unchecked.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Jeffrey Epstein was able to secure political cover in the U.S. Virgin Islands through a combination of money, influence, and strategic alliances with elected officials. Court filings and investigative reports show that he funneled donations to politicians like Delegate Stacey Plaskett and leveraged his relationship with Cecile de Jongh, the former First Lady of the USVI, to shape local politics and policy in his favor. Epstein even enlisted de Jongh to help him track which politicians to support, while he quietly pushed for changes to sex-offender monitoring laws that would make it easier for him to move young women in and out of the territory. Despite his conviction, he continued to receive lucrative tax incentives and regulatory leniency, illustrating how deeply entrenched his influence was across the island's power structure.The cover extended beyond donations into active suppression of accountability. Former Attorney General Denise George secured a $105 million settlement from Epstein's estate and sued JPMorgan Chase for enabling his trafficking network, only to be abruptly fired shortly after filing the lawsuit. That firing, combined with legal dismissals in lawsuits alleging government complicity, reinforced suspicions that the USVI's political establishment protected Epstein for years. While Epstein used the islands as his base of operations, the government that should have policed him instead appeared to enable him, providing the façade of legitimacy that allowed his crimes to continue unchecked.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​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.com

Soccer history unfolded right in our backyard as the Marshall Islands national team made its international debut at Springdale High School in Northwest Arkansas. What makes this story extraordinary isn't just the debut itself, but the remarkable spirit and progress shown by a team where nearly half the players had never competed in an official 11v11 match before. Coming primarily from futsal backgrounds, these athletes didn't merely participate; they competed with heart, hitting the post against USVI and scoring their first-ever international goals in their second match.The tournament garnered attention from soccer media giants like Men in Blazers and influential voices across social media, bringing deserved recognition to an underrepresented community in global athletics. Witnessing a nation's first-ever official soccer match is a rare privilege, something few fans ever experience. The competition, featuring teams from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos, and Ozark FC's U19s, aims to become an annual tradition in Northwest Arkansas, our very own regional international tournament.Meanwhile, the MLS Next program has launched with impressive momentum in Northwest Arkansas, attracting approximately 100 players per age group from as many as six different states. The program has united former rivals from competing high schools and clubs onto the same teams, creating an intense training environment where hard tackles and competitive spirit drive mutual improvement. Coaches have been pleasantly surprised by the technical ability and tactical awareness of the region's players, suggesting a bright future for soccer development in Northwest Arkansas. Join us next Thursday for another episode of the Pitch to Pro podcast, as we continue exploring the beautiful game's growth in unexpected places.

The Jeffrey Epstein Victims Compensation Fund has paid out over 120 million dollars to the survivors as of September of this year and only three cases remain against it. While that seems like a very large sum of money, when you look at it in context with the payout that the USVI received, things start to come into focus.In this episode, we take a look at the money paid out by the compensation fund and also at lawsuits that the estate remains embroiled in.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Over $150 Million Paid to Jeffrey Epstein Victims by His Estate | Inside EditionBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In July 2023, billionaire Leon Black, co-founder of Apollo Global Management, agreed to pay roughly $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands to resolve potential claims tied to his financial dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI had been pursuing Epstein's estate and associates for enabling or benefiting from his trafficking network, and Black was facing scrutiny over large payments made to Epstein's companies for so-called “financial advice.” The settlement gave Black immunity from criminal liability in the USVI and ended the possibility of a lawsuit there, though it did not include an admission of wrongdoing. Black has consistently said the payments were legitimate professional fees and that he had no knowledge of Epstein's crimes.The deal, however, did not put all questions to rest. Around the same time, the Senate Finance Committee, led by Senator Ron Wyden, released documents showing Black paid Epstein far more than originally known—over $150 million between 2012 and 2017—sparking deeper concerns that such vast sums may have indirectly financed Epstein's operations. The revelations intensified scrutiny not only of Black's judgment but also of whether banks and institutions involved properly flagged or investigated the transactions. While the $62 million settlement resolved matters with the Virgin Islands, it left lingering doubts about the true nature of Black's relationship with Epstein and whether full accountability was ever reached.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​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.

The Caribbean region faces significant developments including US military expansion across multiple islands for counter-narcotics operations is among the headlines highlighted. Here are other stories making Caribbean headlines. US military deploying forces in Puerto Rico, USVI, and Trinidad as part of counter-narcotics missionPuerto Rico Chamber of Commerce advocating nuclear energy and next-generation technologiesDominican Republic investing in three meteorological radars worth 350 million pesos eachMiami-based Third Horizon relaunching Anansi TV platform for Caribbean and diaspora filmsNevis promoting itself as premium film destination with new global romance feature in production Send news releases to news@pulseofthecaribbean.com. For Pulse of the Caribbean marketplace feature opportunities email biz@pulseofthecaribbean.com.Listen and subscribe to the  Pulse of the Caribbean Caribbean News Round Up for news you need to know. Send news releases and information to news@pulseofthecaribbean.com.

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.

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 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.

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 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)

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.

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-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​.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 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)

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 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.

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.

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.

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)