Podcasts about Virgin Islands

This Day in Legal History: Final Draft of the US Constitution EngrossedOn September 16, 1787, the final draft of the United States Constitution was signed by the Constitutional Convention delegates in Philadelphia. Although the official signing date was September 17, the 16th was the day the finished document was ordered to be engrossed — meaning it was written in its final, formal script on parchment. This step marked the culmination of four months of intense debate, compromise, and drafting by delegates from twelve of the thirteen original states. The Constitution replaced the failing Articles of Confederation and established a stronger federal government with distinct executive, legislative, and judicial branches.Debates on September 16 included last-minute details such as how amendments could be proposed and the extent of federal power over the militia. The delegates had already resolved key issues like the Great Compromise (creating a bicameral legislature), the Electoral College, and the Three-Fifths Compromise regarding the counting of enslaved individuals for representation. One of the final acts on the 16th was the approval of the letter that would accompany the Constitution to Congress, urging ratification by the states.Though the Constitution would still need to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states, the events of September 16 set the stage for the formal adoption the following day. The engrossed copy would be signed on September 17 and later become the foundation of American law and governance.Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor and daughter of ex-FBI Director James Comey, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over her sudden termination in July. She alleges that her firing was politically motivated, stemming from her father's adversarial relationship with Donald Trump. The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, names both the Justice Department and the Executive Office of the President as defendants and claims Comey was given no reason for her dismissal. According to the suit, Comey had received strong performance evaluations, including one in April signed by Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.Comey had played key roles in high-profile prosecutions, including the sex trafficking case against Ghislaine Maxwell and the recent conviction of Sean “Diddy” Combs on prostitution-related charges. She was fired just two weeks after the Combs trial ended. The email she received from DOJ human resources cited presidential authority under Article II but offered no specific explanation. When she asked Clayton about the decision, he allegedly said, “All I can say is it came from Washington.”The lawsuit challenges the administration's ability to remove career, non-political prosecutors and raises concerns about politicization of the Justice Department, particularly in cases involving Trump or his allies.Former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey sues Trump administration over firing | ReutersElon Musk's company X Corp has settled a trademark dispute with legal marketing firm X Social Media over the use of the “X” name. The case, filed in Florida federal court in October 2023, stemmed from Musk's rebranding of Twitter to X, which X Social Media claimed caused consumer confusion and financial harm. As part of the resolution, both parties asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be reopened. The founder of X Social Media, Jacob Malherbe, confirmed the settlement and announced the company will now operate under the name Mass Tort Ad Agency.The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and X Corp did not issue a comment. The lawsuit was one of several Musk's company has faced over the “X” name, which is widely used and trademarked by numerous businesses, including Microsoft and Meta. In its defense, X Corp argued that many companies have long coexisted with similar “X” trademarks and accused X Social Media of trying to exploit the situation for profit. This settlement follows another earlier agreement in which X Corp resolved a separate trademark claim brought by the firm Multiply.The dismissal brings closure to a case that raised questions about branding overlap and trademark dilution in an increasingly crowded digital landscape.Musk's X Corp settles mass-tort ad agency's trademark lawsuit over 'X' name | ReutersTwo U.S. law firms, Bartlit Beck and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, are requesting $85 million in legal fees after securing a $700 million settlement with Google over alleged antitrust violations tied to its Play Store. The settlement, which is still pending approval by U.S. District Judge James Donato, resolves claims that Google overcharged Android users by restricting app distribution and imposing excessive in-app transaction fees. Under the agreement, $630 million will go to a consumer fund, with another $70 million allocated to a state-managed fund shared by all 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.Consumers are expected to receive a minimum of $2, with additional compensation based on their Play Store spending from August 2016 to September 2023. Google also agreed to ease restrictions on app developers, allowing them to inform users about alternative payment methods and enabling easier direct app downloads from the web. The fee request amounts to approximately 13.5% of the consumer settlement fund, and the firms say they invested nearly 100,000 hours over more than three years.While Judge Donato previously raised concerns about the scope of the deal, no U.S. state has objected to the fee request so far. Google has not admitted any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, and users will still have the opportunity to raise objections before final approval.Lawyers behind $700 million Google settlement ask for $85 million fee award | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Norway's recent national election, which effectively became a referendum on one of the last remaining wealth taxes in Europe. Despite having a $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund and no immediate fiscal need for a wealth tax, Norwegians narrowly backed the Labour Party, signaling that voters still care about fairness in taxation—even when the government doesn't need the money. In a global landscape where wealth taxes have mostly disappeared, this was a small but potent victory for the principle of equity.I argued that this matters beyond Norway. Wealth taxes used to be common across Europe, but most were abandoned due to fears of capital flight and elite lobbying. That Norway held the line—even amid billionaire threats and a populist surge—suggests that wealth taxes can survive politically when fairness becomes a central electoral value. It also underscores that symbolic wins can shape broader policy debates by proving what's administratively and politically possible.In the U.S., we lack Norway's fiscal cushion, yet we've persistently avoided taxing wealth. Policymakers often justify this inaction with fears about capital mobility, but I question whether we're really more vulnerable to capital flight than Norway is. The deeper issue is political will. Americans have long treated wealth taxation as politically toxic and bureaucratically unworkable, but that may be more a product of narrative than necessity.Norway's voters showed that fairness can be enough to win—even narrowly. But I emphasize that such policies require ongoing public defense; they don't sustain themselves. If we continue dodging the issue in the U.S., we'll be doing so not from a place of strength, but from a place of illusion. If Norway can defend taxing wealth despite not needing to, we have no excuse not to even try.Norway Wealth Tax Victory Shows Visible Fairness Still Matters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Leon Black, CEO of Apollo Global Management, wrote to his investors expressing regret over his past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but he strongly denied wrongdoing or any inappropriate conduct. Black acknowledged that he transferred between $50 million and $75 million to Epstein as far back as 2008, and detailed that Epstein provided professional services to Black's family partnership — services such as estate planning, tax advice, and philanthropic consulting.Black insisted that all of his dealings with Epstein were in a personal capacity and that Apollo itself did not conduct business with Epstein. He said he was “completely unaware” of, and appalled by, the wrongdoing revealed in late 2018 that led to the criminal charges against Epstein. He also pledged to cooperate with ongoing investigations, including that by the U.S. Virgin Islands, while maintaining that none of the conduct was illegal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-jeffrey-epstein-apollo-global/apollo-ceo-black-says-he-regrets-ties-to-epstein-denies-any-wrongdoing-idUSKBN26X2PDThe letter:https://www.axios.com/leon-black-jeffrey-epstein-0eff63bd-6549-4c03-a93a-bb99766dcade.htmlBecome 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.

Today in the interrogation chair is bestselling author Lisa Towles and her new techno thriller, SWITCH. Find out about Lisa's experience working in California's tech industry, her super fun research in the Virgin Islands, and how somebody's going to come looking for her Internet search history because of what's in it (spy stuff!). Welcome to The Writer's Dossier Podcast! lisatowles.com | thewritersdossier.com | Voice credit: Hillary Huber Check out the trailer Lisa made for SWITCH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKXGS2CCgwY Lisa Towles on YouTube with Story Impact: https://www.youtube.com/@lisatowlescrimenovelist7172

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.

In this episode of Sailing and Cruising the East Coast of the United States, Bela Musits and co-host Mike Wasserman welcome Robert Sweet — a sailor with an unconventional beginning. Robert lives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, far from the ocean. Yet his passion for sailing grew steadily, from childhood outings on a 19-foot O'Day Day Sailer to charting trips in the Virgin Islands.Bela and Robert dive into the unique challenges and rewards of becoming a boat owner later in life. Robert shares how he and his wife — both in their 60s — transitioned from occasional day sails on vacation to seriously planning for boat ownership. Their journey began with modest sailing experiences with the occasional skippered day sail. Over decades, the idea of owning a boat evolved from a casual dream into a concrete goal.To prepare, Robert and his wife booked progressively more immersive sailing experiences. They spent a night aboard a sailboat on Puget Sound, completed ASA 101 and 103 courses in San Diego, and tested overnight stays in various harbors. Each step helped fill gaps in their knowledge.The couple planned two key charters to shape their buying decisions: a three-day trip in the Florida Keys aboard a heavy, blue-water center-cockpit boat, and a week in the Virgin Islands on a modern production cruiser — a Jeanneau Sun Odyssey. Their goal was to compare styles, comfort, and performance before committing to a purchase.But as often happens, life intervened. The Florida Keys trip was postponed three times — first by Robert's mountain biking injury, then by his wife's back surgery, and finally by scheduling changes. Eventually, they made the Keys trip in December, followed by the Virgin Islands charter over Easter.During the downtime, Robert immersed himself in research — online articles, boat buying guides, and, crucially, sailing podcasts. He discovered Bela's show and was struck by the host's perspective as an “older buyer.” Unlike the typical narrative of a 30-year-old dropping everything to sail away, Bela's discussions addressed the practical realities of starting serious sailing later in life: ergonomics, safety, injury prevention, and choosing a boat suited to physical comfort.Robert emphasizes that boat accessibility is a real concern. Newer boats often have higher freeboards, making boarding a challenge — especially for shorter crew members. Testing boarding methods became part of their evaluation process when visiting marinas and inspecting potential boats.Robert's story is a reminder that you don't have to grow up near the sea to become a competent and passionate sailor. His methodical approach — gaining experience in varied conditions, learning boat systems, and realistically assessing personal capabilities — offers valuable lessons for anyone considering buying a boat later in life.Key Topics Covered in This Episode:Growing up sailing small boats and rediscovering the sport decades laterTransitioning from day sails to overnight trips and multi-day chartersTaking ASA sailing courses to build confidence and competenceComparing blue-water cruisers vs. modern production boatsOvercoming physical and logistical challenges as older sailorsHow to evaluate boarding ease, cockpit layout, and overall ergonomicsThe importance of testing boats in different sailing locations and conditionsWhether you're an experienced sailor, a dreamer still waiting to cast off, or someone returning to sailing after many years, Robert's journey proves that passion and persistence can bridge the gap between landlocked life and cruising the Bahamas.Connect With Us:If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and leave a review—it helps us reach more sailing enthusiasts like you!  Send us your comments and suggestions. sailingtheeast@gmail.comHappy Sailing!Bela and Mike

Jeffrey Epstein's offshore financial dealings were exposed in part through the Paradise Papers, which revealed his role as chairman of Liquid Funding Ltd., a Bermuda-registered company linked to Bear Stearns. The law firm Appleby, which administered Liquid Funding, operated across multiple tax havens, including the British Virgin Islands, and this connection often creates confusion about Epstein's financial footprint there. While Appleby's BVI presence meant that its clients could easily incorporate or shift assets through that jurisdiction, available records show Epstein's personal offshore entities were tied more directly to Bermuda and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he established companies like Financial Trust Company and Southern Trust.The BVI does not appear as a core base of Epstein's corporate structures in the released data, but it factored into the broader offshore web through Appleby's extensive operations in the territory. In other words, Epstein's name emerges in the same investigative files that highlight BVI corruption and secrecy issues, but his direct offshore holdings were anchored elsewhere. The overlap underscores how tightly interwoven these secrecy jurisdictions are, with Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and the British Virgin Islands all serving as nodes in the same shadow financial system that Epstein exploited.To contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/british-virgin-islands-corruption-scandal-threatens-its-dependable-tax-haven-reputation/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Juliette Bryant, a South African model, asserts that Epstein began targeting her in 2002 when she was just 20 years old, under the guise of launching her modeling career after being introduced to him by an industry contact. She claims that Epstein trafficked her across multiple locations—New York, the U.S. Virgin Islands (including Little Saint James), Paris, and his New Mexico properties—where she was subjected to repeated sexual abuse, at times reportedly up to three times per day. Bryant describes being trapped in confined, fear-inducing environments, isolated on the island, coerced into nude photo sessions, and psychologically manipulated through emotional control and explicit threats—all with the assistance of Ghislaine MaxwellAdditionally, Bryant has publicly stated that her name was omitted from Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs, despite her presence on his private planes. She contends that this intentional exclusion served to erase her presence from official records and obscure her trafficking, effectively leaving her disappearance unnoticed if she had gone missing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10672663/Epstein-victim-reveals-island-like-factory-raped-three-times-day.html

Juliette Bryant, a South African model, asserts that Epstein began targeting her in 2002 when she was just 20 years old, under the guise of launching her modeling career after being introduced to him by an industry contact. She claims that Epstein trafficked her across multiple locations—New York, the U.S. Virgin Islands (including Little Saint James), Paris, and his New Mexico properties—where she was subjected to repeated sexual abuse, at times reportedly up to three times per day. Bryant describes being trapped in confined, fear-inducing environments, isolated on the island, coerced into nude photo sessions, and psychologically manipulated through emotional control and explicit threats—all with the assistance of Ghislaine MaxwellAdditionally, Bryant has publicly stated that her name was omitted from Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs, despite her presence on his private planes. She contends that this intentional exclusion served to erase her presence from official records and obscure her trafficking, effectively leaving her disappearance unnoticed if she had gone missing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10672663/Epstein-victim-reveals-island-like-factory-raped-three-times-day.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In March 2022, the Jeffrey Epstein estate officially put both Little St. James and Great St. James in the U.S. Virgin Islands on the market with a combined asking price of $125 million. Media outlets including the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, ABC News, Business Insider, and Boston.com all reported the listing. The islands—epicenters of Epstein's alleged sex trafficking—were listed through Bespoke Real Estate and other high‑end agencies, with estate representatives confirming that proceeds were intended to help resolve outstanding lawsuits and cover estate-related expenses.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeffrey-epsteins-private-islands-in-the-caribbean-to-list-for-125-million-11647998425Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Speaking across the decades from the 1970s to the 2010s, Ram Dass shares his wisdom on the importance of resting in awareness. Ram Dass Here & Now is brought to you by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/ramdass and get on your way to being your best self.The Ram Dass community gathers regularly to engage in meaningful discussions about the podcast. We invite you to join us and share your curiosities, insights, and wisdom. Sign up for the General Fellowship to receive event invitations directly in your inbox.This episode of Here and Now is a compilation of Ram Dass discussing the concept of resting in awareness throughout the decades. We begin in Washington, D.C., in 1976, with Ram Dass exploring being in harmony with the Tao, the Way of things, and how awareness and love are really the same thing. “When you are aware without clinging,” he says, ‘And in harmony with all of the forces, you are no longer in time.” We move on to 1985, with Ram Dass meditating on the qualities of awareness. These are qualities such as spaciousness, equanimity, and love. He encourages us to become instruments of light, love, and presence. “Just allow your awareness to expand, to embrace everything you hear or feel or think.” The next stop is the Virgin Islands in 1995, with Ram Dass comparing awareness to the sky. The clouds in the sky are simply the passing phenomena of life. “Your whole concept of who you think you are,” he says, “All the stuff of ‘me' is all the cloud. And the cloud is being appreciated or embraced or carried by the sky. The sky is just awareness.” Finally, we end in Maui in 2016, when Ram Dass had learned how to completely rest in his loving awareness. He guides a meditation to connect us to the space of loving awareness, where we can all go for a swim in the ocean of love. You can support this podcast, listen to episodes AD-FREE, and receive regular guided meditations from Ram Dass & Friends on our Patreon. Sign up for a free 7-day trial: patreon.com/RamDassPodcastAbout Ram Dass:Ram Dass's spirit has been a guiding light for generations, carrying millions along on the journey. Ram Dass teaches that through the Bhakti practice of unconditional love, we can all connect with our true nature. Through these teachings, Ram Dass has shared a little piece of his guru, Maharaj-ji, with all who have listened to him. Learn more about Ram Dass, his teachings, and more at ramdass.org.“I would say my life is about awareness. And becoming or being aware. Because becoming's already a trip in the cloud. ‘I'm getting aware.' It's another one. ‘I'm washing dishes, now I'm getting aware.' It's just another trip, it's another thing you're doing. So, I'd say my life is resting in awareness. And into the awareness come phenomena.” – Ram DassSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Therapist, author, and poet RAVINA shares her homecoming journey of healing from intimate partner abuse. RAVINA is a South Asian bestselling author, spoken word artist & licensed therapist, based in Long Beach CA. Her specialization and passion lies in trauma treatment for individuals of marginalized identities, and communities of color facing trauma caused by oppression and systemic violence. RAVINA was born and raised in St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. YELLOW is her collection of poetry published by World Stage Press & recipient of the Long Beach Best Poetry Collection of 2021. RAVINA is a Pushcart Prize Nominee and has performed poetry on nationally and internationally acclaimed stages including the United Nations, and the House of Blues. RAVINA is a performing spoken word artist with the collective Long Beach NeverSpeak!She is the founding director of WAHLA (Writing As Healing Los Angeles) - an award winning workshop and series that honors the intersection of creative writing, expression, and mental health. To learn more about our guest go to https://www.ravinacreative.com/ Intro and outro by Joy Jones. After you listen, don't forget to like, subscribe, and share. More about Dr. Thema can be found at www.drthema.com

In this episode, Mardi Winder-Adams is joined by Anisa Palmer, whose life and work offer insight into the power of service, resilience, and purpose in the face of significant adversity. Anisa shares the path that led her to become a combat veteran, author, and dedicated social impact leader, with a special focus on health equity for underserved communities. Drawing inspiration from her father's entrepreneurial compassion and her mother's dedication to serving others even during her battle with breast cancer, Anisa learned early on the importance of connecting with and uplifting those around her.After two tours in Iraq, Anisa felt called to serve in a new way, driven by personal experiences that echoed her mother's influence during her deployment. The loss of her mother to breast cancer at just 38 shaped Anisa's mission, leading her to found I Will Survive, Inc. The organization started by providing a listening ear. It evolved to address the broader needs of cancer survivors and their families, offering everything from food and rental assistance to transportation and crucial mental health resources. Anisa shares information on the mentoring programs and partnerships that help entire families, acknowledging the ripple effect of a cancer diagnosis on loved ones and caregivers.Through the discussion, Anisa highlights how finding purpose during life's lowest moments can spark personal transformation. She recounts guiding clients through dark times by helping them visualize a life beyond their diagnosis, and she is candid about her own journey through postpartum struggles and divorce. Anisa emphasizes the importance of accessible support, healthy lifestyle choices, and the small steps that foster long-term well-being.About the Guest:Anisa Palmer is a combat veteran, author, and social impact leader dedicated to health equity and community empowerment. Born in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, she served two tours in Iraq before founding the nonprofit I Will Survive, Inc. in 2010, inspired by the loss of her mother to breast cancer. Based in Atlanta, her organization provides economic support, prevention education, and wellness services to those affected by breast cancer. Anisa holds a B.A. in Speech Communications from Georgia State University and an MPA from the University of Central Florida, focusing on nonprofit management and public health. She is also the CEO of Palmer Firm Group, a veteran-owned consultancy offering coaching and nonprofit strategy.For more information on how to support survivors directly or join our mission to provide wellness kits, emergency funding, and mental health services:https://www.iwillsurviveinc.org/donate https://www.youtube.com/IWillSurviveChannelTo connect with Anisa: Organization Website: https://www.iwillsurviveinc.org Firm Website: https://www.palmerfirmgroup.comBooks by Anisa Palmer: Purpose: The Ultimate Climax https://www.amazon.com/Purpose-Ultimate-Climax-Guide-Finding/dp/1702351017 Nonprofit Success Blueprint: https://www.amazon.com/Purpose-Ultimate-Climax-Guide-Finding/dp/1702351017LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anisapalmerFacebook Group: I Will Survive, Inc. https://www.facebook.com/iwillsurviveincPage YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/IWillSurviveChannelAbout the Host: Mardi Winder-Adams is an ICF and BCC Executive and Leadership Coach, Certified Divorce Transition Coach, Certified Divorce Specialist (CDS®) and a Credentialed Distinguished Mediator in Texas. She has worked with women in executive, entrepreneur, and leadership roles, navigating personal, life, and professional transitions. She is the founder of Positive Communication Systems, LLC, and host of Real Divorce Talks, a quarterly series designed to provide education and inspiration to women at all stages of divorce. Are you interested in learning more about...

Part 2 - Neil Canton, executive director of the Boys and Girls Clubs of the Virgin Islands joins guest host Kamila Russell.

Have you ever locked your partner up in chastity?Did you even know you could?Get ready for "Locktober!" We reveal all (perhaps even a little too much) on this edition of Turned On With Sue & John!Also this week:- Mood killers. - how to fix it. - Tips to avoid "whiskey dick."- Swinging - But only for the attractive. (We call BS)- How to hook up like a narcissist only with integrity. - Flirting like a pro- the handbook - Is Saint John NB (Canada) one of the best kept sex destinations?- Hobo-sexual. Is your partner getting sexier at rent time? - Can you get a sex education from Virgin Island? - And this week's Nookie Nugget: The pompoirPlus your kinky confessions, your questions for Sue and more hot talk from your Community College For Nookie Knowledge!Our sponsors: www.edenfantasys.comOur website: www.turnedonpodcast.comSpecial mentions to: Goddess Aaliyah Saint John NB (find Her on leolist.cc) and Mistress Ilsa Von Diamond Montreal (https://www.instagram.com/ilsa_von_diamond/?hl=en)

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.

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.

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)

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​.(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.

In 2023, JPMorgan Chase paid nearly $365 million in settlements tied to Jeffrey Epstein—$290 million to survivors of his abuse and another $75 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands, which accused the bank of enabling his trafficking operations. Survivors argued the bank ignored glaring red flags while continuing to profit from Epstein as a client. These settlements provided financial compensation but allowed JPMorgan to resolve the cases without admitting wrongdoing or exposing itself to deeper legal liability.What was expected after such payouts—sweeping institutional reform, regulatory overhauls, or real accountability—never materialized. JPMorgan treated the settlements as a cost of doing business, and because the sums were small relative to its vast revenues, the financial and reputational damage was limited. No new compliance mandates were imposed, no executives faced consequences, and the systemic issues that allowed Epstein to operate remained largely untouched. The money changed hands, but the reckoning never came.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:JPMorgan's Epstein settlement will change how all banks act (afr.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leon Black's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein stands as one of the most damning scandals to come out of the financier's world. Despite Epstein's 2008 conviction as a sex offender, Black—billionaire co-founder of Apollo Global Management—paid him over $170 million for what he later called “tax and estate planning.” Those claims collapsed under scrutiny, especially after Senator Ron Wyden's Finance Committee investigation revealed the true scale of the payments and raised questions about whether they were legitimate services or hush money. Black's evasions, his refusal to provide documentation, and his settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands for $62.5 million only deepened suspicions.What emerges is not a story of poor judgment, but of complicity. Black was not Epstein's victim—he was his lifeline, bankrolling him long after his downfall and sustaining his influence in elite circles. The lawsuits accusing Black of sexual assault, coupled with his forced resignation from Apollo, cemented his fall. Yet he remains untouched by criminal charges, shielded by wealth and the systemic failures of regulators, banks, and cultural institutions. Leon Black's legacy is not one of brilliance on Wall Street but of disgrace: the billionaire who bankrolled a predator and never gave the world an honest explanation why.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein weaponized the art world to mask where his money came from and where it went. Art's notoriously opaque valuation and backdoor transactions suited him perfectly: he shifted massive sums under the cloak of legitimacy, trading artworks, exploiting intermediaries, and leveraging galleries and auction houses to transfer illicit funds. This wasn't fringe behavior—it was a deliberate choice by a predator with deep pockets to exploit a system built on secrecy and prestige, not accountability. His dealings weren't merely eccentric collector moves—they were a calculated financial camouflage.At the same time, the legal and regulatory responses around Epstein's art dealings reveal the art market's structural vulnerabilities. Major auction houses like Christie's and Sotheby's were compelled in a 2020 civil suit from the U.S. Virgin Islands to produce decades of documents relating to Epstein's art transactions—demonstrating how little their oversight safeguarded against abuse. More recently, investigations have spotlighted Epstein's role in facilitating billionaire art collector Leon Black's tax avoidance in eight-figure deals, raising questions in the upper echelon of the art-wealth nexusto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://news.artnet.com/art-world/pandora-papers-art-shell-companies-2067444Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Leon Black's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein stands as one of the most damning scandals to come out of the financier's world. Despite Epstein's 2008 conviction as a sex offender, Black—billionaire co-founder of Apollo Global Management—paid him over $170 million for what he later called “tax and estate planning.” Those claims collapsed under scrutiny, especially after Senator Ron Wyden's Finance Committee investigation revealed the true scale of the payments and raised questions about whether they were legitimate services or hush money. Black's evasions, his refusal to provide documentation, and his settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands for $62.5 million only deepened suspicions.What emerges is not a story of poor judgment, but of complicity. Black was not Epstein's victim—he was his lifeline, bankrolling him long after his downfall and sustaining his influence in elite circles. The lawsuits accusing Black of sexual assault, coupled with his forced resignation from Apollo, cemented his fall. Yet he remains untouched by criminal charges, shielded by wealth and the systemic failures of regulators, banks, and cultural institutions. Leon Black's legacy is not one of brilliance on Wall Street but of disgrace: the billionaire who bankrolled a predator and never gave the world an honest explanation why.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this case before the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, the co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, filed a reply brief supporting their expedited motion to vacate liens placed by the Government of the Virgin Islands. The estate and its affiliated entities—including the 1953 Trust, various LLCs, and corporate holdings—are defendants in a civil action seeking damages connected to Epstein's trafficking network. The government had imposed liens on estate assets, effectively freezing large portions of Epstein's wealth, to secure potential recovery in its lawsuit.The co-executors argue in their reply brief that the liens are improper and should be lifted immediately, claiming the government has overreached its authority and is unfairly restricting the administration of the estate. They contend that the liens impede their legal responsibilities to manage and distribute assets, and that alternative legal safeguards already exist to protect the government's claims. The filing stresses urgency, pointing to potential harm caused by the restrictions, and asks the court to expedite relief by vacating the liens.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:DisplayFile.aspx (vicourts.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse have long maintained that Epstein's circle of wealthy and powerful guests were not ignorant bystanders, but willful participants in a culture of silence that enabled his crimes. They argue that Epstein's homes in New York, Palm Beach, and the Virgin Islands were not hidden dens of secrecy, but open arenas where underage girls were visible, being trafficked under the guise of “assistants” or “masseuses.” According to survivors, these guests—many of them business leaders, politicians, and celebrities—saw enough to know that something was deeply wrong. The pattern of young girls being shuttled in and out, the transactional nature of their presence, and the sheer regularity of it all made it impossible, survivors say, for anyone spending real time in Epstein's world to miss what was happening.This claim cuts to the heart of their outrage: that Epstein's network wasn't just built on his manipulations, but on the complicity of others who chose power and privilege over basic morality. Survivors have emphasized that Epstein was only able to thrive because those around him found it more convenient to look away—or worse, to participate. In their view, the illusion of ignorance served as a shield for the elite, letting them feign distance from the crimes while still reaping the benefits of Epstein's connections. The survivors' testimony paints a picture of a social ecosystem where silence was the unspoken rule, and where “not knowing” functioned as a deliberate strategy to protect reputations rather than as a plausible excuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein accusers say VIP visitors all knew what went on | Miami HeraldBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bix Weir, a former banker turned conspiracy theorist, founded the Road to Roota website and YouTube channel to expose what he claims are manipulations in the global gold, silver, and cryptocurrency markets, often delving into theories like the existence of millions—or even billions—of ounces of untapped gold hidden in restricted areas of the Grand Canyon, allegedly concealed by government entities to control the economy. Weir has also promoted the idea that former President Donald Trump is actively working to dismantle the central banking system, including the Federal Reserve, in order to restore a constitutional gold standard and end fiat currency dominance, echoing Trump's past nominations of gold standard advocates to the Fed and his public musings on the topic. These narratives sometimes intersect with broader financial scandals, such as the well-documented connections between Jeffrey Epstein and JPMorgan Chase, where the bank processed over $1 billion in transactions for the convicted sex trafficker, ignored red flags about his activities, and ultimately settled lawsuits for hundreds of millions with his victims and the U.S. Virgin Islands for enabling his operation

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, became the lone remaining defendant in a civil case filed by six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse after the court dismissed the claims against other parties. The survivors alleged that Plaskett was complicit in Epstein's sex trafficking operation, accusations that she forcefully denied. In April 2025, a second amended complaint reiterated the charges, to which Plaskett responded by filing a motion to dismiss, calling the claims baseless and defamatory. She has consistently framed the lawsuit as politically motivated and lacking in legal merit.Prior to this, in July 2024, Plaskett filed a motion under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the survivors' attorney. Rule 11 motions are designed to punish parties or lawyers for filing frivolous, unfounded, or harassing litigation. Plaskett argued that the case against her was precisely that.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.127.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

In 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

In a March 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed nearly all claims against every defendant except Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, thereby ordering the case to proceed to trial against her in her individual capacity. The court found that Plaskett's conduct—including soliciting campaign contributions from Jeffrey Epstein at his New York residence, accepting loans and political support, and approving substantial tax breaks for his businesses—created sufficient ties to New York to establish personal jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute. Consequently, Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and negligence claims against her were allowed to move forward, while related claims against other Virgin Islands officials were dismissed on jurisdictional and legal grounds.The judge also rejected the plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery, concluding they had failed to make a prima facie showing to justify it. With all other defendants out of the picture, Plaskett stands as the sole defendant facing trial in this high-profile case. The court further invited motions from both sides regarding venue transfers and potential defenses such as immunity, providing a clear path for the next legal phase.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdf

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.

Leon Black's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein stands as one of the most damning scandals to come out of the financier's world. Despite Epstein's 2008 conviction as a sex offender, Black—billionaire co-founder of Apollo Global Management—paid him over $170 million for what he later called “tax and estate planning.” Those claims collapsed under scrutiny, especially after Senator Ron Wyden's Finance Committee investigation revealed the true scale of the payments and raised questions about whether they were legitimate services or hush money. Black's evasions, his refusal to provide documentation, and his settlement with the U.S. Virgin Islands for $62.5 million only deepened suspicions.What emerges is not a story of poor judgment, but of complicity. Black was not Epstein's victim—he was his lifeline, bankrolling him long after his downfall and sustaining his influence in elite circles. The lawsuits accusing Black of sexual assault, coupled with his forced resignation from Apollo, cemented his fall. Yet he remains untouched by criminal charges, shielded by wealth and the systemic failures of regulators, banks, and cultural institutions. Leon Black's legacy is not one of brilliance on Wall Street but of disgrace: the billionaire who bankrolled a predator and never gave the world an honest explanation why.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Even in death, Jeffrey Epstein remains a spectral presence in global finance. His actions have left banks like JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank, and Barclays scrambling to defend decades of questionable client relations—as regulatory probes, lawsuits, and U.S. Virgin Islands settlements continue to reverberate. The chilling reality: Epstein's systemic influence didn't die with him. His network outlived him, and institutions complicit in his crimes are still facing the consequences—proof that financial wrongdoing can outlive the criminal itself, with reputational and monetary costs that linger, decade after decade.Yet this tangled legacy also ignited some unexpected reform. Regulators have slapped Deutsche Bank with massive fines for ignoring red flags, while JPMorgan's settlements—totaling hundreds of millions—force the bank to face human trafficking implications tied to Epstein. The fallout has inspired proposals for tougher compliance standards, better oversight of “high risk” clients, and enhanced anti-money laundering measures. It's a vivid reminder that institutional inertia can perpetuate abuse, but Epstein's exposure has also made financial gatekeepers more alert—reluctantly, and under duress.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Hiltzik: Making Epstein's banks pay for his crimes - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, became the lone remaining defendant in a civil case filed by six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse after the court dismissed the claims against other parties. The survivors alleged that Plaskett was complicit in Epstein's sex trafficking operation, accusations that she forcefully denied. In April 2025, a second amended complaint reiterated the charges, to which Plaskett responded by filing a motion to dismiss, calling the claims baseless and defamatory. She has consistently framed the lawsuit as politically motivated and lacking in legal merit.Prior to this, in July 2024, Plaskett filed a motion under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions against the survivors' attorney. Rule 11 motions are designed to punish parties or lawyers for filing frivolous, unfounded, or harassing litigation. Plaskett argued that the case against her was precisely that.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.127.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a March 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed nearly all claims against every defendant except Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, thereby ordering the case to proceed to trial against her in her individual capacity. The court found that Plaskett's conduct—including soliciting campaign contributions from Jeffrey Epstein at his New York residence, accepting loans and political support, and approving substantial tax breaks for his businesses—created sufficient ties to New York to establish personal jurisdiction under the state's long-arm statute. Consequently, Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and negligence claims against her were allowed to move forward, while related claims against other Virgin Islands officials were dismissed on jurisdictional and legal grounds.The judge also rejected the plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery, concluding they had failed to make a prima facie showing to justify it. With all other defendants out of the picture, Plaskett stands as the sole defendant facing trial in this high-profile case. The court further invited motions from both sides regarding venue transfers and potential defenses such as immunity, providing a clear path for the next legal phase.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.202.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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.

What happens when you stop chasing likes and start building real connections?Cindy Clearwater, also known as Cindy Leigh, turned her passion for island life into a thriving multi-channel business by focusing on what really works: email, authentic content, and showing up as herself.In this episode, Cindy shares how she built My St. Croix VI into a trusted travel guide, why 95% of her product sales come from her email list, and how she uses one business as a testing ground for all the others.If you've ever felt like you're spinning your wheels on social media, this conversation will remind you that consistency, personality, and email marketing are the real game-changers.If you love this show, please leave a review. Go to RateThisPodcast.com/bam and follow the simple instructions.Additional Resources:Grow your contact list with sign-up formsUse an email to grow your contact listEnable Text to Join to grow your listUsing the audience growth centerAutomatically generate a marketing campaign based on your goals (Campaign Builder)Meet Today's Guest: Cindy Clearwater of Cindy Leigh Media and My St. Croix.VI

The lawsuits stem from parallel cases in the Southern District of New York: one brought by Jane Doe on behalf of Epstein's victims and another by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, both targeting JPMorgan Chase for its alleged role in enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. JPMorgan, in turn, filed third-party claims against former executive James Edward Staley, arguing that he should bear responsibility for any liability tied to Epstein, given his close personal and professional ties to the financier. These cases became highly significant in exposing the financial networks that allegedly allowed Epstein's crimes to flourish.In response, Staley filed a motion to exclude JPMorgan Chase's proffered expert opinions, challenging the credibility and admissibility of the bank's expert witnesses. His brief sought to limit the evidence that could be used against him, aiming to weaken JPMorgan's case for shifting liability onto him. This move reflects Staley's broader defense strategy of resisting being scapegoated as the primary enabler within JPMorgan, while the bank itself faced mounting scrutiny for its role in maintaining Epstein as a client despite numerous red flags.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

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.

Coral reefs are often called the “rainforests of the sea.” They provide habitat for an incredible diversity of marine life, protect shorelines from storms, and support the livelihoods of millions of people around the world. But reefs are also among the most threatened ecosystems on Earth. Rising ocean temperatures, pollution, and coastal development all play a role in their decline—and now, research shows that something as ordinary as the sunscreen we put on at the beach could be part of the problem.Certain chemical ingredients found commonly in sunscreens have been linked to coral bleaching, genetic damage in marine species, and even harm to the tiny phytoplankton that form the base of the ocean's food chain. Some places, including Hawai‘i, have already banned these types of sunscreens in an effort to protect fragile reef ecosystems. But with labels like “reef-safe” popping up everywhere, it's not always clear what's marketing spin and what's truly safe for our oceans.To help us untangle the science and policy behind sunscreen and reef health, we're joined by Katie Day, Surfrider Foundation's Senior Manager of Science and Policy. Katie grew up on a small island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where her love for the ocean first began. With a Master's Degree in Environmental Science and Management, she brings expertise in climate policy, water quality, and habitat management. At Surfrider, she helps guide national campaigns with the latest science, leads federal advocacy efforts, and heads up the organization's annual Coastal Recreation Hill Day in Washington, D.C. Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/outdoor.minimalist.book/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.theoutdoorminimalist.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@theoutdoorminimalist⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/outdoorminimalistListener Survey: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://forms.gle/jd8UCN2LL3AQst976⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠-----------------Surfrider FoundationWebsite: https://www.surfrider.org/Reef-Safe Sunscreen Guide: https://www.surfrider.org/news/surfrider-foundations-2025-reef-friendly-sunscreen-guideInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/SurfriderFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/surfrider/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/surfrider-foundation/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/SurfriderFoundation

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)