Podcasts about Virgin Islands

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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)

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 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.

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

In 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.

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.

Send us a textThe Marshall Islands face dual threats from the legacy of U.S. nuclear testing and the advancing impacts of climate change, creating an urgent struggle for justice and survival.On this episode of Breaking Green we are going to speak with Shem Livai.Shem Livai is a Director at Marshalls Energy Company in the Marshall Islands. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Creative Leadership for Innovation and Change from the University of the Virgin Islands, he has an MBA from the University of the South Pacific, and a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Hawai‘i. Text GIVE to 17162574187 to support Breaking Green's work lifting up the voices of those protecting forests, defending human rights and exposing false solutions.Support the show

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

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)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ep. 384 Ken and Dave discuss student privacy, a self defense argument in Seattle, professors scared of exposing the truth, Trump's D.C. enforcement, a shiny new stadium for a high school, and the Alaska summit.   Introduction: Hosts Dave Roberts and Ken Pullin discuss Ken Pullin's head cold and the current state of the Braves. UK Undercover Police: A discussion unfolds about UK police utilizing undercover female officers in tight clothing to apprehend men for catcalling, raising significant questions concerning entrapment and Free Speech Rights. College Life and Sorority Rush: Ken Pullin shares his daughter's emotional sorority rush experience at Georgia Tech, noting the surprisingly high cost of joining a sorority, which was approximately $5,000. "The Boys" TV Series: The hosts analyze the latest season of "The Boys," highlighting its pronounced political leanings and a character seemingly modeled after Kandiss Taylor. Georgia Politics and the Lieutenant Governor Race: Updates on the Georgia Lieutenant Governor's race, including David Clark's announcement to run, and a strategic discussion on how candidates aim to raise substantial funds and gain name recognition, referencing Brad Raffensperger's previous campaign tactics. Nobel Peace Prize for Trump?: Hillary Clinton's surprising statement that she would nominate Donald Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize if he successfully negotiates a peace deal with Russia that does not involve Ukraine ceding territory. Hurricane Erin: A forecast for Hurricane Erin, expected to affect the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico before turning north, potentially reaching a Category 5 strength. Voting Records and Derek Dooley: A critical examination of Derek Dooley's sporadic voting record over two decades, which sparks a debate between the obligation to vote versus the right not to vote. Sports Broadcasting Blunder: WC (Savannah) displayed a major typo for Falcons' starting quarterback, Michael Penix, accidentally spelling his name as "Michael Penis" during a preseason game. Student Privacy and School Devices: An Arizona high school is facing a lawsuit after suspending a student for typing a threat on a school-provided Chromebook, which monitored keystrokes, even though the threat was never sent, prompting questions about student privacy on school devices. Self-Defense in Seattle: A one-legged Navy veteran was shot in Seattle after being accosted and accused of "stolen valor," leading to a detailed discussion on self-defense laws and the concept of "stand your ground." Public Syllabuses in Georgia: Georgia professors express apprehension regarding a new Board of Regents policy that mandates public syllabuses to be available online, fearing potential backlash over controversial course content. DC Takeover: Analysis of Donald Trump's temporary activation of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., and administrative adjustments to the DC police department, with hosts noting the unrealistic portrayals by various news outlets regarding the city's safety. Buford High School Stadium: Astonishment over Buford, Georgia's new $62 million, 10,000-seat high school football stadium, which includes luxury suites and a large video board, prompting questions about local funding priorities. Air Travel News: Spirit Airlines' Dire Outlook: The CEO of Spirit Airlines indicates the company has less than a year remaining if current conditions persist, with past merger attempts having been blocked. TSA Family-Friendly Lines: The TSA is introducing new family-friendly security lines for travelers with children under 12, starting in Orlando (MCO), to streamline the security process. ATL Van Fire: A van caught fire at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport's South Terminal, causing minimal disruption. Air Canada Strike: Air Canada flight attendants are on strike, demanding improved pay, resulting in hundreds of thousands of stranded travelers. Nanny's Flight Ordeal: A nanny's viral account of severe food poisoning on a United flight, which led to the aircraft being taken out of service for a hazmat cleanup. "Mule of the Week": Laura Loomer is named "Mule of the Week" for her controversial statements, including questioning a Medal of Honor recipient's American birth and making a bizarre comment about Marjorie Taylor Green. Trump-Putin Summit: Details and subtle diplomatic signals from the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, including a stealth bomber flyover and Putin's reference to Ukrainians as "brothers."

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

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

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

Today we're tracking powerful Hurricane Erin as it passes north of the Virgin Islands.  Behind Erin, we now have Disturbance 2 in the southern Atlantic and Disturbance 1 in the northern Atlantic.  We discuss potential impacts of Erin and the possibility of development of Disturbances 1 and 2.

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)

In March 2023, JPMorgan Chase filed a lawsuit against Jes Staley—its former head of private banking—alleging that he concealed knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse and trafficking in order to maintain Epstein as a lucrative client. The bank sought to claw back eight years' worth of compensation—potentially over $80 million—and held Staley financially accountable for any penalties stemming from lawsuits brought against JPMorgan by the U.S. Virgin Islands and an Epstein survivor known as Jane Doe 1. JPMorgan accused Staley of prioritizing his own and Epstein's interests over those of the firm, seeking punitive damages for his alleged failure to disclose key information.    A federal judge allowed the case to proceed, declining to dismiss it, which enabled JPMorgan to continue its legal push.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:JP Morgan sues former executive over claims he hid Jeffrey Epstein's sex abuse | Daily Mail OnlineBecome 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)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

AP correspondent Jennifer King reports on tropical weather headed towards the Caribbean.

AP correspondent Jennifer King reports on tropical weather threatening islands in the Caribbean.

Hey Strangers, #jeffreyepstein #ai #tech In 2002, artificial intelligence was still in winter. Despite decades of effort, dreams of bestowing computers with humanlike cognition and real-world understanding had not materialized. To look for a way forward, a small group of scientists gathered for “The St. Thomas Common Sense Symposium.” AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was the central presence, along with his protégé Pushpinder Singh. After the symposium, Minsky, Singh, and renowned philosopher Aaron Sloman published a paper on the group's ideas for how to reach humanlike AI.The paper speaks to the struggles of early-century AI. But one sentence truly stands out today. In a brief paragraph of acknowledgements, the authors say, “This meeting was made possible by the generous support of Jeffrey Epstein.” The symposium itself, in fact, was held in the Virgin Islands, home of Epstein's now-notorious island retreat. Looking back at this event reveals something about the state of AI—as well as the symposium's execrable funder.=======================================My other podcasthttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKpvBEElSl1dD72Y5gtepkw**************************************************Something Strangehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRjVc2TZqN4&t=4s**************************************************article links:https://www.wired.com/story/epstein-files-science-tech-funding/======================================Today is for push-ups and Programming and I am all done doing push-ups Discordhttps://discord.gg/MYvNgYYFxqTikTokhttps://www.tiktok.com/@strangestcoderYoutubehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe9xwdRW2D7RYwlp6pRGOvQ?sub_confirmation=1Twitchhttps://www.twitch.tv/CodingWithStrangersTwitterhttps://twitter.com/strangestcodermerchSupport CodingWithStrangers IRL by purchasing some merch. All merch purchases include an alert: https://streamlabs.com/codingwithstrangers/merchGithubFollow my works of chaos https://github.com/codingwithstrangersTipshttps://streamlabs.com/codingwithstrangers/tipPatreonhttps://www.patreon.com/TheStrangersWebullhttps://act.webull.com/vi/c8V9LvpDDs6J/uyq/inviteUs/Join this channelhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe9xwdRW2D7RYwlp6pRGOvQ/joinTimeline00:00 intro00:26 What Talking We Talking About02:34 Article11:14 My Thoughts14:01 outro anything else?Take Care--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/coding-with-strangers/message

This week: Colin's deep dive disturbing documentary reviews, Doppelgängers, dentist visits, Pedro Pascal's anxiety techniques, wild stories of "a friend of a friend", Bonnie Blue documentary, Virgin Island documentary, watching Babygirl with the fam, technology vs. the old folks, Hulk Hogan & Ozzy Osbourne, McCann's discography hookup in school & much more.Sign up to Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for access to exclusive episodes out every Thursday.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/TheBombSquadPod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow @TheBombSquadPod on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ &⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠X⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Hosted by:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Colin Geddis⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ &⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Aaron McCann⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Produced & Edited by:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Niall Fegan

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

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)

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

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

The civil complaint filed by Virginia Roberts Giuffre against Prince Andrew in 2021 alleged that he sexually abused her on multiple occasions when she was 17 years old, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking network. The lawsuit, filed in New York under the Child Victims Act, claimed that Prince Andrew knowingly engaged in sexual acts with Giuffre despite being aware that she was being trafficked by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre alleged that the abuse occurred in Epstein's New York townhouse, in London at Ghislaine Maxwell's residence, and in the Virgin Islands. The complaint painted a damning picture of a royal using his status and connections to exploit a vulnerable girl, shielded by a global web of power and silence.Prince Andrew publicly denied the allegations, claiming he had no recollection of meeting Giuffre—even though a widely circulated photo shows them together with Maxwell in the background. Rather than face a public trial and legal discovery, Andrew reached an out-of-court settlement with Giuffre in early 2022, reportedly for several million dollars, without admitting guilt. The settlement effectively ended the case but left critical questions unanswered, including whether others in Epstein's orbit facilitated or knew of the abuse. The lawsuit against Prince Andrew marked a rare instance where someone of global stature and diplomatic immunity faced direct legal consequences tied to Epstein's trafficking ring, though many critics saw the quiet settlement as another example of privilege avoiding accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Final Giuffre v. Prince Andrew Complaint v.13.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against her by a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, arguing that the claims are legally baseless and politically motivated. In her filing, Plaskett maintains that she had no involvement in Epstein's trafficking operation and that the plaintiff's allegations are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and fall outside the statute of limitations. Her legal team asserts that the lawsuit is an abuse of the judicial process, designed to smear her reputation and exploit her previous associations with the Virgin Islands government during the time Epstein operated there. Plaskett categorically denies any wrongdoing and is seeking to have the case thrown out at the earliest stage.Critics, however, argue that Plaskett's motion sidesteps the deeper issue: the survivor's claim that Plaskett's political influence may have contributed to a broader effort to shield Epstein and his network from scrutiny while he operated in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The lawsuit ties her to the failure of local and federal officials to hold Epstein accountable, citing her past connections to officials who allegedly enabled his activities. While Plaskett insists she had no direct involvement, the motion to dismiss has sparked backlash from advocates who believe public figures with proximity to Epstein's orbit should be investigated rather than allowed to deflect scrutiny with procedural defenses. The case now hinges on whether the court will allow discovery or accept Plaskett's argument that the lawsuit lacks merit on its face.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a striking admission that further complicates his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, former JPMorgan Chase executive Jes Staley has acknowledged under oath that he had a sexual relationship with a woman who worked for Epstein. The revelation came during recent legal proceedings tied to the high-profile litigation brought by the U.S. Virgin Islands, which has accused JPMorgan of knowingly enabling Epstein's sex trafficking operation. Staley had previously maintained that his relationship with Epstein was strictly professional, but this admission shatters that narrative and raises new questions about his conduct during his time at the bank. The woman in question was part of Epstein's staff, and while Staley insists the relationship was consensual and involved an adult, the disclosure underscores the murky boundaries and troubling power dynamics at play within Epstein's circle.This development places even greater scrutiny on JPMorgan, which continues to face reputational and legal fallout for its years-long financial relationship with Epstein. Internal emails between Staley and Epstein—some of which allegedly contained coded language and disturbing references—have already been introduced as evidence suggesting a far deeper connection than previously disclosed. Staley's admission may not only damage his credibility but could also strengthen claims that JPMorgan executives ignored red flags in order to maintain a lucrative client relationship. As pressure builds on institutions that facilitated Epstein's operations, Staley's testimony has become a key flashpoint in exposing how deeply entangled some of the world's most powerful financial players were in Epstein's criminal network.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ex-Barclays boss Jes Staley admits having sex with Jeffrey Epstein's employee in New York building where paedophile trafficked underage girls | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.