The OIG Report Into Jeffrey Epstein's Non Prosecution Agreement (Part 19-20) (11/1/25)

A memoir titled Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, written by Virginia Roberts Giuffre with journalist Amy Wallace, is scheduled for posthumous release on October 21, 2025, from Alfred A. Knopf (with Penguin Random House involved in audio and ebook editions). The 400‑page manuscript was completed prior to Giuffre’s death by suicide in April 2025, and she had conveyed—via an email to Wallace dated April 1—that it was her “heartfelt wish” for the book to be published regardless of the outcome. Publishers describe the memoir as an unsparing and powerful narrative of trafficking, abuse, and survival, rigorously fact-checked and legally vetted, aimed at spotlighting systemic failures in human trafficking enforcement and championing justice and awareness.Of particular note, Nobody’s Girl includes “intimate, disturbing, and heartbreaking new details” about Giuffre’s experiences with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and other high-profile individuals—including Britain's Prince Andrew. This marks her first public discussion of Andrew since their 2022 out-of-court settlement, which reportedly involved a multi-million‑dollar payment. In doing so, the memoir is expected to reignite scrutiny and media attention on the allegations Andrew has long denied, resurrecting his central role in a scandal many believed had faded from the headlines.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Prince Andrew struggling as Virginia Giuffre memoir set for release: expert | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Elo 17min

The official story has always painted Alex Acosta as the man solely responsible for Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement, but that version is designed to mislead. Acosta was a mid-level figure, a convenient scapegoat set up to absorb public outrage while the real decisions were made in Washington. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, and other senior DOJ brass were the ones who met with Epstein’s powerful legal team, signed off on the immunity clause, and ensured the deal protected not only Epstein but his co-conspirators. Acosta merely carried out orders that had already been determined above him, and when the truth started to unravel, he was offered up as the fall guy to shield the institution.The failure to subpoena everyone involved—from state prosecutors to Main Justice leadership—reveals that Congress is more interested in theater than accountability. By focusing blame on Acosta, the system preserved itself, kept survivors from the truth, and avoided admitting the uncomfortable reality that DOJ itself bent the law to protect a billionaire predator. True justice requires putting every official who touched the deal under oath, including Mukasey and Filip, to expose how the NPA was engineered. Until that happens, the scandal remains unresolved and the cover-up intact, with Acosta remembered not as the architect of Epstein’s freedom, but as the shield sacrificed to keep the powerful safe.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Elo 10min

The official story has always painted Alex Acosta as the man solely responsible for Jeffrey Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement, but that version is designed to mislead. Acosta was a mid-level figure, a convenient scapegoat set up to absorb public outrage while the real decisions were made in Washington. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, and other senior DOJ brass were the ones who met with Epstein’s powerful legal team, signed off on the immunity clause, and ensured the deal protected not only Epstein but his co-conspirators. Acosta merely carried out orders that had already been determined above him, and when the truth started to unravel, he was offered up as the fall guy to shield the institution.The failure to subpoena everyone involved—from state prosecutors to Main Justice leadership—reveals that Congress is more interested in theater than accountability. By focusing blame on Acosta, the system preserved itself, kept survivors from the truth, and avoided admitting the uncomfortable reality that DOJ itself bent the law to protect a billionaire predator. True justice requires putting every official who touched the deal under oath, including Mukasey and Filip, to expose how the NPA was engineered. Until that happens, the scandal remains unresolved and the cover-up intact, with Acosta remembered not as the architect of Epstein’s freedom, but as the shield sacrificed to keep the powerful safe.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Elo 11min

Metropolitan Police—commonly known as Scotland Yard—announced in 2019 that it would not reopen its investigation into Virginia Giuffre’s claims that she had been trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and coerced into sex with Prince Andrew in London when she was 17. Senior officials argued that the case was largely centered overseas and therefore outside their jurisdiction, effectively closing the door on UK law enforcement scrutiny. When the matter resurfaced in 2021, Scotland Yard once again dropped the investigation, sparking criticism that the decision looked less like jurisdictional caution and more like deliberate avoidance. These refusals coincided with repeated reports that Prince Andrew had not cooperated with U.S. prosecutors, raising suspicions that British institutions were ensuring the royal remained insulated from serious investigation.Critics argue that this institutional reluctance effectively shielded Prince Andrew from the consequences of his Epstein ties. Former U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman recounted that his team was stonewalled when they tried to reach the Duke of York, further fueling the belief that UK authorities deliberately protected him from accountability. While no charges were ever brought, the optics were damning: Scotland Yard’s stance, combined with Andrew’s legal evasions, created the appearance of a protective bubble that prioritized the monarchy’s image over justice for Epstein’s victims.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://knewz.com/lust-lies-spies-part-2-how-the-enormous-power-of-the-british-police-force-provided-a-protection-racket-for-prince-andrew-and-covered-up-epstein-maxwells-criminal-ente/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Elo 1h 3min

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley’s motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank’s standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Elo 30min

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley’s motion to dismiss addresses several key points:Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank’s standing and operations.The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conductto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Elo 25min

From the archives: 4-17-23Recently Idaho passed a law that legalized death by firing squad in the event that chemicals used in the cocktail given to the condemned is not available. With several high profile cases working their way through the system in Idaho, including the murder trial of Bryan Kohberger, legal experts are providing more context on the state of Idaho and their history with the death penalty.In this episode, we take a look at some of that history and hear what the experts have to say about the firing squad being utilized at some point in the future in the case of Bryan Kohberger.(commercial at 8:56)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article274244650.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Elo 15min

Gag orders, also known as prior restraint orders, are restrictions on speech or the press that are imposed by the government or the courts. The constitutionality of gag orders depends on the specific circumstances of each case and the specific restrictions imposed.In general, the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of speech and of the press, and restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny by the courts.However, under certain circumstances, the government may impose restrictions on speech in order to protect important interests, such as national security, the integrity of the judicial process, or the privacy rights of individuals.In such cases, the courts will balance the government's interests against the First Amendment rights of the speaker or the press. If the restrictions are deemed to be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of achieving the government's interest, they may be upheld as constitutional. However, if the restrictions are overly broad or unnecessarily restrictive, they may be struck down as unconstitutional.In this episode we get the decision from the supreme court who has ruled that the gag order will stay in place.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho murders: Court denies request to lift gag order in case of Bryan Kohberger, man accused of killing 4 college students - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

27 Elo 10min