Mega Edition: Johanna Sjoberg's Deposition In The Maxwell/Virginia Roberts Suit (Part 7-8) (8/4/25)

James Staley’s reply memorandum in support of his motion for summary judgment argues that he should not be held liable in the case brought by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. He asserts that there is no evidence proving his involvement in or knowledge of any alleged misconduct, specifically emphasizing that the claims lack material facts directly linking him to any fraudulent activities or conspiracies. Staley requests the court to dismiss the claims against him based on the lack of substantive evidence, arguing that the legal standards for summary judgment have been.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.332.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

19 Aug 22min

Alan Dershowitz’s comments about potentially suing Michael Cohen over statements linking him to Jeffrey Epstein reflected a defensive legal strategy aimed at protecting his reputation. Dershowitz has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection to Epstein and framed Cohen’s remarks as defamatory. By raising the prospect of a lawsuit, he positioned himself as someone seeking to challenge those statements through formal legal channels rather than allowing them to circulate unchecked. His response was characteristic of a high-profile attorney using the law as a means of addressing reputational harm in a public dispute.From a broader perspective, the episode illustrates how litigation is often employed by prominent figures facing reputational challenges tied to controversial associations. Defamation law allows individuals to pursue damages if false and harmful claims are made against them, though such cases also raise complex questions about free speech and public discourse. Dershowitz’s stance toward Cohen underscored the tension between preserving one’s reputation and navigating the fallout of being connected—directly or indirectly—to Epstein. In this sense, the situation was less about uncovering new facts regarding Epstein and more about the legal and rhetorical strategies used by those whose names surface in his orbit.(commercia at 7:36)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Alan Dershowitz Says He's Suing Michael Cohen Over Epstein Claims (thedailybeast.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

19 Aug 10min

Jeffrey Epstein’s tax returns revealed a grotesque mismatch between the punishment he received and the fortune he controlled. His filings showed that even after his 2008 “sentence,” Epstein was earning tens of millions of dollars through opaque hedge fund deals and consulting arrangements that no one could quite verify. The numbers were staggering—proof that his money machine never slowed down, even as he was supposedly a registered sex offender. Those returns underscored the absurdity of treating him like a low-level offender while he continued living like an untouchable Wall Street kingpin. Instead of being dismantled, his financial empire thrived in plain sight, a reminder that the system was designed to shield wealth, not protect victims.The deeper scandal was that Epstein’s declared income made it impossible to believe authorities were unaware of the scale of his financial operations. His tax documents weren’t the secret ledgers of an underground criminal—they were government-filed papers showing immense earnings, year after year. Yet rather than trigger investigations into where that money came from and who his clients really were, officials looked the other way. The law’s failure here was not just in letting him keep the money but in refusing to ask the obvious questions about its origins.to contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://wallstreetonparade.com/2019/07/tax-filing-suggests-child-sex-offender-jeffrey-epstein-made-his-wealth-flipping-hot-ipos-on-wall-street/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

19 Aug 36min

Jeffrey Epstein’s so-called charity was a parody of philanthropy—a glossy storefront for laundering money, buying influence, and disguising the true scope of his criminal enterprise. On paper, the foundation claimed to support science, education, and global causes. In reality, the filings showed paltry amounts actually going to legitimate charities while large sums flowed into projects that padded Epstein’s image or circled back into his own network. It was the classic predator’s playbook: slap a humanitarian label on the operation, and suddenly hedge fund cash, foreign transfers, and murky “donations” could move around under the guise of benevolence.The real sickness was how the law enabled it. Charitable foundations enjoy enormous tax advantages and face laughably weak oversight. Epstein exploited this loophole masterfully, using his “philanthropy” not only to launder funds but to open doors into elite academic and scientific institutions that gave him legitimacy. Universities and research centers took his money, looked the other way, and in return gave him access to some of the brightest young minds he could exploit. The so-called charity wasn’t charity at all—it was a financial and social laundering machine, perfectly legal on the surface yet utterly corrupt in function.(commercial at 11:58)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/business/jeffrey-epstein-charity.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Aug 25min

The original charges brought against Jeffrey Epstein in Florida in 2007 were laughably weak when weighed against the sheer scope of his crimes. Despite overwhelming evidence that he had trafficked and abused dozens of underage girls, he was allowed to plead guilty only to two state-level prostitution charges—one of them grotesquely labeling a minor as a "prostitute." This framing alone was an insult to his victims and a textbook example of the justice system bending over backwards to protect power. Rather than a serious prosecution, it was a carefully choreographed wrist slap designed to shield Epstein and the wealthy men around him from real scrutiny.The law itself compounded the travesty. Florida statutes at the time allowed prosecutors to downgrade Epstein’s conduct into charges that not only failed to reflect the gravity of child sexual abuse but actively mischaracterized it. By calling minors "prostitutes," the law criminalized victims while sanitizing the predator’s behavior. This legal loophole—exploited with the DOJ’s blessing through the infamous non-prosecution agreement—made a mockery of justice. It revealed a system that, when confronted with wealth and influence, preferred euphemism and minimization over accountability. What should have been a landmark prosecution of a serial child sex trafficker instead became one of the most grotesque miscarriages of justice in modern American legal history.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-1209-pitts-prostitute-20181205-story.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Aug 14min

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein’s estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitationThe complaint underscores the plaintiffs’ pursuit of justice against Epstein’s estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein’s crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein’s victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Aug 20min

The silence surrounding Stacey Plaskett’s lawsuit by Epstein survivors exposes the staggering hypocrisy of both lawmakers and the legacy media. Politicians who pound the table about justice and accountability fall mute when the accusations land inside their own chamber. Journalists who dissect every lurid detail of Epstein’s life suddenly find no headlines when survivors point to a sitting member of Congress. This selective outrage isn’t oversight—it’s complicity. Survivors are abandoned the moment their stories threaten insiders, and the system shows once again that accountability is conditional, not principled.That selective accountability corrodes credibility and turns justice into theater. By politicizing the scandal, lawmakers use survivors as pawns while letting the real villains—Epstein’s network of enablers—slip quietly back into the shadows. The result is a collapse of trust: citizens see investigations as performance, predators learn power protects power, and survivors are betrayed all over again. Epstein may be dead and Maxwell imprisoned, but the system that shielded them is alive and well—sustained by cowardice, silence, and the hypocrisy of institutions that pretend to defend justice while practicing selective blindness.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Aug 15min

The silence surrounding Stacey Plaskett’s lawsuit by Epstein survivors exposes the staggering hypocrisy of both lawmakers and the legacy media. Politicians who pound the table about justice and accountability fall mute when the accusations land inside their own chamber. Journalists who dissect every lurid detail of Epstein’s life suddenly find no headlines when survivors point to a sitting member of Congress. This selective outrage isn’t oversight—it’s complicity. Survivors are abandoned the moment their stories threaten insiders, and the system shows once again that accountability is conditional, not principled.That selective accountability corrodes credibility and turns justice into theater. By politicizing the scandal, lawmakers use survivors as pawns while letting the real villains—Epstein’s network of enablers—slip quietly back into the shadows. The result is a collapse of trust: citizens see investigations as performance, predators learn power protects power, and survivors are betrayed all over again. Epstein may be dead and Maxwell imprisoned, but the system that shielded them is alive and well—sustained by cowardice, silence, and the hypocrisy of institutions that pretend to defend justice while practicing selective blindness.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

18 Aug 11min