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

Senator Ron Wyden has sharply criticized the IRS for failing to audit or investigate the massive payments—estimated at at least $158 million, and possibly up to $170 million—made by private equity billionaire Leon Black to Jeffrey Epstein between 2012 and 2017. Wyden questioned how Epstein, who had no formal credentials in tax or accounting, could receive such high sums—exceeding compensation paid to other top advisors—without raising any red flags, and pointed out that much of this was paid “ad hoc” without written contracts. He urged the IRS to explain why these seemingly suspicious tax‑planning transactions were never subject to scrutiny despite their scale and Epstein’s criminal historyAdditionally, Wyden revealed that his office accessed a trove of financial records indicating approximately 4,725 wire transfers amounting to over $1 billion linked to Epstein, including interactions with Russian banks connected to sex trafficking. He accused the Treasury Department of withholding these critical Suspicious Activity Reports from oversight and insisted that the lack of broader prosecutions or investigations suggests a cover‑up. Wyden accused federal agencies of “sleepwalking” through evidence that might have exposed Epstein’s alleged façade of financial expertise and facilitated accountability for those who funded his operations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Senator Seeks Investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's Work for Leon BlackBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

20 Aug 11min

Jeffrey Epstein was a man who got around New York city and it didn't matter what political party you belonged to. All that mattered to him was that you were willing to play ball. Unfortunately for the rest of us, there were plenty of people who were willing to sell their soul to increase their power or status, even if that meant ignoring what and who Jeffrey Epstein was. Afterall, the only sin in that world is the sin of being poor. In this episode we dive into the new article from The Wall Street journal about two of the top bundlers for the Trump campaign in 2016 and their connection to Jeffrey Epstein. to contact me:bobbycapuci@protonmail.comsource:How Jeffrey Epstein Tried to Tap Into Trump’s Circle - WSJBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

20 Aug 28min

In October 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a combined memorandum opposing Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s request to extend the deposition deadline and, separately, moved for sanctions under Federal Rule 45. Maxwell argued that Giuffre served subpoenas in ways that directly violated Rule 45(a)(4), which requires timely pre-notice to all parties before serving a non‑party subpoena for documents. Specifically, Maxwell noted that Giuffre attempted to subpoena witnesses—such as Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova—without providing proper advance notice to the defense, including issuing subpoenas before notifying Maxwell’s counselMaxwell framed this as part of a broader pattern of bad‑faith discovery tactics: she emphasized that Giuffre squandered the discovery period, failed to diligently schedule depositions, and attempted to secure depositions well past the court‑ordered cutoff without showing good cause. In support, she detailed her own efforts to coordinate schedules and comply with rules, contrasted with Giuffre’s “last‑minute scramble,” and urged the court to reject the extension of deadlines and impose sanctions under Rule 45 and Rule 37 for the procedural violationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1137.19.pdf (free.law)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

20 Aug 29min

In October 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a combined memorandum opposing Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s request to extend the deposition deadline and, separately, moved for sanctions under Federal Rule 45. Maxwell argued that Giuffre served subpoenas in ways that directly violated Rule 45(a)(4), which requires timely pre-notice to all parties before serving a non‑party subpoena for documents. Specifically, Maxwell noted that Giuffre attempted to subpoena witnesses—such as Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen, and Nadia Marcincova—without providing proper advance notice to the defense, including issuing subpoenas before notifying Maxwell’s counselMaxwell framed this as part of a broader pattern of bad‑faith discovery tactics: she emphasized that Giuffre squandered the discovery period, failed to diligently schedule depositions, and attempted to secure depositions well past the court‑ordered cutoff without showing good cause. In support, she detailed her own efforts to coordinate schedules and comply with rules, contrasted with Giuffre’s “last‑minute scramble,” and urged the court to reject the extension of deadlines and impose sanctions under Rule 45 and Rule 37 for the procedural violationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1137.19.pdf (free.law)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

20 Aug 23min

Three years after Jeffrey Epstein’s death in 2019, the investigation into his activities remained active but fragmented. Federal authorities continued to pursue cases against his associates, with Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction in 2021 serving as the most significant development. Civil lawsuits filed by survivors also kept pressure on Epstein’s estate and financial network, forcing disclosures about how his fortune was managed and who may have benefitted. However, despite the ongoing litigation, many questions about the extent of his trafficking operation, the full roster of participants, and the degree of institutional complicity remained unanswered. The investigation had not produced a sweeping public reckoning but rather piecemeal progress.With Epstein dead, prosecutors were constrained in how far they could push certain inquiries, and much of the momentum shifted to civil courts. Survivors and advocates expressed frustration that many high-profile individuals linked to Epstein had avoided scrutiny, and that government agencies had not fully confronted their own past failures. Three years on, the investigation stood as a mixture of progress and stagnation: Maxwell’s conviction showed that accountability was possible, but the unanswered questions underscored how far the system still was from a complete accounting of Epstein’s network.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

20 Aug 17min

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) report on Jeffrey Epstein offered a striking example of how the case was treated differently from typical sex offender matters. After his 2008 plea deal, Epstein was supposed to be monitored like other registered offenders, but the FDLE report documented how his status was handled with unusual leniency. Instead of facing meaningful restrictions, he was allowed broad freedom of movement under a “work release” arrangement that let him spend most of his time outside jail. The report detailed the ways in which oversight agencies deferred to the terms of his non-prosecution agreement, effectively creating a two-tiered system: one for ordinary offenders, and another for Epstein.The FDLE findings also underscored how systemic gaps allowed him to avoid standard supervision. While law enforcement technically fulfilled its reporting duties, the conditions attached to Epstein’s registration were unusually favorable, reflecting the influence of his negotiated plea. The report made clear that the monitoring process functioned more as a box-checking exercise than a meaningful safeguard for public safety. In practical terms, Epstein’s case demonstrated how wealth and legal leverage could shape not only the outcome in court but also the way state agencies enforced the law after conviction. Rather than ensuring accountability, the system appeared to accommodate him.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein: Florida probe finds no crime in how case was handled (palmbeachpost.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

20 Aug 27min

Many elites and politicians associated with Jeffrey Epstein because he positioned himself as a gatekeeper to money, influence, and access. Epstein cultivated the image of a financier with unique investment strategies, even though the details of his wealth remained opaque. He hosted gatherings, dinners, and private events that allowed powerful figures to network with one another in exclusive settings. For individuals in politics, academia, and business, Epstein’s circle provided both social prestige and potential financial opportunity. His connections to institutions like Harvard, along with his donations to research and political campaigns, further enhanced the perception that associating with him could be advantageous.At the same time, the willingness of so many to remain close to Epstein despite warning signs underscores how reputation and ethics were often secondary to status and access. In elite circles, proximity to wealth and exclusivity can overshadow red flags, particularly when there is little incentive for scrutiny. For politicians, high-profile donors and facilitators like Epstein are valuable assets, and for academics or cultural figures, funding for projects often outweighs concerns about a benefactor’s background. Epstein’s ability to exploit this dynamic revealed not just his skill at manipulation but also a structural vulnerability in elite culture—where the pursuit of influence frequently outweighs the duty to ask difficult questions.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/517845-epstein-podcast-host-on-why-so-many-elites-affiliated-with-alleged-sexBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

19 Aug 15min

Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement in arranging sham marriages was another example of how he manipulated legal loopholes for personal gain. Reports indicated that Epstein facilitated marriages between his foreign-born associates and U.S. citizens in order to secure immigration benefits. These unions were not rooted in genuine relationships but in transactional arrangements designed to provide residency or work status to individuals within Epstein’s circle. By structuring them in this way, Epstein exploited immigration law much like he did financial and tax codes—turning a system meant to regulate fairness into a tool for his own operations.This practice highlighted how vulnerable immigration frameworks can be to abuse when oversight is weak. Marriage fraud cases often require intensive investigation to prove intent, and Epstein appears to have relied on this difficulty to keep the scheme hidden. While the marriages had the outward appearance of legality, they undermined the integrity of the immigration process, effectively allowing Epstein to build loyalty and control over the people who benefited. In doing so, he turned what should have been a pathway to lawful status into another extension of his influence network, showing once again how his operations thrived at the intersection of wealth, power, and lax enforcement.(commercial at 12:47)To contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://nypost.com/2021/02/10/epstein-financiers-forced-his-victims-into-arranged-marriages-suit/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

19 Aug 23min