Jeffrey Epstein and The Ski Chalet In Vail

In September 2020, The Daily Beast published a revealing piece detailing a discreet post‑gala dinner in Los Angeles in 2014, attended by Bill Clinton and Ghislaine Maxwell at Crossroads Kitchen, a trendy vegan hotspot. The gathering included a small circle of insiders—Clinton aides, Democratic donor Steve Bing, tech executive Scott Borgerson (linked romantically to Maxwell), among others—prompting scrutiny given Maxwell’s reputation and her closeness to Epstein’s inner circle.The invitation to Maxwell, given her long-standing ties to Jeffrey Epstein and the sexual abuse network he orchestrated, underscored Clinton’s willingness to keep dangerous company even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction was public knowledge. The idea that out of all the influential figures in Los Angeles, Clinton’s post-gala table included a woman later convicted of sex trafficking minors speaks volumes about either his appalling judgment or his indifference to the optics—and possibly the substance—of such associations. That Maxwell still had access to Clinton’s social sphere years into the scandal wasn’t just “peculiar optics”; it was a calculated signal that, in elite circles, reputational damage from enabling predators could be conveniently ignored.To contact me:Bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:https://www.thedailybeast.com/revealed-bill-clintons-intimate-secret-dinner-with-ghislaine-maxwellBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

17 Aug 29min

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.

16 Aug 12min

Jeffrey Epstein’s work release arrangement in 2008 was nothing short of a grotesque parody of justice. Framed as a “punishment,” it allowed a convicted sex offender—who had pleaded guilty to procuring a minor for prostitution—to spend most of his sentence in a cushy office, meeting associates and visitors with minimal supervision. He wasn’t rotting in a cell; he was running his business empire from a desk while taxpayers funded the illusion of incarceration. The so-called restrictions were a joke, tailor-made to preserve his lifestyle while giving law enforcement and prosecutors political cover.This wasn’t a lapse in judgment—it was a deliberate collaboration between Epstein’s legal team, pliable officials, and a justice system that treats the wealthy as untouchable. The arrangement effectively told survivors their pain was worth nothing and told predators with enough money that the law could be bent into a concierge service. Every minute Epstein spent outside that cell was proof that accountability in America is conditional, negotiated, and available for purchase if your Rolodex is deep enough. Calling it “work release” was an insult to language—it was privilege disguised as punishment.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/former-epstein-work-release-guard-destroyed-pbso-records-are-the-smoking-gun/source:https://cbs12.com/news/local/pbso-disputes-claim-that-jeffrey-epstein-had-sex-on-work-releaseBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Aug 21min

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.

16 Aug 11min

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.

16 Aug 12min

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.pdfIf you'd like to help support my work:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support

16 Aug 11min

In his detailed 43‑page written opinion issued on January 12, 2022, Judge Kaplan firmly denied Prince Andrew’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Central to Andrew’s defense was a previously sealed 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre, which his lawyers argued broadly released "any and all potential defendants" from liability. Judge Kaplan rejected this, calling the phrasing ambiguous and noting that it was unclear whether “potential defendants” truly included Andrew. He emphasized that only Epstein could clarify what he meant by that language, and without such clarity, the court could not extend the release to Andrew. Kaplan also rebuffed Andrew’s remaining attempts to dismiss, including claims regarding Giuffre’s residency and classification of her allegations under New York law. At this pre‑trial stage, he affirmed that all of Giuffre’s factual claims must be accepted as true and thus the case could proceed.With dismissal refused, Judge Kaplan cleared the path for full discovery and, if necessary, a civil trial. He set a preliminary deposition schedule, signaling that both parties would be required to exchange documents and take sworn testimony—including from Prince Andrew. This decisively moved the case beyond preliminary legal wrangling and closer towards litigating its factual merits. Ultimately, though, in February 2022, the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice, preventing refiling, once the settlement was finalized.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf (uscourts.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Aug 32min

In his detailed 43‑page written opinion issued on January 12, 2022, Judge Kaplan firmly denied Prince Andrew’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Central to Andrew’s defense was a previously sealed 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre, which his lawyers argued broadly released "any and all potential defendants" from liability. Judge Kaplan rejected this, calling the phrasing ambiguous and noting that it was unclear whether “potential defendants” truly included Andrew. He emphasized that only Epstein could clarify what he meant by that language, and without such clarity, the court could not extend the release to Andrew. Kaplan also rebuffed Andrew’s remaining attempts to dismiss, including claims regarding Giuffre’s residency and classification of her allegations under New York law. At this pre‑trial stage, he affirmed that all of Giuffre’s factual claims must be accepted as true and thus the case could proceed.With dismissal refused, Judge Kaplan cleared the path for full discovery and, if necessary, a civil trial. He set a preliminary deposition schedule, signaling that both parties would be required to exchange documents and take sworn testimony—including from Prince Andrew. This decisively moved the case beyond preliminary legal wrangling and closer towards litigating its factual merits. Ultimately, though, in February 2022, the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice, preventing refiling, once the settlement was finalized.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf (uscourts.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Aug 32min