Mega Edition: The Epstein Survivor Suit Against JP Morgan Becomes A Class Action Suit (10/7/25)

Diddy is asking the court to let him serve his federal sentence at Fort Dix, a correctional facility in New Jersey. It’s a bold move — of all the prisons he could’ve picked (or been assigned), he’s aiming for the one whose name is, well, hard to ignore. He’s framing it as a legal decision — closer to family, better conditions, whatever the rationale given — but the very choice of “Dix” adds a layer of unmissable irony.However, the final placement decision rests not with the court but with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which considers multiple factors including security classification, institutional capacity, medical and programming needs, and disciplinary history before assigning a facility. While a judge’s recommendation may be noted, it is not binding. The BOP ultimately has full discretion to determine where Combs will serve his time once his designation process is completed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs requests to serve sentence in low-security NJ prison FCI Fort DixBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

7 Okt 11min

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal effectively weakened the legal shield once thought to protect Jeffrey Epstein’s network of alleged co-conspirators under his 2007 Florida non-prosecution agreement (NPA). That refusal signaled that the deal’s immunity applied only within the Southern District of Florida, not nationwide—opening the door for other jurisdictions to pursue charges tied to Epstein’s broader trafficking operation. Prosecutors in places like New York or the U.S. Virgin Islands may now be emboldened to indict figures such as Sarah Kellen (Vickers), Lesley Groff, Adriana Ross, and Nadia Marcinkova, all of whom were named as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the Florida deal. Each played a different role—from scheduling and recruiting victims to managing finances and flights—but their activities often crossed state and international lines, placing much of their conduct outside the reach of the original agreement.The Supreme Court’s silence carries major implications: if even Maxwell, Epstein’s closest associate, failed to convince the courts that the NPA protected her, it’s unlikely lesser aides will succeed in claiming immunity elsewhere. This outcome reshapes the prosecutorial landscape—transforming a once-untouchable circle into viable targets for renewed investigation and potential indictment. For victims, it represents a long-delayed opening for broader accountability; for prosecutors, it removes the procedural fear that cases could collapse on technical immunity grounds. In short, the Maxwell decision didn’t just end her appeal—it cracked open the door for justice to finally reach those who operated behind Epstein’s curtain of secrecy.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

7 Okt 13min

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal effectively upheld lower court rulings that the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) Jeffrey Epstein signed in Florida does not extend protection to alleged co-conspirators outside that district. This leaves the NPA confined to the Southern District of Florida and strips it of the national immunity once implied by Epstein’s legal team. As a result, prosecutors in other jurisdictions—such as New York, New Mexico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands—are now free to pursue fresh indictments against individuals connected to Epstein’s trafficking network without fearing dismissal on immunity grounds. The Court’s silence sends a clear message: the NPA was local, not global, and its co-conspirator clause does not bind the rest of the United States.This outcome marks a pivotal shift in the Epstein saga. For years, the Florida deal acted as a roadblock to federal accountability, shielding those who helped facilitate Epstein’s crimes from prosecution elsewhere. But the Supreme Court’s inaction on Maxwell’s appeal erodes that shield, creating new prosecutorial opportunities for cases tied to interstate trafficking, financial transfers, and recruitment that took place beyond Florida’s borders. It sets a precedent that the law can reach further than a secret plea deal brokered nearly two decades ago—signaling a potential reckoning for others who, until now, have remained beyond the reach of justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

7 Okt 13min

A reporter asked Trump if he’d pardon Ghislaine Maxwell now that the Supreme Court killed her last appeal, and he immediately went into his usual “Who? Never heard of her” routine like he was auditioning for Men in Black. It was pure comedy—he acted like Ghislaine was some random lady who wandered into his photos by accident, not someone who used to orbit the same high-society circles as him and Epstein. The man delivered his line so confidently you’d think he really believed it: “I don’t know her, but I hear she’s doing well.” Yeah, sure, Don—she’s “doing well” in prison. Real cozy setup between chow line and lockdown. The guy could be caught holding a selfie stick with her and still swear it’s Photoshop and “fake news.”Trump’s selective amnesia is practically a stage show at this point. Every time one of his old pals gets indicted, he suddenly turns into a witness protection participant. “Never met them, don’t know them, wish them well.” It’s become a brand. The funniest part is how he says it with total confidence, like he’s daring the world to remember what he’s pretending to forget. When asked about a pardon, you could see the wheels spin—“What’s in it for me?”—but in true Trump fashion, he skipped the answer and rewrote history instead. Because in his world, he doesn’t need to pardon anyone; he just deletes them from existence. One minute you’re clinking glasses at Mar-a-Lago, the next you’re “Ghislaine who?”to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

7 Okt 15min

Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s unpublished memoir The Billionaire’s Playboy Club recounts her recruitment into Jeffrey Epstein’s world as a 16-year-old working at Mar-a-Lago, where she says Ghislaine Maxwell lured her in with promises of opportunity and travel. The manuscript describes how she became trapped in Epstein’s orbit, allegedly forced into sexual encounters with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, and ferried across his properties in New York, Florida, and the Virgin Islands. Giuffre paints a detailed picture of coercion, psychological manipulation, and the disturbing normalization of exploitation within Epstein’s high-society circle.In this episode, we begin our journey through that memoir.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Virgina Giuffre Billionaire's Playboy Club | DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

7 Okt 11min

Bradley Edwards, a longtime attorney for dozens of Jeffrey Epstein survivors, has been outspoken about Prince Andrew’s role in the Epstein saga, though he remains cautious given legal constraints. Edwards has said he believes Andrew does have relevant information about Epstein’s network and associations. He has suggested that the Prince’s connections—though not necessarily indicative of direct wrongdoing—warrant deeper scrutiny. Edwards has also reiterated that he is bound by client privilege, and so cannot disclose details if his clients have not permitted itEdwards, who has represented many of Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors, has aggressively pursued accountability not just for Epstein but for those who may have abetted or benefited from his operations. In public interviews and filings, Edwards has argued that Epstein’s transactions, travel, and relationships point to a far larger ecosystem of enabling actors—financial institutions, intermediaries, and elite figures—who must also be scrutinized. He has asserted that his clients deserve full disclosure, demanding that sealed and redacted documents be unsealed to reveal whether names of prominent figures were concealed under the veil of “privacy” or other procedural claims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

7 Okt 49min

In her civil racketeering (CICO) investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands, former Attorney General Denise George aggressively sought detailed financial records and transactional documents to trace how Epstein’s wealth was structured, moved, and possibly laundered through shell companies, banks, and trusts. Her office subpoenaed institutions such as JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and Citibank, demanding account statements, wire transfers, communications, and internal documents tied to more than 30 corporate entities and trusts connected to Epstein.George’s subpoenas and lawsuits did more than simply map Epstein’s money flows—they asserted that major financial players may have knowingly facilitated or concealed elements of his sex trafficking enterprise. In December 2022, she filed a federal suit accusing JPMorgan of “turning a blind eye” to Epstein’s operations and of financially benefiting from themIn her effort to dig into Jeffrey Epstein’s financial networks under the Virgin Islands’ CICO (racketeering) statute, Attorney General Denise George asked U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska to unseal and grant her access to court documents, including deposition transcripts and filings in related Epstein-linked proceedings. In September of 2020, Preska granted part—but not all—of George’s request, allowing her to review certain sealed materials while still protecting sensitive portions.This decision by Preska gave George a stronger footing in her investigation, enabling her team to follow paper trails, understand prior testimony, and press subpoenas against financial institutions with more clarity on the evidentiary landscape. At the same time, Preska maintained limitations on disclosure, balancing public interest and transparency against privacy, privilege, and security concernsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

7 Okt 34min