The Company Man: Alex Acosta and the Art of The Deflection (10/19/25)

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

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Aug 32min

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Aug 24min

Judge Jed Rakoff approved a $290 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase and Jeffrey Epstein's victims, emphasizing that the case sent a strong message to the financial industry about the responsibilities of banking institutions. The settlement, which did not require JPMorgan to admit liability, resolved claims that the bank ignored red flags to maintain Epstein as a client, benefiting from his illegal activities from 1998 to 2013.The approval came after a last-minute challenge from 16 state attorneys general who objected to a clause in the settlement that prevented future claims by any "sovereign or government" on behalf of the victims. They argued that this could hinder future cases against sex trafficking perpetrators. However, Rakoff found the settlement terms clear and justified, dismissing the objections.The settlement also included a provision for the lawyers to receive 30% of the settlement amount in fees, which the judge deemed fair given the significant recovery for the plaintiffs. This settlement follows a similar case where Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims related to Epstein without admitting wrongdoing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.130.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Aug 24min

Bill Gates has consistently framed his association with Jeffrey Epstein as a “huge mistake,” claiming he naively believed the convicted sex offender could help advance global health philanthropy—an aspiration that never materialized. In interviews with The Wall Street Journal, Gates described his behavior as “foolish,” emphasized that he had no personal or business relationship with Epstein, and cut off contact by 2014. He lamented granting Epstein credibility by being seen with him, calling it one of the worst judgment calls of his life.Yet critics remain unconvinced. The repeated denial of substance—despite documented visits to Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, including one with his wife—smacks of damage control, not candor. The aftermath of the revelation played a key role in his divorce, and even public figures like Elon Musk have ridiculed Gates’s moral credibility, saying he wouldn’t trust him to babysit his own children. Gates’s repeated invocation of “mistake” now feels like a defensive script designed to deflect deeper scrutiny rather than a genuine reckoningto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New photo shows Bill Gates posing with Epstein accuser years after his 2008 conviction: report (nypost.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Aug 20min

In the wake of revelations that Harvard accepted over $9 million from Jeffrey Epstein before his 2008 conviction—and even allowed him frequent access and an office on campus—students and alumni responded with justified outrage. The university’s half-measures, like funneling $200,000 in unspent Epstein funds into trafficking-victim charities, felt more like reputational polishing than real reckoning. Epstein’s persistent presence within Harvard’s academic spaces—including visits from 2010 to 2018—highlighted a culture that prioritized prestige and funding over ethics. Disgusted alumni began calling out the institution’s moral failures, demanding accountability instead of quiet internal reviews.The Epstein scandal shattered the illusion that elite institutions operate above reproach, prompting fierce criticism from inside Harvard’s own ranks. Students and faculty, who already questioned the university’s donor vetting and governance, used Epstein as emblematic of a broken system—one where donors wield undue influence and internal safeguards are reactive at best. Many alumni, alarmed by the optics and ongoing resistance to reform, lamented how “too big to fail” universities become complicit through silence—and now, through calculated distancing.To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/5/13/hks-dubin-fellows-wexner-ties/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

16 Aug 29min