Mega Edition: Danielle Bensky And The Lawsuit Filed Against Indyke And Kahn (Part 3-4) (10/26/25)

Mega Edition: Danielle Bensky And The Lawsuit Filed Against Indyke And Kahn (Part 3-4) (10/26/25)

Background of the Lawsuit
  1. Defendants:
    • Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate’s affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.
  2. Plaintiffs:
    • Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.
    • Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.
Allegations and Claims
  1. Mismanagement and Negligence:
    • Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein’s estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate’s affairs.
    • Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate’s value and its ability to settle claims.
  2. Failure to Address Victims’ Claims:
    • Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein’s victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.
    • Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate’s assets and the status of the victims’ claims.
Legal Proceedings
  1. Filing and Court Actions:
    • Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.
    • Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.
  2. Recent Developments:
    • Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.
    • Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.
Broader Context
  1. Epstein’s Estate:
    • Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein’s estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate’s management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein’s criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.
    • Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein’s estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.
  2. Victims’ Advocacy:
    • Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.


(commercial at 8:16)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



source:

Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)


Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Avsnitt(1000)

Murder In Moscow:  Judge Hippler's Ruling On The Bryan Kohberger Digital Warrants (Part 4)

Murder In Moscow: Judge Hippler's Ruling On The Bryan Kohberger Digital Warrants (Part 4)

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 16min

Murder In Moscow:  Judge Hippler's Ruling On The Bryan Kohberger Digital Warrants (Part 3)

Murder In Moscow: Judge Hippler's Ruling On The Bryan Kohberger Digital Warrants (Part 3)

In Ada County Case No. CR01-24-31665, Defendant Bryan Kohberger filed motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants directed at AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon. The defense argued that these warrants were invalid, alleging they were based on information gathered through unconstitutional methods, including the use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), and that the affidavits supporting the warrants contained intentional or reckless omissions of material facts. They contended that the evidence obtained from these warrants violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights and should therefore be excluded from trial.However, the court denied these suppression motions, ruling that the search warrants were lawfully issued and executed. The judge found that the affidavits provided sufficient probable cause and that the methods employed, including the use of IGG, did not violate constitutional protections. Additionally, the court determined that there was no evidence of intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions in the affidavits that would warrant a Franks hearing. As a result, the evidence obtained from AT&T, Google, USB devices, Apple, and Amazon remains admissible in the proceedings against Kohbergerto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:021925-Order-Defedants-Motions-Suppress-ATT-Google-USB-Apple-Amazon.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 11min

In Their  Own Words:   Jane Doe 101 And The Allegations Made Against Epstein In 2009 (Part 2) (8/10/25)

In Their Own Words: Jane Doe 101 And The Allegations Made Against Epstein In 2009 (Part 2) (8/10/25)

The 2009 federal lawsuit Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, filed in the Southern District of Florida, accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking the plaintiff when she was a minor in Palm Beach County. Filed under a pseudonym to protect her identity, the complaint outlines a pattern of predatory conduct consistent with other allegations against Epstein during the same period. It asserts federal jurisdiction, establishes venue in Florida, and demands a jury trial. Early filings also sought a no-contact order and measures to preserve evidence, signaling the seriousness of the claims and the plaintiff’s intent to prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering.The case emerged alongside a wave of similar “Jane Doe” suits that were being coordinated in federal court, reflecting the widening legal fallout for Epstein at the time. The complaint fits within the broader narrative of civil actions that sought to hold Epstein accountable after his controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to avoid federal prosecution. By placing this new plaintiff’s claims into the public record, the suit added further pressure on Epstein’s legal defenses and contributed to the mounting body of litigation alleging he operated a long-running sex trafficking network targeting underage girls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.334533.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 19min

In Their  Own Words:   Jane Doe 101 And The Allegations Made Against Epstein In 2009 (Part 1) (8/10/25)

In Their Own Words: Jane Doe 101 And The Allegations Made Against Epstein In 2009 (Part 1) (8/10/25)

The 2009 federal lawsuit Jane Doe No. 101 v. Jeffrey Epstein, filed in the Southern District of Florida, accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking the plaintiff when she was a minor in Palm Beach County. Filed under a pseudonym to protect her identity, the complaint outlines a pattern of predatory conduct consistent with other allegations against Epstein during the same period. It asserts federal jurisdiction, establishes venue in Florida, and demands a jury trial. Early filings also sought a no-contact order and measures to preserve evidence, signaling the seriousness of the claims and the plaintiff’s intent to prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering.The case emerged alongside a wave of similar “Jane Doe” suits that were being coordinated in federal court, reflecting the widening legal fallout for Epstein at the time. The complaint fits within the broader narrative of civil actions that sought to hold Epstein accountable after his controversial 2008 plea deal allowed him to avoid federal prosecution. By placing this new plaintiff’s claims into the public record, the suit added further pressure on Epstein’s legal defenses and contributed to the mounting body of litigation alleging he operated a long-running sex trafficking network targeting underage girls.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.334533.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 14min

Jeffrey Epstein Survivors Voice Their Concerns About The Grand Jury Documents (8/10/25)

Jeffrey Epstein Survivors Voice Their Concerns About The Grand Jury Documents (8/10/25)

Epstein survivors and their legal advocates have voiced serious concern over the DOJ's push to unseal grand jury documents from Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case, cautioning that such a move risks retraumatizing victims and potentially exposing sensitive identifying information. While the survivors have long called for transparency and accountability, many are now expressing frustration that the DOJ appears more interested in symbolic gestures—like the selective unsealing of documents—than in pursuing real justice against the powerful figures who enabled and benefited from Epstein’s trafficking ring. Survivors' attorneys have pointed out that the DOJ has a long history of inaction, and they view this sudden interest in grand jury material as performative rather than substantive.In particular, the survivors have emphasized that unsealing redacted transcripts is no substitute for meaningful prosecutions or full disclosure of the DOJ’s own failings—specifically regarding the original 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement and the lack of charges brought against Epstein’s inner circle of enablers. Some have accused the Justice Department of using the unsealing process as a distraction from the larger systemic failure to hold those in Epstein’s orbit truly accountable. Others have warned that without strict safeguards, the release of grand jury testimony could expose private details that were never meant for public consumption, ultimately serving institutional optics rather than survivor justice.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein victims speak out: This ‘smacks of a cover up’ - POLITICOBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 17min

A Former BOP Assistant Director Talks The Ghislaine Maxwell Prison Transfer (8/10/25)

A Former BOP Assistant Director Talks The Ghislaine Maxwell Prison Transfer (8/10/25)

Ghislaine Maxwell’s transfer from FCI Tallahassee, a medium-security federal prison, to Bryan Federal Prison Camp in Texas has drawn sharp criticism and widespread skepticism due to its highly irregular nature. Federal prison policy dictates that inmates convicted of serious crimes—especially those involving violence, international ties, or sex trafficking—are rarely, if ever, reassigned to minimum-security camps. Maxwell’s background as a convicted sex trafficker with dual citizenship, ties to global intelligence, and deep associations with high-profile individuals makes her a textbook case for maximum supervision. Yet she was quietly moved to a facility with no armed guards, no fences, and minimal restrictions—conditions far more suited to nonviolent white-collar criminals.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell's move to Texas minimum security prison called 'highly unusual' | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 10min

Virginia Roberts Responds Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion For A Summary Judgement (Parts 3-4) (8/10/25)

Virginia Roberts Responds Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion For A Summary Judgement (Parts 3-4) (8/10/25)

Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell’s statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell’s statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 37min

Virginia Roberts Responds Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion For A Summary Judgement (Parts 1-2) (8/10/25)

Virginia Roberts Responds Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion For A Summary Judgement (Parts 1-2) (8/10/25)

Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell’s statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.Virginia Giuffre’s response to Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment was a direct challenge to Maxwell’s attempt to dismiss the case without a trial. In her filing, Giuffre argued that Maxwell’s statements denying any wrongdoing were not only defamatory, but made with actual malice—because Maxwell knew they were false when she made them. Giuffre’s legal team submitted sworn testimony, supporting documentation, and detailed timelines to establish that Maxwell had played a central role in Epstein’s trafficking operation and that her denials were part of a broader effort to discredit and silence victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Giuffre-unseal.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

10 Aug 26min

Populärt inom Politik & nyheter

aftonbladet-krim
p3-krim
fordomspodden
rss-krimstad
motiv
rss-viva-fotboll
flashback-forever
svenska-fall
aftonbladet-daily
rss-vad-fan-hande
rss-sanning-konsekvens
blenda-2
dagens-eko
rss-frandfors-horna
olyckan-inifran
svd-dokumentara-berattelser-2
krimmagasinet
rss-krimreportrarna
rss-flodet
rss-klubbland-en-podd-mest-om-frolunda