Prince Andrew has faced mounting scrutiny over multiple visits to Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, particularly the infamous 2010 trip captured in photos and surveillance footage showing him waving goodbye to Epstein at the door. Andrew has admitted to staying there for several days after Epstein’s release from jail, calling it a “mistake” but insisting the purpose was to end their friendship. However, numerous reports, including witness accounts and court filings, indicate his visits were far more frequent and intimate than publicly acknowledged. Epstein’s staff, including housekeeper Juan Alessi, alleged that Andrew was seen receiving massages and spending extended time with Epstein and his associates. Other witnesses described Andrew being present during gatherings where underage girls were allegedly trafficked.

Despite his repeated denials, the optics of those visits have haunted the Duke of York. The 2010 stay, in particular, took place years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction, leading many to question why Andrew would maintain contact with a known sex offender. His 2019 BBC Newsnight interview only intensified criticism after his bizarre claim that he stayed at Epstein’s home simply because it was “convenient.” Public outrage grew as court documents tied Andrew’s name to Epstein’s flight logs, and Virginia Giuffre accused him of sexual abuse at both Epstein’s townhouse and other properties — allegations Andrew continues to deny. The scandal has since resulted in his expulsion from royal duties and permanent damage to his public reputation.


to contact me:

[email protected]

In his recent testimony before Congress, former Labor Secretary and ex–U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta doubled down on his long-criticized defense of the 2008 non-prosecution agreement that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to dodge federal sex-trafficking charges and serve barely a year in a cushy county jail. Acosta told the House Oversight Committee that at the time, he believed a federal trial would have been a “crapshoot” because of what he called limited cooperation from victims and thin evidence — a claim that directly contradicts later Justice Department findings showing that dozens of victims were ready to testify. He also denied having any knowledge that Epstein would be granted work-release, despite extensive records showing the arrangement was approved during his watch. His tone was clinical and detached, as if the systemic betrayal of dozens of trafficked minors was just another bureaucratic footnote.


Lawmakers on both sides were incensed, with Democrats accusing Acosta of rewriting history and showing “zero remorse” for enabling one of the most notorious predators in modern American history. Even some Republicans privately admitted that his testimony came off as evasive and self-serving. Acosta tried to shift blame to subordinates and state prosecutors, but his own department’s inspector general previously concluded that he exercised “poor judgment” and gave Epstein a sweetheart deal that “violated the spirit of the law.” For the victims who have spent years fighting for justice, Acosta’s congressional appearance only confirmed what they already knew — that the powerful protect their own, even when it means selling out the powerless.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

House committee releases more Jeffrey Epstein documents | Fox News

In 2011, newly surfaced emails suggest that Prince Andrew attempted to use a Metropolitan Police protection officer—assigned to him as part of his royal security detail—to dig up damaging information on Virginia Giuffre, the woman who accused him of sexual abuse linked to Jeffrey Epstein. The email reportedly contained Giuffre’s date of birth and U.S. Social Security number and alleged she had a criminal record in the United States. It was sent to a royal press aide, implying coordination to discredit Giuffre before the now-infamous photograph of Andrew with her surfaced. There is no evidence that the officer followed through on the request, and Giuffre’s family has confirmed she never had a criminal record. The revelation underscores Andrew’s desperation at the time to undermine his accuser rather than face the allegations head-on, revealing a cynical attempt to weaponize his royal privilege and the resources of law enforcement against a survivor.


The Metropolitan Police have since announced they are “actively looking into” the claims, which have triggered widespread public disgust and renewed scrutiny over Andrew’s use of taxpayer-funded protection. The timing of the revelations—coming shortly after Andrew’s forced relinquishment of his Duke of York title and amid continued fallout from his ties to Epstein—paints a picture of a man still trying to manipulate institutions to protect his reputation. The notion that a royal would attempt to enlist the police to smear a victim of alleged trafficking is seen by critics as emblematic of the rot within Britain’s elite power structure. For a man who insists he “never met” Virginia Giuffre, his determination to have her investigated says everything about guilt, arrogance, and moral decay behind palace walls.


to contact  me:

[email protected]



source:

Met Police to look into claims Prince Andrew sought information on accuser

Over the years a growing number of victims and commentators have accused the FBI of gross negligence in handling tips, complaints, and reports about Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking and abuse—failures that arguably allowed his network to flourish unchallenged for decades. In a 2024 lawsuit, 12 alleged victims (referred to as “Jane Does”) sued the U.S. government, claiming that the FBI “repeatedly and continuously” ignored credible reports from as early as 1996 through 2006, even though it received detailed allegations of sexual abuse, trafficking, and underage victims. They contend that despite evidence—photographs, videos, interviews—the bureau failed to open a proper investigation until July 2006, long after Epstein’s malicious activities had been widely reported.



to contact me:

[email protected]

John Brockman, a prominent literary agent and founder of the Edge Foundation (a prestigious salon for scientists and thinkers), had longstanding ties to Epstein’s intellectual and social circle. Brockman’s Edge dinners, salons and invite-only events created a powerful “third culture” network of elite scientists, technologists, and wealthy patrons — and Epstein was deeply embedded in this milieu. Brockman’s agency and Edge network provided a bridge between Epstein’s money and the science/tech world: one piece of evidence is an email, dated September 2013, in which Brockman writes to a writer that “Jeffrey Epstein … showed up at this weekend’s event by helicopter (with his beautiful young assistant from Belarus). He’ll be in Cambridge in a couple of weeks … I told him I would send some links.”


to contact me:

[email protected]

When Judge Alison Nathan ordered the defense to submit its potential witness roster before trial, Maxwell’s lawyers presented a sprawling list of over 30 witnesses, some of them overseas, including former assistants, social friends, employees, and at least one member of Epstein’s inner circle like Eva Andersson-Dubin (the former Miss Sweden and wife of billionaire Glenn Dubin). The list even included several individuals who had been named in press reports or depositions as having seen Epstein’s conduct firsthand. The defense also proposed “character witnesses” meant to paint Maxwell as a victim of selective prosecution and an unfair press, and they floated calling experts in psychology, law enforcement procedure, and even media ethics. But when the trial began, almost the entire roster evaporated. Out of more than 30 potential names, only nine actually took the stand, and many of those offered procedural or character evidence rather than firsthand accounts.


to contact me:

[email protected]

Sam Bankman-Fried raised eyebrows when he hired Mark Cohen, the same attorney who represented Ghislaine Maxwell during her high-profile sex-trafficking trial. Cohen, a former federal prosecutor and co-founder of the law firm Cohen & Gresser, was part of Maxwell’s defense team that argued she was being scapegoated for Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. Bankman-Fried brought Cohen on to lead his defense following his arrest in late 2022, a move that immediately sparked comparisons between the two notorious cases — both involving allegations of manipulation, power, and privilege shielding elites from accountability.


The decision was strategic, not coincidental. Cohen’s expertise lies in navigating complex federal prosecutions involving massive evidence and global attention — precisely what Bankman-Fried faced in his FTX fraud case. His partner, Christian Everdell, another veteran of the Maxwell defense, also joined the SBF legal team. The pairing signaled that Bankman-Fried’s defense would mirror Maxwell’s in tone and sophistication, emphasizing procedural scrutiny and reasonable-doubt tactics over moral argument — a calculated legal strategy to counter the government’s sweeping narrative.


to contact me:

[email protected]

In its motion to dismiss the Epstein-related survivor lawsuit, Deutsche Bank argues that the complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to show the bank acted in concert with, or benefited from, Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking. The bank says it provided only “routine banking services” during the period of Epstein’s account use (2013 to 2018), and insists the plaintiffs do not adequately plead that Deutsche Bank had a duty to protect victims or caused their harm. Moreover, Deutsche contends that many of the legal claims (including under New York’s Adult Survivors Act and federal anti-trafficking statutes) are improperly framed against the bank, which it says is not the correct defendant.

Deutsche also challenges the notion that it reaped any illicit profits from Epstein’s crimes, asserting the complaint lacks detail on how the bank specifically benefitted from trafficking activity. The bank argues that the allegations are largely speculative and legalistic rather than factual, and thus the court should dismiss the case before the parties incur burdens of discovery.


to contact me:

[email protected]

In 2022, a woman identified as “Jane Doe” filed a lawsuit against Deutsche Bank, accusing the financial giant of knowingly enabling Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking enterprise. The complaint alleged that Deutsche Bank continued doing business with Epstein even after his 2008 conviction, facilitating payments to recruiters, victims, and associates, while ignoring internal compliance alerts and suspicious-activity reports. The bank, which took Epstein on as a client after JPMorgan dropped him in 2013, was accused of providing the infrastructure that allowed his criminal operation to function under the guise of legitimate wealth management. Plaintiffs argued that Deutsche Bank was motivated by profit and prestige, prioritizing its relationship with a billionaire predator over its duty to report obvious crimes tied to human trafficking.


However, the lawsuit never made it to trial. In May 2023, Deutsche Bank agreed to a $75 million settlement with Epstein’s victims, a sum described as “groundbreaking” but notably accompanied by no admission of wrongdoing. The settlement allowed the bank to avoid a public trial that could have exposed embarrassing internal communications and compliance failures. By resolving the case before discovery and testimony began, Deutsche Bank effectively sealed off deeper scrutiny of its role in the broader Epstein financial network — walking away with a checkbook apology while victims were denied the chance to see full accountability play out in court.



to contact me:

[email protected]

The government argues that the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein remains legally binding and cannot be “scrubbed” because it was negotiated and approved by federal prosecutors acting within their discretion, and thus no valid basis exists to void it. Under internal standards, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility found that although the deal may have been “poor judgment,” it did not constitute professional misconduct because the Prosecutor had the “plenary authority” to resolve the federal case via a state plea, and none of the terms violated clear and unambiguous Department standards.

Moreover, the government emphasises that the language of the NPA itself explicitly provides immunity from federal prosecution for “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,” including unnamed individuals.



to  contact me:

[email protected]