Michael Thomas was a veteran correctional officer employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan — a federal detention facility — where Jeffrey Epstein was being held in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Thomas had been with the Bureau of Prisons since about 2007 and, on the night of Epstein’s death (August 9–10, 2019), was assigned to an overnight shift alongside another officer, Tova Noel, responsible for conducting required 30-minute inmate checks and institutional counts in the SHU. Because Epstein’s cellmate had been moved and not replaced, Epstein was alone in his cell, making regular monitoring all the more crucial under bureau policy.

Thomas became a focal figure in the official investigations into Epstein’s death because surveillance footage and institutional records showed that neither he nor Noel conducted the required rounds or counts through the night before Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell early on August 10. Prosecutors subsequently charged both officers with conspiracy and falsifying records for signing count slips that falsely indicated they had completed rounds they had not performed. Thomas and Noel later entered deferred prosecution agreements in which they admitted falsifying records and avoided prison time, instead receiving supervisory release and community service. Investigators concluded that chronic staffing shortages and procedural failures at the jail contributed to the circumstances that allowed Epstein to remain unmonitored for hours before his death, which was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.









to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

EFTA00113577.pdf

Even from behind bars, Ghislaine Maxwell continues to staunchly defend Prince Andrew, displaying a brazen disregard for the gravity of her own convictions and the overwhelming evidence against her. In a 2022 interview from prison, Maxwell audaciously claimed that the infamous photograph showing Prince Andrew with his arm around Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein's most prominent accusers, is "fake," despite its widespread acceptance as genuine. This blatant attempt to discredit a victim not only undermines the experiences of countless survivors but also highlights Maxwell's unrepentant nature and her willingness to perpetuate falsehoods to protect her powerful associates.

Furthermore, Maxwell's expressed sympathy for Prince Andrew, referring to him as a "dear friend" and stating she "feels so bad" for him, is a glaring example of her continued manipulation and deflection. By portraying Andrew as a victim suffering due to his association with her, Maxwell attempts to elicit public sympathy for a man who has been credibly accused of sexual misconduct, thereby minimizing the severity of the allegations against him. This tactic not only insults the intelligence of the public but also serves to retraumatize survivors by elevating the concerns of the accused over the suffering of the victims. Maxwell's unwavering defense of Prince Andrew from her prison cell is a stark reminder of her persistent allegiance to the powerful, even at the expense of justice and truth.


to contact me:

[email protected]

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.

The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein’s conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

EFTA00008529.pdf

The 2019 New York federal grand jury transcripts capture the final prosecutorial push that led to the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex-trafficking charges in the Southern District of New York. The transcripts reflect prosecutors laying out a sweeping pattern of alleged conduct, including the recruitment and exploitation of underage girls, the use of intermediaries, and the systematic nature of the abuse network. Witness testimony, documentary evidence, and financial records were presented to establish probable cause, directly contradicting the long-standing narrative that Epstein was a lone offender whose crimes were limited to Florida. These proceedings culminated in the July 2019 indictment, marking the first time federal prosecutors in New York formally moved against Epstein despite years of prior allegations and investigative leads.

The transcripts have now been newly unsealed under the Epstein Transparency Act, a move that has reignited scrutiny over what federal authorities knew—and when. Their release sheds light on investigative decisions, evidentiary thresholds, and the scope of information presented to the grand jury, while also highlighting gaps that critics argue point to earlier prosecutorial failures. Survivors and transparency advocates have emphasized that the unsealing is significant not only for what it reveals about Epstein’s conduct, but for what it exposes about institutional hesitation, delayed accountability, and the broader protection mechanisms that allowed Epstein to evade federal charges for years. While redactions remain, the disclosure represents a rare window into the mechanics of a case that many believe should have been brought long before 2019.



to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

EFTA00008529.pdf

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:

[email protected]



source:

21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf (uscourts.gov)

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:

[email protected]



source:

21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf (uscourts.gov)

There is a strong argument that royals like Prince Andrew live under a separate set of rules compared to ordinary citizens. In the UK, the Freedom of Information Act provides special protections: correspondence involving the monarch, the heir, and the second in line is completely exempt from disclosure, and communications involving other royals are covered by a qualified exemption. This means that information which would normally be made public for politicians or officials can remain permanently hidden when it involves the royal family. Similarly, judges have ruled that the security costs for royals cannot be made public, ensuring that vast sums of taxpayer money spent on their protection are kept secret in a way no ordinary public figure could expect.


contact me:

[email protected]

A court in the U.S. Virgin Islands issued a subpoena to Nadia Marcinkova, a longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein, demanding that she turn over a wide range of records connected to Epstein’s operations. The subpoena sought documents in more than a dozen categories, including flight logs from trips she took with Epstein, photographs and videos showing her with Epstein and other associates, communications with figures such as Ghislaine Maxwell, financial and employment records, immigration and visa documents, phone logs, and details about travel arrangements and passengers. She was reportedly given 30 days to comply with the court’s order as part of the territory’s broader effort to recover damages tied to Epstein’s activities.

The reporting revisited past allegations from police records and victim accounts claiming Epstein referred to Marcinkova as his “Yugoslavian sex slave” and that some underage girls were allegedly directed to engage in sexual conduct with her. It highlighted longstanding questions about whether Marcinkova had transitioned from being an alleged victim to playing a recruiting role within Epstein’s network. Although she was identified as a potential co-conspirator in Epstein’s 2008 non-prosecution agreement, she was never criminally charged. The subpoena signaled continued legal scrutiny of Epstein’s inner circle and suggested that additional documentation about his travel, finances, and associates could surface through civil proceedings.


to  contact me:


[email protected]

Prince Andrew asked U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to dismiss the civil lawsuit filed against him by Virginia Giuffre, arguing that the case was legally flawed and barred by prior agreements. His legal team contended that a 2009 settlement Giuffre reached with Jeffrey Epstein included broad release language that shielded other potential defendants — including Andrew — from future claims. They also argued that the complaint failed to state a viable claim under federal sex-trafficking laws, asserting that Andrew had no knowledge of Epstein’s alleged trafficking operation and that Giuffre’s allegations lacked sufficient specificity. Additionally, they challenged the court’s jurisdiction, claiming Andrew’s limited contacts with New York were insufficient to justify the case being heard there.

Judge Kaplan ultimately rejected Andrew’s motion, ruling that the language in the Epstein settlement agreement did not automatically immunize the prince at the dismissal stage and that Giuffre’s complaint plausibly alleged claims under the relevant statutes. Kaplan emphasized that factual disputes — including the meaning and scope of the 2009 release — could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss and would require further proceedings. The ruling allowed the lawsuit to move forward into discovery, increasing pressure on Andrew and leading to intense public scrutiny. Shortly thereafter, the case was resolved through an out-of-court settlement, with Andrew denying wrongdoing but agreeing to a financial settlement and a statement expressing regret for his association with Epstein.



to contact me:

[email protected]

In the ABC News 20/20 special about Ghislaine Maxwell and her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking scandal, her brother Ian Maxwell gave an extended interview defending his sister and offering personal context about her life and their family. Maxwell described their upbringing as privileged yet emotionally complicated, noting that his sister was one of nine children of media mogul Robert Maxwell and had been somewhat “spoiled” by their father. He said he met Epstein only briefly and did not know the details of his sister’s adult life with him, but insisted that Epstein’s crimes and Maxwell’s conduct were legally and morally distinct, urging viewers to treat her as “presumed innocent” given that she pleaded not guilty and was entitled to a fair legal process. Maxwell emphasized that the public narrative often conflated Epstein’s actions with his sister’s and portrayed her unfairly in the media.

During the 20/20 interview, Ian Maxwell also recounted his limited personal interactions with Epstein, saying he did not find the financier especially likable and that Epstein’s charisma was not something he shared. He pushed back against the sensational media coverage surrounding his sister’s arrest and trial, framing her prosecution as overhyped and influenced by the high-profile nature of the case rather than pure legal evidence. Maxwell’s remarks were part of a broader effort — also seen in other media appearances — to defend Ghislaine’s character, argue that she deserved due process, and differentiate her from Epstein’s criminal legacy, even as she faced federal convictions and sentences for her role in the abuse network.



to  contact me:

[email protected]