Ghislaine Maxwell, the longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein who later was convicted in federal court of sex-trafficking and related crimes, filed a motion with a U.S. federal court asking a judge to dismiss the criminal case against her before her trial began. In her legal filings, Maxwell and her attorneys argued that the charges should be thrown out on constitutional grounds, saying she was not prosecuted fairly and that fundamental legal errors and violations of her rights undermined the government’s ability to proceed with the case. This type of filing, known as a motion to dismiss, contended that due process issues amounted to a miscarriage of justice and warranted dismissal of the indictment.

At the time of that motion, Maxwell was facing allegations that she had helped recruit and groom underage girls in the 1990s for Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation — charges that would later lead to her conviction and a 20-year federal prison sentence. Though her pre-trial motion sought to derail the government’s case based on legal arguments, it was ultimately unsuccessful, and she was eventually tried, convicted, and sentenced in 2021. Even after conviction, Maxwell continued to challenge her sentence and conviction through appeals and habeas petitions, arguing that legal and procedural errors should entitle her to a new trial.









to contact me:

[email protected]

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

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

Les Wexner has stated publicly that he was never interviewed, subpoenaed, or formally questioned by the FBI or the Department of Justice in connection with the federal investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. According to Wexner, despite being Epstein’s most prominent financial patron for years and granting him sweeping authority over portions of his personal fortune, no federal agents ever sat him down for a substantive interview about Epstein’s activities. He has maintained that he would have cooperated fully had he been contacted and has expressed surprise that investigators did not seek his account. Given that Epstein managed vast sums tied to Wexner and operated within Wexner’s orbit for years, the absence of a formal federal interview has raised questions about investigative scope and priorities. Wexner has emphasized that he severed ties with Epstein after discovering alleged financial misconduct and has portrayed himself as a victim of deception. He has also said he had no knowledge of Epstein’s criminal behavior while they were associated. His assertion centers on a single point: federal authorities never directly approached him during their inquiries. That claim has become a focal issue in broader discussions about how thoroughly Epstein’s network was examined. The fact that Epstein’s closest financial benefactor was not formally questioned, according to Wexner, stands out given the scale of the case. It underscores continuing debate about whether every relevant avenue was pursued.


The relationship between Les Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein was foundational to Epstein’s rise, with Epstein serving as Wexner’s financial adviser and exercising extraordinary control over assets for years. Epstein obtained power of attorney and access that few outsiders ever received, positioning himself at the center of Wexner’s financial world. Because of that proximity, Wexner’s claim that neither the FBI nor the DOJ interviewed him has drawn sustained scrutiny. Critics argue that any comprehensive investigation into Epstein’s operations would logically include direct questioning of his principal benefactor. Wexner has insisted that he was never treated as a subject or target and that he was not asked to provide detailed testimony. He has reiterated that he cut off Epstein once he became aware of alleged irregularities involving finances. The absence of documented federal questioning, if accurate, highlights gaps many observers believe remain unresolved. It also feeds broader concerns about whether powerful individuals connected to Epstein were examined with equal intensity. Wexner’s statement places the burden back on federal authorities to explain investigative decisions. As long as questions about the thoroughness of the Epstein investigation persist, Wexner’s claim of never being interviewed will remain central to that debate.




t ocontact me:

[email protected]



source:

https://www.scrippsnews.com/us-news/crime/epstein-files/wexner-tells-congress-he-was-never-contacted-by-fbi-about-jeffrey-epstein-ties

We sit down with Agent X for a second time — not to rehash what was already said, but to dig deeper, press harder, and follow the paper trail farther into the parts of the story that were previously redacted or obscured. This follow-up conversation picks up where the first left off, sharpening lines of inquiry about who is being protected, how institutional mechanisms have worked to bury key records, and what concrete steps might finally force meaningful disclosure and accountability.

The conversation with Agent X traced the Epstein investigation across its major fault lines: the current state of play, the suffocating role of politics, the systemic cover-up, and the powerful figures still being shielded. Agent X detailed how congressional hearings and DOJ disclosures amount to theater, offering redacted documents and staged outrage instead of prosecutions. Survivors have forced banks and institutions into settlements, but payouts have replaced accountability, and every redaction is another betrayal. The money trail — offshore accounts, banks turning a blind eye, hush payments disguised as philanthropy — remains the most dangerous evidence, one the system is determined to bury.

Agent X described the machinery of the cover-up: the 2008 non-prosecution deal, sealed court filings, confidentiality clauses, compliant judges, cowardly prosecutors, political grandstanding, and media complicity. The likelihood of indictments for the most powerful players is slim without whistleblowers or leaks; the public should brace for more managed exposure and controlled disclosures. The core message was blunt — this case is a mirror showing that the system does not fail by accident but is structured to protect power. The only path to true accountability is relentless pressure: force the cracks wider, document by document, name by name.



to contact me:

[email protected]

We sit down with Agent X for a second time — not to rehash what was already said, but to dig deeper, press harder, and follow the paper trail farther into the parts of the story that were previously redacted or obscured. This follow-up conversation picks up where the first left off, sharpening lines of inquiry about who is being protected, how institutional mechanisms have worked to bury key records, and what concrete steps might finally force meaningful disclosure and accountability.

The conversation with Agent X traced the Epstein investigation across its major fault lines: the current state of play, the suffocating role of politics, the systemic cover-up, and the powerful figures still being shielded. Agent X detailed how congressional hearings and DOJ disclosures amount to theater, offering redacted documents and staged outrage instead of prosecutions. Survivors have forced banks and institutions into settlements, but payouts have replaced accountability, and every redaction is another betrayal. The money trail — offshore accounts, banks turning a blind eye, hush payments disguised as philanthropy — remains the most dangerous evidence, one the system is determined to bury.

Agent X described the machinery of the cover-up: the 2008 non-prosecution deal, sealed court filings, confidentiality clauses, compliant judges, cowardly prosecutors, political grandstanding, and media complicity. The likelihood of indictments for the most powerful players is slim without whistleblowers or leaks; the public should brace for more managed exposure and controlled disclosures. The core message was blunt — this case is a mirror showing that the system does not fail by accident but is structured to protect power. The only path to true accountability is relentless pressure: force the cracks wider, document by document, name by name.



to contact me:

[email protected]

The New York Times has reported that Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein shared a much closer relationship in the late 1980s through the 1990s and early 2000s than Trump has publicly acknowledged. According to the Times, Epstein described Trump as his “best friend,” and the two socialized frequently at parties, spoke often by phone, and were part of the same high-society circles, particularly bonding over women. Epstein’s former employees told the Times that Trump often discussed sex with him rather than business, and Epstein was described as Trump’s “most reliable wingman” in that era. While Trump has denied involvement in Epstein’s criminal conduct, the Times cited newly released emails and interviews suggesting Trump was aware of Epstein’s sexual abuse of girls, though no evidence has surfaced that Trump was directly involved in those crimes.

The reporting also highlighted specific incidents and firsthand accounts that paint a picture of their social interactions: Epstein introduced several women to Trump, including at least one who was a minor at the time, and an email referenced Epstein “giving” Trump a 20-year-old woman. Former employees recounted Trump sending modeling cards to Epstein “like a menu,” and one woman’s story described Epstein directing her to social events where Trump was present. Although Trump and Epstein’s friendship reportedly soured by the mid-2000s, and Trump has repeatedly sought to distance himself from Epstein—saying they had a falling-out long before Epstein’s legal troubles—the Times reporting underscores a deeper and more personal connection than Trump has acknowledged.



to contact me:


[email protected]



source:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/18/us/jeffrey-epstein-donald-trump.html

Jane Doe #2’s 2007 statement to Marie Villafaña and federal investigators described a pattern of recruitment, abuse, and normalization inside Jeffrey Epstein’s operation, beginning when she was a minor. She said she was introduced to Epstein under the guise of paid “massage” work and quickly realized the encounters involved sexual acts, including being directed to perform sexual contact on Epstein. According to her account, the environment was controlled and transactional, with Epstein dictating the terms and presenting the abuse as routine, while payments were made in cash after each encounter.


Jane Doe #2 also told investigators that she was not isolated, explaining that other young girls were present or discussed openly, reinforcing the impression that this was an organized and recurring operation rather than a one-off incident. She described how Epstein’s behavior was methodical and rehearsed, suggesting long-standing patterns rather than impulsive misconduct.


to contact me:

[email protected]




source:


.gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.3.pdf

Jane Doe #2’s 2007 statement to Marie Villafaña and federal investigators described a pattern of recruitment, abuse, and normalization inside Jeffrey Epstein’s operation, beginning when she was a minor. She said she was introduced to Epstein under the guise of paid “massage” work and quickly realized the encounters involved sexual acts, including being directed to perform sexual contact on Epstein. According to her account, the environment was controlled and transactional, with Epstein dictating the terms and presenting the abuse as routine, while payments were made in cash after each encounter.


Jane Doe #2 also told investigators that she was not isolated, explaining that other young girls were present or discussed openly, reinforcing the impression that this was an organized and recurring operation rather than a one-off incident. She described how Epstein’s behavior was methodical and rehearsed, suggesting long-standing patterns rather than impulsive misconduct.


to contact me:

[email protected]




source:


.gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.3.pdf

In his much-criticized 2019 BBC Newsnight interview about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew made a series of remarks and excuses that were broadly seen as implausible or tone-deaf, deepening public distrust and damaging his reputation. He denied ever having sex with Virginia Giuffre, claiming he was at a PizzaExpress in Woking with his daughter on the date she alleged, and insisted he couldn’t sweat due to an “adrenaline overdose” from the Falklands War — assertions that were widely mocked and widely reported as undermining his credibility. At the time, Andrew also tried to downplay his closeness to Epstein, saying they met only occasionally and that he had ended contact in 2010; subsequent releases of emails and documents suggested continued contact beyond that date, adding to the perception that his interview responses were evasive or misleading.


Behind the scenes, those involved in arranging and producing the interview later described it as a “car crash” or PR disaster that was disastrously misjudged by palace advisers and by Andrew himself. According to accounts around the broadcast, Andrew and his team initially believed the interview would help clear the air but were unprepared for the level of probing about Epstein and Giuffre. The aftermath saw a swift public backlash, damage to the monarchy’s image, and Andrew stepping back from royal duties; his remarks became focal points for ridicule, and subsequent analyses and dramatizations (including in documentaries and dramatized films) have highlighted how poorly his explanations landed and how badly they aligned with available evidence.


to contact me:

[email protected]