In Their Own Words: The Virginia Roberts Deposition (Part 3)

A lawsuit has been filed by multiple survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse, against the U.S. government and the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), alleging that officials in both governments enabled and facilitated Epstein’s sex-trafficking activities.The suit against the U.S. government, filed in New York, claims that the FBI failed to adequately investigate credible tips about Epstein’s activities from 1996 to 2006, allowing him to continue abusing young women and girls. The plaintiffs assert that the FBI's negligence permitted Epstein to operate his sex trafficking ring with impunity, failing to protect victims and prevent further exploitation.Additionally, the lawsuit against the USVI government alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy involving high-ranking officials who are accused of actively aiding Epstein. The plaintiffs claim that from 2001 to 2019, USVI officials provided Epstein with a secure base to run his sex-trafficking operation by offering him special treatment through laws, infrastructure, and governmental support. Named in the suit are former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, former Governor John de Jongh, former Governor Kenneth Mapp, former Senator Celestino White, former Attorney General Vincent Frazer, and others. The complaint includes detailed allegations of financial and political favors exchanged between Epstein and these officials, which allegedly facilitated his criminal activities and obstructed justice​. The government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) is attempting to dismiss the lawsuit filed by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein by shifting the blame to the survivors and emphasizing the significant settlement they already received from Epstein’s estate. The USVI's defense focuses on two main arguments:Previous Settlement and Compensation: The USVI argues that the survivors have already been compensated through a settlement with Epstein’s estate, which totaled more than $100 million. They contend that this previous compensation should mitigate or eliminate further claims against the government.Legal Defenses and Sovereign Immunity: The USVI also asserts that the lawsuit should be dismissed based on sovereign immunity and other legal defenses. They argue that the claims against them are barred by statutes of limitations and that the plaintiffs have not established a valid legal basis for holding the government liable for Epstein’s actions.(commercial at 10:03)to contact me:[email protected]:Jane Does’ Epstein Complaint Has No Merit, Should Be Dismissed, V.I. DOJ Argues | St. Thomas Source (stthomassource.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sarah Kellen, also known as Sarah Vickers, played a significant role in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise. She worked as Epstein's assistant from 2003 to 2013, and was described by Judge Alison Nathan as a "criminally responsible participant" in the operation. Kellen was involved in the recruitment and scheduling of young girls for Epstein, coordinating their visits and preparing rooms for sexual activities​.Despite her involvement, Kellen has never been charged or arrested, partly due to a non-prosecution agreement that was part of Epstein's 2007 plea deal. She has claimed to be one of Epstein's victims, seeking damages through the Victims' Compensation Program.In this episode, we explore why Vickers was never charged and how she continues to evade justice.(commercial at 9:03)to contact me:[email protected]:Jeffrey Epstein's former assistant Sarah Kellen dodges prosecution for sex trafficking - despite allegedly being Ghislaine Maxwell's ex right-hand woman | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:[email protected]:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 8:35)to contact me:[email protected]:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode we begin our look at the deposition given by Virginia Roberts in 2015. Her deposition and what was said in it, would go on to loom large in the overall investigation into the crimes of Maxwell and Epstein. (commercial at 13:23)to contact me:[email protected]:1090-32.pdf (appealslawgroup.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode we begin our look at the deposition given by Virginia Roberts in 2015. Her deposition and what was said in it, would go on to loom large in the overall investigation into the crimes of Maxwell and Epstein. (commercial at 11:58)to contact me:[email protected]:1090-32.pdf (appealslawgroup.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode we begin our look at the deposition given by Virginia Roberts in 2015. Her deposition and what was said in it, would go on to loom large in the overall investigation into the crimes of Maxwell and Epstein. (commercial at 11:58)to contact me:[email protected]:1090-32.pdf (appealslawgroup.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode we begin our look at the deposition given by Virginia Roberts in 2015. Her deposition and what was said in it, would go on to loom large in the overall investigation into the crimes of Maxwell and Epstein. (commercial at 10:37)to contact me:[email protected]:1090-32.pdf (appealslawgroup.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode we begin our look at the deposition given by Virginia Roberts in 2015. Her deposition and what was said in it, would go on to loom large in the overall investigation into the crimes of Maxwell and Epstein. (commercial at 10:37)to contact me:[email protected]:1090-32.pdf (appealslawgroup.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode we begin our look at the deposition given by Virginia Roberts in 2015. Her deposition and what was said in it, would go on to loom large in the overall investigation into the crimes of Maxwell and Epstein. (commercial at 9:54)to contact me:[email protected]:1090-32.pdf (appealslawgroup.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.