Mega Edition: Multiple Epstein Survivors Sue Darren Indyke And Richard Kahn (Part 7-9) (2/6/26)

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein’s finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein’s daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein’s criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn’s post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein’s crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein’s estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein’s lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein’s finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein’s daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein’s criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn’s post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein’s crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein’s estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein’s lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein’s finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein’s daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein’s criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn’s post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein’s crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein’s estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein’s lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The  survivors lawsuit targets Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, two of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest attorneys and longtime gatekeepers, accusing them of playing an active and knowing role in enabling, facilitating, and concealing Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation. Bensky, among others,  alleges that Indyke and Kahn were not passive legal functionaries but essential operational figures who helped structure Epstein’s finances, shell companies, trusts, and employment arrangements in ways that allowed abuse to continue while shielding Epstein and his associates from scrutiny. According to the complaint, they were deeply embedded in Epstein’s daily affairs, had visibility into payments, housing, travel, and personnel connected to victims, and nonetheless failed to intervene or report what was happening. The lawsuit frames them as trusted insiders who understood the scope of Epstein’s criminal conduct yet chose protection and silence over accountability. In doing so, Bensky argues, they materially contributed to the continuation of abuse and the harm suffered by victims.The suit also attacks Indyke and Kahn’s post-arrest conduct, alleging that even after Epstein’s crimes were publicly exposed, they continued to prioritize asset preservation, legal insulation, and damage control over justice for survivors. Bensky claims they used their legal authority to obstruct transparency, frustrate civil accountability, and maintain control over Epstein’s estate in ways that disadvantaged victims seeking redress. Central to the case is the assertion that their fiduciary and legal duties do not immunize them from liability when those duties were allegedly exercised in service of an ongoing criminal enterprise. The lawsuit seeks to pierce the long-standing narrative that Epstein’s lawyers were merely doing their jobs, instead recasting them as indispensable enablers whose actions and omissions helped sustain one of the most notorious trafficking networks in modern history.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein’s abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein’s trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein’s abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein’s trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein’s abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein’s trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The document MJ v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 9:10-cv-81111-WPD, filed on September 17, 2010 in the Southern District of Florida, involves a civil lawsuit brought by a plaintiff identified as “MJ” against Jeffrey Epstein. According to publicly available summaries of this and similar filings from the same time period, MJ was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse. The complaint accuses Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking MJ while exploiting his wealth and power to silence and control her. MJ alleged that Epstein engaged in a pattern of recruiting underage girls under the guise of offering them money for massages, only for the encounters to turn sexually exploitative. The suit contends that Epstein used his Palm Beach residence as a base for this operation and that he was enabled by associates who helped him procure and manipulate the victims.The complaint further claims that Epstein committed multiple violations of federal and state laws, including sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of civil rights statutes protecting minors. MJ's legal team argued that the long-term psychological damage from Epstein’s abuse warranted significant compensatory and punitive damages. The case forms part of a broader group of lawsuits filed by various women against Epstein around that time, many of whom described nearly identical patterns of abuse. These cases contributed to the growing body of evidence surrounding Epstein’s trafficking network long before his 2019 arrest and death.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.flsd.365238.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell’s deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz’s defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors’ allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein’s secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack.The deposition also addresses Dershowitz’s accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz’s narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified.to contact me:EFTA00594390.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein was an asset, but not a traditional, state-controlled intelligence asset and certainly not a Russian-owned operative. He functioned as a free-agent asset, meaning he was useful to many power centers simultaneously without being loyal to any of them. He provided services that powerful people and institutions could not provide for themselves openly: access, secrecy, trafficking logistics, financial maneuvering, and deniability. His value came from non-exclusivity, not allegiance. Russia was part of his operational environment, just as the United States, Europe, Israel, and other regions were. Epstein worked with Russian interests where it benefited him, particularly through trafficking pipelines and financial interactions, but he did not work for Russia. Treating him as a singular Russian spy fundamentally misunderstands both Epstein and how power actually operates.Epstein thrived in gray zones where criminals, oligarchs, intelligence services, and elites overlap, extracting profit and protection from all sides. His greatest protections came from Western institutions, including prosecutors, banks, and political elites, not from Moscow. The Russia-only narrative serves as misdirection by externalizing blame and shielding domestic systems that enabled him for decades. Understanding Epstein as a free-agent asset expands accountability rather than narrowing it, implicating global financial, legal, and political structures instead of offering a convenient foreign scapegoatto contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.