Did Jeffrey Epstein Plan On Having Prince Andrew And Fergie 'Whacked'? (11/27/25)

According to Andrew Lownie — as discussed on a recent podcast interview and in media coverage of his new book Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York — Epstein reportedly became “increasingly paranoid” toward the end of his life, fearing exposure. Lownie claims that Epstein “spoke to a hitman who was a former member of a British special-forces unit,” i.e. an ex-SAS sniper, and allegedly sought to hire him to “silence” Prince Andrew, Duke of York and Sarah Ferguson (his ex-wife) — supposedly to prevent them from disclosing damaging information about Epstein’s crimes. Lownie says the allegation comes from two sources, including a former FBI agent and a source in Paris.Lownie further argues that if the plot had been real and had advanced beyond talk, the potential assassination of a royal couple would dramatically reframe how far Epstein’s reach went — from sex-trafficking financier to someone allegedly willing to murder to protect his network. He also suggests this may help explain continuing ties: that fear — not just convenience — may have motivated ongoing contacts between Epstein and people like Ferguson, even after Epstein’s conviction.to contact me:[email protected]:Jeffrey Epstein 'plotted to hire ex-SAS sniper to silence the Yorks when he feared his crimes could be exposed'

Steve Bannon’s newly surfaced email exchanges with Jeffrey Epstein reveal a level of familiarity and cooperation that sharply contradicts the public image Bannon built as a crusader against elite corruption and sex trafficking networks. The tone of the correspondence shows two men who were not distant acquaintances or professional collaborators but comfortable insiders speaking the shorthand of established allies. The messages reportedly occurred while Bannon held influence inside the Trump White House, meaning Epstein had a direct conversational line into one of the most powerful political environments in the country. That proximity raises serious questions about access, influence, and what each man stood to gain from the relationship—especially given Epstein’s long-documented role as a financier and broker of high-level connections.What makes this revelation particularly explosive is the contrast between Bannon’s public persona and the private reality revealed in the emails. While he publicly positioned himself as a warrior exposing hidden predators and elite abuse networks, behind the scenes he was maintaining a cordial, strategic, and seemingly cooperative relationship with the most infamous trafficker of the era. Critics argue that this is more than hypocrisy—it represents a profound betrayal of the people who trusted Bannon to speak truth to power, including survivors of trafficking whose trauma he leveraged rhetorically. The silence now coming from his defenders, once loudly calling for accountability against anyone adjacent to Epstein, underscores the political and moral double standard now exposed. The implications of these communications are broader than personal embarrassment—they suggest a deeper rot inside institutions that were claiming to fight the very evil they were quietly standing beside.to contact me:[email protected]

Massie has accused Patel of engaging in a “troubling deflection” — specifically, Massie criticized Patel for refusing to commit to a clear timeline for making the Epstein-related FBI documents public, even after a legal mandate requiring release. Massie pointed out that while the administration claims to have released tens of thousands of documents, not a single name of individuals allegedly implicated in Epstein’s network has been made public. According to Massie, this suggests the release so far is superficial: “They say we’ve released 10,000 documents, 30,000 documents... but what they have failed to do so far is to release a single name.”Massie argues that the reason given by Patel — that the FBI needs time or must follow internal processes — reads less like legitimate caution and more like stalling for political cover. He contends that the delays and vagueness serve only to protect powerful individuals who may be named in the files, rather than provide real transparency. Massie has said the public and Epstein’s survivors deserve full disclosure, including the names in the so-called “FD-302” witness interview forms.to contact me:[email protected] contact me:Epstein Files: Thomas Massie Accuses Kash Patel of 'Troubling Deflection' on Release - Newsweek

A fierce legal battle is now erupting over Virginia Roberts’ estate after it was revealed she died without a will, leaving the distribution of her assets open to contention. Under Australian inheritance law, her estranged husband, Robert Giuffre, would normally receive a lump sum and roughly one-third of the estate by default. However, that expectation has been shaken by the existence of a letter Virginia allegedly sent to her lawyer, explicitly stating that she did not want her husband to receive anything in the event of her death. That letter, while not a formal will, may now become a critical piece of evidence in court as her children and siblings argue that her true wishes should override the standard legal formula. Instead of clarity, the lack of a legally binding will has opened the door to conflict, emotion, and potential litigation among those closest to her.The situation is further complicated by the unresolved lawsuit involving Rina Oh, which must be factored into the estate’s value before any division can occur. With substantial money at stake and multiple parties claiming rightful authority, the probate process is set to become a long, messy fight that could drag on for months or even years. What should have been a time of collective mourning has instead become a battlefield, with each side preparing to weaponize legal arguments, personal history, and Virginia’s final communications to support their claims. For someone whose life was defined by survival, struggle, and fighting systems of power, the tragedy now lies in watching her legacy become entangled in a war over control, money, and interpretation.to contact me:[email protected]:Virginia Giuffre's family is at war over who gets Andrew's multi-million payout after she died without leaving a will | Daily Mail Online

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein’s death delivers a blistering indictment of systemic failures at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and his holding facility. It documents a litany of procedural violations: Epstein’s cellmate was removed and never replaced despite explicit policy, surveillance cameras in his unit were malfunctioning or not recording, and the staff responsible for required 30-minute checks on Epstein didn’t perform them. Instead, employees falsified records indicating those rounds were completed, and in reality Epstein was alone and unchecked for hours before his death. These aren’t isolated mistakes—they’re classic symptoms of institutional collapse and neglect at a time when every safeguard should have been activated.Beyond the immediate night of his death, the report underscores a deeper rot: long-standing staffing shortages, indifferent supervision, and a culture that tolerated policy breaches without accountability. The OIG identifies that the same deficiencies had been raised in prior reports about the BOP, yet were never effectively addressed. By allowing one of the most high-profile detainees in the nation to slip through the cracks under such glaring conditions, the BOP didn’t just fail Epstein—they failed the public trust and all the victims who sought justice.to contact me:[email protected]:2 3 - 0 8 5 (justice.gov)

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein’s death delivers a blistering indictment of systemic failures at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and his holding facility. It documents a litany of procedural violations: Epstein’s cellmate was removed and never replaced despite explicit policy, surveillance cameras in his unit were malfunctioning or not recording, and the staff responsible for required 30-minute checks on Epstein didn’t perform them. Instead, employees falsified records indicating those rounds were completed, and in reality Epstein was alone and unchecked for hours before his death. These aren’t isolated mistakes—they’re classic symptoms of institutional collapse and neglect at a time when every safeguard should have been activated.Beyond the immediate night of his death, the report underscores a deeper rot: long-standing staffing shortages, indifferent supervision, and a culture that tolerated policy breaches without accountability. The OIG identifies that the same deficiencies had been raised in prior reports about the BOP, yet were never effectively addressed. By allowing one of the most high-profile detainees in the nation to slip through the cracks under such glaring conditions, the BOP didn’t just fail Epstein—they failed the public trust and all the victims who sought justice.to contact me:[email protected]:2 3 - 0 8 5 (justice.gov)

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein’s death delivers a blistering indictment of systemic failures at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and his holding facility. It documents a litany of procedural violations: Epstein’s cellmate was removed and never replaced despite explicit policy, surveillance cameras in his unit were malfunctioning or not recording, and the staff responsible for required 30-minute checks on Epstein didn’t perform them. Instead, employees falsified records indicating those rounds were completed, and in reality Epstein was alone and unchecked for hours before his death. These aren’t isolated mistakes—they’re classic symptoms of institutional collapse and neglect at a time when every safeguard should have been activated.Beyond the immediate night of his death, the report underscores a deeper rot: long-standing staffing shortages, indifferent supervision, and a culture that tolerated policy breaches without accountability. The OIG identifies that the same deficiencies had been raised in prior reports about the BOP, yet were never effectively addressed. By allowing one of the most high-profile detainees in the nation to slip through the cracks under such glaring conditions, the BOP didn’t just fail Epstein—they failed the public trust and all the victims who sought justice.to contact me:[email protected]:2 3 - 0 8 5 (justice.gov)

The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him.   In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past.   Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones.   In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 8:51)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him.   In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past.   Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones.   In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 8:51)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

The allegations that Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs is currently facing are not new to him.   In fact, he's been accused of things similar many times in the past.   Now, with the dam breaking and many accusers coming forward, for those of us who have followed the Jeffrey Epstein case, the similarities are very, very apparent and when looking at the way things have transpired since these most recent allegations have been made, it's not hard to follow the thread connecting these civil allegations and the current criminal ones.   In this episode we get a look at those allegations for ourselves and why this is looking like it's going to be a major RICO case against Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime. RICO targets individuals or groups involved in illegal enterprises, known as "racketeering activities," such as bribery, extortion, fraud, and money laundering.Key features of RICO include:Criminalization of Racketeering Activity: RICO makes it a federal crime to participate in, or conspire to participate in, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.Enterprise: RICO applies to both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises, including corporations, partnerships, and other associations.Pattern of Racketeering Activity: A pattern is established by engaging in at least two instances of racketeering activity within ten years.Consequences: Individuals convicted under RICO can face substantial fines, forfeiture of assets, and imprisonment for up to 20 years per racketeering count, with potential enhancements for multiple offenses.RICO has been used extensively against organized crime syndicates, such as the Mafia, but it has also been employed in cases involving various other criminal enterprises, including drug trafficking, securities fraud, and corruption. Prosecutors often use RICO to dismantle criminal organizations by targeting not only the individuals directly involved in criminal activities but also those who facilitate or benefit from them, such as leaders, associates, and even legitimate businesses linked to the enterprise.To successfully prosecute under RICO, prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as the defendant's involvement in that enterprise and its illegal activities. RICO has been praised for its effectiveness in dismantling criminal organizations but has also faced criticism for its broad scope and potential for abuse in certain cases.In this episode, we get a look at the amended complaint that has been filed by Rodney Jones.(commercial at 8:51)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.30.1.pdf (courtlistener.com)