Written Receipts: How Epstein’s Emails Caught Prince Andrew Lying (2/7/26)

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.

The newly released emails between Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew directly contradict the central claims Andrew made during his disastrous Newsnight interview, where he insisted he had severed contact with Epstein years earlier and had no meaningful relationship after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. The correspondence shows sustained, friendly communication well beyond the timeframe Andrew publicly acknowledged, including coordination around meetings, travel logistics, and tone that reflects familiarity rather than estrangement. This is not casual or incidental contact; the emails demonstrate continuity, comfort, and mutual access. Andrew’s insistence that he had “nothing to do” with Epstein post-conviction collapses when placed alongside written evidence showing otherwise. The language used undercuts any claim of a reluctant or distant association. Instead, it paints a picture of an ongoing relationship that Andrew later tried to erase retroactively. The gap between what he said on camera and what he wrote privately is no longer debatable. It is documented.Even more damaging is how the emails dismantle Andrew’s explanation for the now-infamous 2010 meeting at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, which he framed as a one-time, honorable attempt to “end the friendship.” The correspondence shows no clean break, no finality, and no discomfort—only continuity before and after that meeting. This makes Andrew’s Newsnight narrative read less like confusion and more like deliberate misrepresentation. The emails also undermine his claims about memory lapses, timing, and lack of awareness by anchoring events to specific dates and exchanges he cannot plausibly deny. Taken together, the record shows that Andrew didn’t merely misstate details; he constructed a false storyline designed to minimize exposure once Epstein’s crimes became impossible to ignore. The emails prove he wasn’t distancing himself—he was managing optics. And once those private words are read alongside his public denials, the conclusion is unavoidable: Prince Andrew lied, plainly and repeatedly, in an interview meant to salvage his credibility.to contact  me:[email protected]:Girls coming 'after school' and $5,000 cash floats: The full sordid truth about Andrew's wild NINE-DAY visit to Jeffrey Epstein's New York mansion | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The controversy surrounding the Epstein files has intensified following President Trump’s public directive calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice to launch a new investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s associations—specifically targeting political opponents and several high-profile figures in finance and technology. The timing of this announcement is drawing significant scrutiny, arriving just months after the DOJ and FBI publicly stated that they had already conducted a comprehensive review of all Epstein-related materials, including more than 300 gigabytes of digital evidence, and concluded there was no basis to open any further criminal inquiries. That review asserted that the majority of evidence remained sealed primarily to protect victims and that there was no credible evidence of an Epstein “client list” or coordinated blackmail operation. Critics argue that the sudden reversal raises red flags about political motivations rather than new facts, particularly as Congress moves forward with a discharge petition intended to force the release of unredacted Epstein records to the public.Legal scholars and government accountability watchdogs warn that labeling this sudden initiative an “ongoing investigation” could be used to halt congressional access to Epstein-related records and effectively freeze public disclosure for months or even years. Under DOJ policy, active investigations allow the government to withhold documents that would otherwise be subject to subpoenas or release mandates, raising concerns that the move could function as a procedural shield rather than a legitimate inquiry. Critics argue that invoking investigative privilege at this moment—after years of limited transparency and repeated failures to hold institutions accountable—risks undermining public trust in the justice system and may set a dangerous precedent in which politically motivated probes are used to obstruct oversight. With bipartisan pressure continuing to build around the discharge petition seeking full release of the Epstein files, the coming weeks will test whether Congress can assert its authority or whether the executive branch can successfully deploy legal mechanisms to re-seal evidence and control the narrative around one of the most consequential criminal scandals in modern American 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  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.