Prince Andrew's Former Lawyer Andrew Bretler Gives An Interview

In November 2019 a video surfaced in which Robach can be heard complaining—off-camera and apparently unaware she was being recorded—that ABC News had shelved a 2015 interview she conducted with Virginia Roberts Giuffre (formerly “Virginia Roberts”)—one of the women accusing Jeffrey Epstein and members of his circle of sexual-trafficking of minors. The tape (ultimately leaked by the activist group Project Veritas) includes Robach claiming that higher-ups at the network told her “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.” She also suggests the reason the story was killed was pressure from the British royal family via the palace, because the allegations involved Prince Andrew. In the tape Robach says: “I tried for three years to get it on… What we had was unreal… Bill Clinton — we had everything.”In response, both Robach and ABC News issued statements. Robach said she was “caught in a private moment of frustration,” clarifying that the 2015 interview “didn’t meet our standards” for airing because the network could not secure sufficient corroborating evidence, and that she was referencing what Giuffre alleged, not what ABC had verified.    ABC News stated that while “not all of our reporting met our standards to air,” they have never ceased investigating Epstein’s story and continue to dedicate resources, including a documentary and podcast series. They also stated that the story was not quashed for access reasons.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The nickname “nonce” became associated with Prince Andrew following the exposure of his deep ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the allegations made by Virginia Giuffre that he had sexual contact with her when she was underage. In British slang, “nonce” is a highly derogatory term for someone accused of child sexual abuse, and the label stuck after Andrew’s disastrous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, where his denials — including the infamous “I don’t sweat” line — made him a public laughingstock. The term spread rapidly through social media, satire, and even pop culture, culminating in the release of the punk song Prince Andrew Is a Sweaty Nonce, which mocked both his scandal and his implausible defenses. The nickname became shorthand for his fall from grace and a reflection of the public’s disgust toward his alleged conduct and lack of accountability.When Prince Philip died in April 2021, Andrew maneuvered his way into the funeral despite being stripped of royal duties and public standing. Attendance was strictly limited to thirty people due to COVID restrictions, but Andrew, as Philip’s son, was included as a matter of protocol — a decision that sparked backlash among both the public and palace insiders. Reports suggested Andrew was eager to use the event as a soft return to royal life, positioning himself visibly in the procession and trying to rehabilitate his image through sympathy optics. While the palace maintained his inclusion was a family matter, critics viewed it as a calculated move by Andrew to reinsert himself into royal proceedings after the Epstein scandal had effectively exiled him from public life.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In December 2010, Prince Andrew, Duke of York allegedly approached his long-time associate, Jeffrey Epstein — despite Epstein’s already-established history of sex-trafficking — and asked for help securing approximately US $200 million in working-capital funding for a company called Aria Petroleum. The request was transmitted via email from the Prince to Epstein, then forwarded by Epstein to his banker. The documents describe the deal as a “working-capital line” for the U.S.-based company, and the date of the email corresponds with a five-day stay Andrew had at Epstein’s Manhattan residence.Prince Andrew has made an art out of living large on someone else’s dime. Despite losing his royal duties and being publicly disgraced, he continues to float through life cushioned by the generosity of others — whether it’s shady financiers, wealthy “friends,” or even family bailouts. The man who once begged Jeffrey Epstein for $200 million in funding still relies on outside help to sustain his champagne tastes. From a $16 million debt quietly covered by the late Queen, to mysterious “business” deals that seem to appear out of thin air, Andrew has become the royal equivalent of a trust-fund mooch — always broke, yet somehow never downsizing. He’s not working, not earning, and not apologizing. Instead, he’s still hustling for handouts, clinging to his titles, and pretending he’s the victim of bad press rather than a man who burned through his privilege and now needs others to bankroll what’s left of his faded luxury.to  contact  [email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate’s affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein’s estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate’s affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate’s value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims’ Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein’s victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate’s assets and the status of the victims’ claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein’s Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein’s estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate’s management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein’s criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein’s estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims’ Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:[email protected]:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Background of the LawsuitDefendants:Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn: Both are lawyers who were appointed as co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate following his death in August 2019. They have been responsible for managing the estate’s affairs, including financial assets and legal claims against Epstein.Plaintiffs:Danielle Benskey: An alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein who, along with other plaintiffs, has brought forward claims against the estate.Jane Doe 3: Another individual who has accused Epstein of abuse and is seeking justice through the legal system.Allegations and ClaimsMismanagement and Negligence:Estate Administration: The plaintiffs allege that Indyke and Kahn have mishandled the administration of Epstein’s estate. This includes accusations of mismanagement of financial assets, failure to properly address claims from victims, and overall negligence in managing the estate’s affairs.Financial Irregularities: There are claims that the executors may have engaged in or failed to address financial irregularities that negatively impacted the estate’s value and its ability to settle claims.Failure to Address Victims’ Claims:Inadequate Settlements: The lawsuit argues that Indyke and Kahn did not adequately handle or settle claims made by Epstein’s victims. This includes allegations that they were unresponsive or failed to provide fair compensation to survivors like Benskey and Jane Doe 3.Lack of Transparency: The plaintiffs accuse the executors of being opaque about the handling of the estate’s assets and the status of the victims’ claims.Legal ProceedingsFiling and Court Actions:Lawsuit Details: The lawsuit has been filed in a civil court, where the plaintiffs seek financial damages and other remedies for the alleged mismanagement and failures in addressing their claims.Court Hearings: There have been ongoing court hearings and legal maneuvers as the case progresses, including motions, evidence submissions, and testimonies.Recent Developments:Settlement Talks: There have been discussions and negotiations regarding potential settlements, though the specifics of these talks are not always publicly disclosed.Court Orders: The court has issued various orders related to the case, including directives on evidence disclosure and procedural matters.Broader ContextEpstein’s Estate:Complexity: Jeffrey Epstein’s estate is highly complex, involving significant financial assets, multiple claims from survivors, and legal disputes. The estate’s management has been under scrutiny, given Epstein’s criminal activities and the large number of victims involved.Public Scrutiny: The handling of Epstein’s estate, including the actions of Indyke and Kahn, has attracted considerable public and media attention, adding to the pressure on the executors to address the allegations and claims appropriately.Victims’ Advocacy:Support for Survivors: The lawsuit is part of broader efforts by victims and their advocates to seek justice and accountability for the abuse they endured. It reflects ongoing challenges in achieving fair compensation and redress for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.(commercial at 8:16)to contact me:[email protected]:Microsoft Word - 2024.02.16 Kahn Indyke Complaint (FINAL) (wallstreetonparade.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In December 2022, the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) reached a settlement with the estate of Jeffrey Epstein and related entities. Under the deal, the estate agreed to pay $105 million in cash plus one-half of the proceeds from the sale of the island known as Little St. James (owned by Epstein) to the USVI. The settlement resolved civil claims brought by the USVI under its Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (CICO) and laws dealing with sex trafficking, child exploitation and fraud, tied to Epstein’s operations in the territory.As part of the agreement the estate also agreed to pay $450,000 for environmental remediation of another Epstein-owned island, Great St. James, where Epstein’s activities allegedly included the destruction of historic structures tied to enslaved workers. The terms specify that the proceeds from the settlement must be dedicated to a trust administered by the USVI for projects aiding victims of sexual abuse, human trafficking and supporting related services. The estate did not admit liability or wrongdoing in the settlement.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

According to multiple media reports, Prince Andrew visited Epstein’s Upper East Side residence in December 2010 for several days, staying in a room dubbed “Room Britannica” and being treated as a significant guest. One anonymous former modelling-circle source claimed that during a private screening of the film The King’s Speech (which Epstein is said to have bragged about watching with Andrew ahead of its release), young women were instructed to give foot massages to Epstein — and that Andrew was “pretty certain” to have received one himself while the movie played.Andrew’s representatives have denied that any such specific foot-massage event occurred, framing these claims as insinuation rather than evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Reporters note the allegations remain unverified: the source describes them as part of Epstein’s larger pattern of exploiting young women, and the foot-massage detail is presented as circumstantial testimony rather than formal legal proof. The claims raised fresh scrutiny of Andrew’s long-questioned association with Epstein and the environment in which Epstein allegedly operated.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Caroline Kaufman is a woman who has publicly come forward as one of the alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, asserting that in December 2010, when she was 17, she was invited to Epstein’s Manhattan mansion under the pretext of a modelling interview and was assaulted there. In her lawsuit, Kaufman alleges that during her visit she encountered Prince Andrew in the mansion, although she does not claim he participated in the assault itself. Her complaint describes being escorted by an older woman she believes to be Ghislaine Maxwell to a private room where Epstein was nude on a massage table and then claims the assault occurred, with her being silenced and threatened afterwards.Kaufman has demanded that Prince Andrew speak to U.S. authorities about what he knows of Epstein’s network and his own presence at Epstein’s residence. Her legal filing and public statements argue that Andrew’s cooperation is essential for law-enforcement investigating the broader Epstein scandal — she, and her legal team, contend that he possesses information that could assist in exposing others in Epstein’s circle and in holding them accountable.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Andrew B. Brettler is a Los Angeles-based attorney, partner at the law firm Berk Brettler LLP, where he practices in the areas of entertainment and sports litigation, defamation/privacy rights, and employment law. He is widely recognised for his work on behalf of high-profile clients in the media and entertainment industries, and has a reputation for being a formidable advocate in both civil and criminal contexts.In recent years Brettler has gained further visibility for his involvement in the defence team of Prince Andrew, serving as one of the lawyers representing him in U.S. litigation. His participation in that case has drawn public and media attention, especially in writings about how the case is proceeding and the legal strategy being deployed.to  contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Federal authorities allege that the ring busted for running illegal sports and card-games used highly advanced and coordinated cheating technology. In the poker portion of the scheme, underground high-stakes games were manipulated using rigged shuffling machines that secretly read the deck’s cards and transmitted which players held strong hands to an off-site operator, who then signaled a co-conspirator at the table (called the “quarterback” or “driver”) to direct bets accordingly. Devices included poker tables equipped with hidden X-ray cameras beneath the felt to identify face-down cards, chip trays with built-in analyzers/cameras, decoy cellphones to relay information, and decks marked so that only accomplices wearing special lenses or glasses could see the marks.In the sports-betting arm of the investigation, insiders harvested and sold non-public information about professional basketball players’ injuries, playing time, and game-day decisions. Players or coaches allegedly tipped off conspirators to when they would sit out or exit early due to an injury, creating prop-bet opportunities. Wagers were placed accordingly on unders or player performance outcomes, using insider info to create a virtually guaranteed edge. The two schemes overlapped, involving organized-crime networks, professional athletes, and complex laundering of ill-gotten proceeds.to contact me:[email protected]:How mafiosi and NBA stars used rigged card shufflers, X-ray tables and secret contact lenses in poker scamBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.