Lawyers For Jane Doe In The JP Morgan Lawsuit Request Jamie Dimon Sit For Another Deposition

Les Wexner, the billionaire founder of L Brands and longtime CEO of Victoria’s Secret, was not just an associate of Jeffrey Epstein—he was Epstein’s most powerful and influential patron. Wexner granted Epstein an extraordinary level of access to his financial empire, entrusting him with power of attorney and essentially giving him control over vast portions of his wealth and decision-making authority. Epstein used that access to insert himself into elite financial and social circles, all while operating what would become one of the most notorious sex trafficking networks in modern American history. Wexner even transferred ownership of a Manhattan mansion—later used by Epstein to abuse young women and girls—to Epstein under murky circumstances, which further fueled questions about their relationship.Critics have long argued that without Wexner’s sponsorship, Epstein’s rise would have been impossible. Despite claiming he severed ties with Epstein in the mid-2000s, Wexner has never fully explained why he gave so much power to a man with no legitimate financial credentials. He has painted himself as a victim of betrayal, alleging that Epstein misappropriated millions of dollars, but many see that explanation as insufficient and evasive. Survivors and investigators alike have questioned how Wexner could have been so intimately tied to Epstein without noticing or suspecting his predatory behavior—especially given the proximity of Epstein’s crimes to properties and enterprises connected to Wexner’s name. The silence and lack of accountability from Wexner remains one of the most glaring and unresolved aspects of the Epstein scandal.to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.businessinsider.com/ghislaine-maxwell-deposition-hints-at-jeffrey-epstein-les-wexner-link-2020-10

Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is one of the most underexamined yet telling indicators of how deeply entrenched he was in elite policy-making circles. Epstein donated at least $350,000 to the CFR and was listed as a member of its donor roster for years, despite his 2008 conviction for soliciting sex from a minor. His name appeared alongside respected diplomats, corporate executives, and scholars—legitimizing him in the eyes of the foreign policy establishment. Even after his initial conviction, the CFR accepted donations from Epstein-linked foundations and did not publicly distance itself from him until much later, raising questions about whether his presence was overlooked, tolerated, or quietly protected.The CFR has since tried to downplay its connection to Epstein, claiming he was not a formal member, but that distinction does little to shield the institution from criticism. Accepting donations from a convicted sex offender, especially one operating under the guise of philanthropy and elite networking, speaks volumes about the moral compromises often made behind closed doors. Epstein leveraged associations like this to burnish his image and embed himself within global power structures, using institutions like CFR as part of the camouflage that made his crimes harder to scrutinize. The fact that no CFR official raised alarm or demanded accountability at the time remains a stark reflection of how financial influence can insulate even the most depraved figures from scrutiny.to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/council-on-foreign-relations-another-beneficiary-of-epstein-largesse-grapples-with-how-to-handle-his-donations/2019/09/10/1d5630e2-d324-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html

In early 2019, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas’ office began investigating claims from two or more survivors who said they were abused at Epstein’s ranch in southern Santa Fe County. Investigators interviewed victims and reviewed property records—including over 400 pages of state lease documents—before forwarding their findings to federal prosecutors in New York, with plans to assist, not lead, the case. At the time, the AG clarified that they had no intent to file state charges, and victims were not prosecuted within New Mexico.New Mexico faced intense criticism, particularly because Epstein never registered as a sex offender in the state. Under state law, his Florida conviction did not trigger registration requirements. Despite owning the ranch on leased public land, he was not legally obligated to register, a loophole Balderas later sought to close through reform legislation. Until those laws changed, New Mexico remained a jurisdiction where Epstein evaded both prosecution and registry obligations, even though allegations of underage abuse there were well-documented.source:https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2019/07/18/no-epstein-indictment-here-for-now/

Jeffrey Epstein had a professional relationship with Gypsy Gita, a spiritual wellness guru who reportedly provided massage services to high-profile individuals including Prince Andrew. Gita worked for Epstein from around 2001 to 2005, and has stated that he met the Duke of York at least three times, providing massages on two occasions at Epstein’s New York residence—what he described as “a weird, warped world.” Gita characterized Andrew as appearing “aloof,” “strange and arrogant,” noting that he “didn’t know who Andrew was,” despite his prominent status—highlighting the chilling normalcy with which elite figures moved within Epstein’s orbit.While not central to trafficking allegations, Gita’s encounters with Prince Andrew underscore the broader ecosystem of exploitation that Epstein cultivated. As someone invited into his inner circle, Gita had direct access to both Epstein and his elite guests. The interactions between Gita and Prince Andrew, though framed in wellness and spirituality, reflect how grooming and recruitment networks extended beyond the well-known figures like Ghislaine Maxwell, touching even seemingly benign associates who contributed to the veneer of legitimacy around Epstein’s world.

On August 5, 2025, the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Republican Congressman James Comer, issued subpoenas to Bill and Hillary Clinton in connection with the ongoing investigation into the federal government's handling of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. Bill Clinton is scheduled to be deposed on October 14, and Hillary Clinton on October 9, as part of a broader inquiry into how Epstein evaded meaningful accountability for decades. The committee also demanded that the Department of Justice produce all unredacted records related to Epstein by August 19, signaling a new phase of congressional scrutiny aimed at determining whether political or prosecutorial favoritism played a role in shielding powerful individuals. Though neither Clinton has been formally accused of criminal wrongdoing, their longstanding personal and professional proximity to Epstein—documented through flight logs, photographs, and shared social circles—has placed them at the center of growing public skepticism.The subpoenas did not stop with the Clintons. The committee has also called on a range of former senior officials to testify, including former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller, and former Attorneys General Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Jeff Sessions, William Barr, Merrick Garland, and Alberto Gonzales. The committee is specifically focused on uncovering why Epstein received such a lenient non-prosecution agreement in 2007, why federal oversight of his post-conviction status was so lax, and whether any interference occurred in subsequent investigations. Critics have noted the glaring omission of Donald Trump—himself photographed with Epstein and present at multiple known events—but the committee has remained silent on whether additional subpoenas are forthcoming. Regardless, the move marks the first time the Clintons have been formally compelled to speak under oath about Epstein, and it reflects growing bipartisan frustration with how long justice has been delayed in this case.to contact me:[email protected]:Bill and Hillary Clinton, former AGs and FBI directors subpoenaed for Jeffrey Epstein testimony

The Department of Justice has informed a federal court that the grand jury transcripts related to Ghislaine Maxwell do not contain any new or previously unknown information. In its recent filing, the DOJ explained that it had turned over an annotated version of the transcripts, but asserted they offer nothing substantive that would alter the current understanding of Maxwell’s case. This development comes in response to ongoing litigation and public interest in unsealing records tied to Maxwell’s role in Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking operation.While there was speculation that the transcripts might contain revelations about Epstein’s network or implicate additional high-profile figures, the DOJ dismissed such hopes, emphasizing the transcripts were legally routine. The filing is likely to frustrate advocates and survivors who have long accused the DOJ of shielding powerful individuals and limiting accountability. The agency’s insistence that the documents are insignificant may be legally defensible, but it will do little to rebuild public trust in the government’s handling of the broader Epstein scandal.to contact me:[email protected]:Grand jury transcripts in Ghislaine Maxwell case contain nothing new, DOJ filing says - ABC News

Two anonymous survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse filed letters on August 4, 2025, expressing deep frustration with the Justice Department’s request to unseal grand jury transcripts, which they say has treated them as "pawns in political warfare," rather than as survivors deserving of respect and transparency. They accused the DOJ and FBI of prioritizing the redaction—and effective shielding—of powerful third parties over the interests of the victims. One wrote, “I am not some pawn in your political warfare,” while the other stated explicitly: “The DOJ’s and FBI’s priority is protecting the ‘third‑party,’ the wealthy men, by focusing on scrubbing their names off the files of which the victims ‘know who they are’”Both survivors demanded that victims’ identities be fully redacted and requested that their attorneys be allowed to review any proposed redactions before any records are made public. They also urged Judge Berman to appoint a third party to oversee the redaction process to ensure anonymity safeguards. Their letters reflect alarm that the current unsealing effort might retraumatize survivors and fail to center their voices, given that only law enforcement officers testified before the grand juries—not victims or witnesses—and that transcripts cover testimony from just two law‑enforcement agentsto contact me:[email protected]:Epstein victim condemns ‘political warfare’ in Trump administration’s effort to release grand jury transcripts | The Independent

The persistent rumors of a romantic relationship between Ghislaine Maxwell and Prince Andrew have been reignited by the forthcoming book The Rise and Fall of the House of York by royal biographer Andrew Lownie. In the book, Lownie presents testimony from insiders and former friends of the Duke of York who claim Maxwell and Andrew shared more than just a social friendship. According to the book, the two were romantically involved, with some sources describing them as “an item” during the 1990s. Maxwell, Lownie writes, was obsessed with status and saw Andrew as both a romantic target and a royal stepping stone. Their relationship, according to these accounts, was well known among those in their inner circles—casting doubt on the prince’s repeated insistence that he barely knew her.These claims put Prince Andrew’s public denials under fresh scrutiny and deepen the sense that he was far more involved with the Epstein-Maxwell operation than he’s admitted. If Maxwell and Andrew were romantically entangled, it suggests that he wasn’t just a royal caught in the wrong company—but a man emotionally and personally tied to Epstein’s chief accomplice. This complicates his attempts to distance himself from the scandal, particularly in light of the settlement he paid to Virginia Giuffre. Lownie’s revelations don’t just challenge the official narrative—they threaten to obliterate it, exposing the possibility that the prince’s entanglement with Maxwell was neither incidental nor peripheral, but intimate, calculated, and deeply compromising.to contact me:[email protected]:Prince Andrew Had 'Affair' With Ghislaine Maxwell: Book - Newsweek

In response to Maxwell’s Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell’s characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell’s filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell’s framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell’s assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell’s denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)

In response to Maxwell’s Rule 56.1 “Statement of Contested Facts,” Virginia Giuffre meticulously contested nearly every assertion Maxwell put forth. She denied Maxwell’s characterization of her allegations as “obvious lies,” and pointed to FBI interviews and deposition transcripts confirming her account that Maxwell actively recruited and trafficked her to Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre flagged multiple misrepresentations in Maxwell’s filing—ranging from the drafting and distribution of press statements, to claims about the scope and detail of her public disclosures. Giuffre maintains her statements are grounded in evidence, recorded testimony, and contemporaneous documentation—not exaggeration or fabrication, as Maxwell suggested.Giuffre further challenged Maxwell’s framing of her motives, rejecting allegations that she sought media attention or monetary gain. Instead, Giuffre emphasized her pursuit of justice under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, her goal to expose governmental failings, and her intention to assist other survivors. She disputed Maxwell’s assertion that Giuffre had “sought out media organizations,” clarifying that she was approached, not the other way around. In every contested point, Giuffre created genuine disputes of material fact—underscoring that the truthfulness of her allegations versus Maxwell’s denials could not be resolved without witness testimony or trial. This response was crucial in precluding Maxwell from obtaining summary judgment and keeping the defamation case alive.to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)