Mega Edition: Governor John de Jongh's Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivors Lawsuit (Part 3-4) (11/20/25)

Former U.S. Virgin Islands Governor John de Jongh Jr. has filed a memorandum in federal court seeking to dismiss, transfer, or strike the lawsuit brought by five anonymous women identified as Jane Does 1-5, who accuse the Virgin Islands government and several current and former officials of enabling Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking network. De Jongh argues that the Southern District of New York lacks jurisdiction, asserting he has been a resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands for decades and has no substantial ties to New York that would justify the case being heard there. He also claims he was improperly served at a Manhattan address where he says he does not reside or maintain control, insisting the lawsuit should be dismissed or moved to the Virgin Islands, where the alleged conduct occurred.The memorandum further contends that even if the court finds jurisdiction proper, the claims against De Jongh should still be thrown out because they are barred by prior settlement releases signed by Epstein’s victims as part of earlier agreements with his estate. He argues that the complaint fails to allege specific wrongful acts committed by him and maintains that any actions connected to Epstein occurred while he was serving in his official capacity, which he says grants him legal immunity. De Jongh also asks the court to strike portions of the complaint as irrelevant and prejudicial, describing them as inflammatory rather than grounded in fact. The filing adds another layer to the expanding legal fight over what government officials knew— and failed to stop—while Epstein operated in the Virgin Islands.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Former U.S. Virgin Islands Governor John de Jongh Jr. has filed a memorandum in federal court seeking to dismiss, transfer, or strike the lawsuit brought by five anonymous women identified as Jane Does 1-5, who accuse the Virgin Islands government and several current and former officials of enabling Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking network. De Jongh argues that the Southern District of New York lacks jurisdiction, asserting he has been a resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands for decades and has no substantial ties to New York that would justify the case being heard there. He also claims he was improperly served at a Manhattan address where he says he does not reside or maintain control, insisting the lawsuit should be dismissed or moved to the Virgin Islands, where the alleged conduct occurred.The memorandum further contends that even if the court finds jurisdiction proper, the claims against De Jongh should still be thrown out because they are barred by prior settlement releases signed by Epstein’s victims as part of earlier agreements with his estate. He argues that the complaint fails to allege specific wrongful acts committed by him and maintains that any actions connected to Epstein occurred while he was serving in his official capacity, which he says grants him legal immunity. De Jongh also asks the court to strike portions of the complaint as irrelevant and prejudicial, describing them as inflammatory rather than grounded in fact. The filing adds another layer to the expanding legal fight over what government officials knew— and failed to stop—while Epstein operated in the Virgin Islands.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Settlement agreements reached with Jeffrey Epstein’s estate included a little-noticed carveout that allowed some survivors to continue pursuing claims against powerful figures connected to Epstein, even after accepting compensation. These provisions weren’t accidental; they were crafted to preserve the ability to target individuals believed to have played a role beyond Epstein himself. At least one survivor signaled plans to use that pathway to bring legal action against high-profile Wall Street executives Leon Black and Jes Staley, asserting that accountability should extend to those who enabled, protected, or benefitted from Epstein’s operations.The existence of these carveouts shifted the landscape of post-Epstein litigation. Instead of closing the book on the case, the settlements effectively opened new fronts — placing influential financiers back under scrutiny and raising the possibility of additional lawsuits that could broaden public understanding of the network surrounding Epstein. It reflected a larger sentiment among survivors: Epstein may be gone, but the system that supported him was far from dismantled, and there remained unfinished business in pursuit of the truth.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Reports indicate that newly unsealed court records reveal Jeffrey Epstein’s estate discovered a previously unknown cache of videos and photographs that may contain highly sensitive or potentially illegal material. According to the filings, the estate alerted federal authorities and legal representatives for survivors once the cache was located, and the material is now being reviewed under restricted access. The revelation has raised immediate questions about how such evidence remained undiscovered during prior raids and investigations, and why it is only surfacing years after Epstein’s death, despite the public insistence that all relevant materials were already collected by law enforcement.These reports also note that the discovery aligns with long-standing claims from survivors and insiders that Epstein systematically recorded activities inside his properties, allegedly capturing compromising encounters involving high-profile individuals. Advocates have argued for years that Epstein used surveillance as leverage and protection, and the existence of a hidden archive intensifies speculation about who may be depicted on the recovered media. The finding further fuels concerns about transparency, chain of custody, and the possibility that critical evidence was concealed, misplaced, or withheld, leaving the public once again questioning whether the full truth surrounding Epstein’s network has ever genuinely been revealed.Former Barclays CEO Jes Staley and his legal team forcefully rejected allegations made by JPMorgan Chase, describing them as “slanderous” and “baseless but serious.” The dispute emerged during litigation in Manhattan, where lawsuits filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands and a survivor identified as Jane Doe 1 accused Staley of having closely associated with Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking network, including claims that he exchanged hundreds of emails with Epstein containing disturbing content. Staley’s lawyers argued that the accelerated trial schedule was unnecessary and unfair, insisting that he had been given insufficient time to prepare an adequate defense. JPMorgan, in turn, pursued legal action against Staley, seeking to recover compensation and asserting that he was central to decisions that allowed Epstein to operate as a client for years. The bank maintained that Staley was “inextricably linked” to the case, pointing to his long relationship with Epstein dating back to his tenure at JPMorgan in the early 2000s. Staley ultimately resigned as CEO of Barclays in 2021 amid scrutiny from UK regulators over his Epstein ties, and the legal confrontation highlighted the reputational fallout and lingering uncertainty surrounding the financial institutions and executives connected to Epstein’s network.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein’s properties were widely reported to be heavily wired for both video and audio recording, turning his homes into surveillance hubs rather than mere residences. His Manhattan townhouse was said to contain hidden cameras placed throughout bedrooms, bathrooms, and guest areas, all feeding into a private media room accessible through a concealed door. Multiple accusers have described seeing walls of screens displaying live feeds from around the house, suggesting that Epstein was monitoring visitors without their knowledge. Similar claims have been made about Little Saint James, where the island was reportedly blanketed with cameras and audio systems strategically positioned to capture conversations and interactions everywhere on the property.These surveillance systems are believed to have served a specific purpose: leverage. Epstein was known for cultivating relationships with powerful individuals, and the idea that he recorded private encounters in his homes has led many to believe he stockpiled compromising material for blackmail, influence, or protection. Reports of specialized rooms, sound-isolated spaces, and equipment built directly into the architecture reinforce suspicions that documenting sensitive behavior was not an accident — it was the design. The sophistication and secrecy behind these systems have only deepened public speculation that Epstein’s real currency was information, and that much of what he captured was removed or buried long before investigators ever arrived.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

One day after Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his cell, Richard Kahn — executor of Epstein’s estate — was reportedly photographed entering Epstein’s Manhattan mansion and walking out with a large bag in hand. At a moment when the residence should have been under strict control as an active crime scene and evidence-preservation site, why was someone connected to Epstein’s inner circle seemingly allowed unrestricted access? And more importantly, what exactly was in that bag?This incident raises a larger and far more troubling question: if items were being removed from Epstein’s properties so quickly after his death, how can anyone trust that the evidence collected — or what remains of it — represents the full truth? If a man responsible for managing Epstein’s estate could walk in and walk out with materials before investigators completed their work, what else might have been removed, swapped, or buried before the public ever had a chance to see it?to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew’s continued evasion of accountability has transformed him into a central figure in the fallout surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal empire. Born into one of the most privileged positions on earth, he repeatedly placed himself in Epstein’s inner circle even after Epstein’s conviction, including reportedly staying at his home in New York after the scandal was public. A widely criticized BBC interview intended to clear his name instead became a defining moment of public collapse, in which Andrew offered implausible explanations involving a Pizza Express alibi and a medical claim that he could not sweat—responses that significantly damaged his credibility. The now-iconic photograph of Andrew with Virginia Giuffre and Epstein’s documented pattern of exploiting underage girls further intensified scrutiny, raising serious questions about the prince’s judgment, integrity, and transparency.Andrew has repeatedly declined opportunities to speak with U.S. authorities and has now let multiple congressional deadlines pass without cooperation, retreating into royal seclusion as public pressure mounts. The royal family has since removed many of his public roles and military honors in an effort to contain the damage, but the strategy has only highlighted the seriousness of the allegations and the depth of Andrew’s involvement with Epstein. His silence has become its own indictment, signaling fear rather than innocence, and reinforcing the perception that accountability is being avoided rather than confronted.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A persistent misconception continues to circulate around the Epstein case: the belief that survivors have never identified individuals involved. In reality, numerous names have already been publicly stated in sworn testimony, court filings, and interviews. Among those named are former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, former Senate majority leader George Mitchell, financier Glenn Dubin, scientist Marvin Minsky, billionaire retail magnate Les Wexner, investor Leon Black, Hyatt executive Thomas Pritzker, and Prince Andrew. These are not obscure figures; they are individuals of immense political and financial influence. Yet the public response has largely been silence, shaped by partisan distractions and misinformation that shifted attention away from real testimony in favor of viral conspiracy narratives. The issue is not that names have not been provided — it is that society has not acted on them.Survivors face intense pressure and legal intimidation when they come forward, including the threat of financially ruinous lawsuits from powerful defendants with vast legal resources, which has historically deterred additional testimony. This environment of fear has shielded the accused for decades, enabling them to operate without accountability. Many advocates and journalists have become increasingly vocal in rejecting that silence and calling for immediate action — demanding investigations, subpoenas, and legal consequences for the names already publicly identified. The question should no longer be, “Why aren’t survivors naming names?” but rather, “Why are the named individuals not being investigated?” Until there is movement on the existing record, continued calls for additional names serve only as a distraction from the urgent need for accountability.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

President Donald Trump abruptly reversed his longstanding opposition to public disclosure of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s network, telling House Republicans to back a measure requiring the Department of Justice to release Epstein-related files. He previously labelled the disclosure effort a “hoax” and actively resisted it, but as bipartisan and intraparty pressure mounted—including from conservative lawmakers—the tide shifted and he pledged to sign the bill if passed.The legislation mandates the DOJ to publish all unclassified records tied to Epstein’s investigations within 30 days, with limited allowances for redactions only to protect victims or continuing probes; it explicitly bars withholding records on the basis of embarrassment or political sensitivity. The move comes amid growing scrutiny of Epstein’s ties to powerful figures and renewed demands for accountability, even as questions linger about Trump’s motivations for this pivot and whether it signals a genuine commitment to transparency or a tactical retreat under mounting pressure.to contact me:[email protected]:How Trump reversed course on the Epstein files as his administration faces lingering suspicion about their release | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

President Donald Trump abruptly reversed his longstanding opposition to public disclosure of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s network, telling House Republicans to back a measure requiring the Department of Justice to release Epstein-related files. He previously labelled the disclosure effort a “hoax” and actively resisted it, but as bipartisan and intraparty pressure mounted—including from conservative lawmakers—the tide shifted and he pledged to sign the bill if passed.The legislation mandates the DOJ to publish all unclassified records tied to Epstein’s investigations within 30 days, with limited allowances for redactions only to protect victims or continuing probes; it explicitly bars withholding records on the basis of embarrassment or political sensitivity. The move comes amid growing scrutiny of Epstein’s ties to powerful figures and renewed demands for accountability, even as questions linger about Trump’s motivations for this pivot and whether it signals a genuine commitment to transparency or a tactical retreat under mounting pressure.to contact me:[email protected]:How Trump reversed course on the Epstein files as his administration faces lingering suspicion about their release | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.