The USVI And Their Motion To Exclude JP Morgan's Expert Witnesses (Part 1) (10/31/26)

On August 18, 2023, the government of the United States Virgin Islands filed a memorandum in the Southern District of New York seeking to exclude expert testimony presented by JPMorgan Chase in the civil lawsuit concerning the bank's financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI argued that three experts retained by JPMorgan, Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin, offered opinions that were unreliable, irrelevant, unsupported by sufficient evidence, or outside their professional qualifications. The government was particularly critical of Mehlman-Orozco, who presented herself as a human trafficking expert despite what the filing characterized as limited academic training and practical experience in the field. Her proposed testimony included claims suggesting that some minors could voluntarily participate in commercial sex without being trafficked, a position the USVI argued directly contradicted federal sex trafficking law. Prosecutors also challenged her opinions concerning banking regulations, suspicious activity reports, and JPMorgan's internal compliance practices, noting that she acknowledged lacking expertise in financial regulations. Additionally, the government accused her of introducing an unsupported theory of secondary exploitation that appeared designed to discredit trafficking survivors, their attorneys, and the government's motivations for bringing the lawsuit. The USVI maintained that allowing such testimony would confuse the jury and improperly introduce legal interpretations and speculative allegations under the guise of expert analysis.The memorandum also challenged the proposed testimony of retired FBI agent Joseph Fonseca, who sought to minimize the importance of financial records and suspicious activity reports in investigations involving sex trafficking. The USVI emphasized that Fonseca admitted during his deposition that he had never used suspicious activity reports during his FBI career and had not even understood what they were before JPMorgan hired him for the litigation. According to the filing, his limited familiarity with banking documentation made him unqualified to speculate about whether financial information supplied by JPMorgan could have assisted investigators pursuing Epstein. The government similarly attacked forensic economist Carlyn Irwin's proposed testimony concerning tax benefits awarded to Epstein's businesses through the Virgin Islands Economic Development Commission. Irwin had criticized the territory's oversight of those benefits and suggested that their approval could have involved an improper exchange between Epstein and government officials. However, the USVI argued that she lacked experience with territorial tax programs, had not conducted an independent fraud investigation, and possessed no evidentiary foundation for suggesting improper motives by public officials. The government maintained that JPMorgan was attempting to redirect responsibility toward Virgin Islands authorities while introducing speculative testimony that did not address the bank's alleged participation in and financial benefit from Epstein's trafficking operation. Citing Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards established in Daubert, the USVI asked Judge Jed Rakoff to exclude the three experts' opinions entirely or substantially restrict their testimony before trial.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On August 18, 2023, the government of the United States Virgin Islands filed a memorandum in the Southern District of New York seeking to exclude expert testimony presented by JPMorgan Chase in the civil lawsuit concerning the bank's financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI argued that three experts retained by JPMorgan, Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlyn Irwin, offered opinions that were unreliable, irrelevant, unsupported by sufficient evidence, or outside their professional qualifications. The government was particularly critical of Mehlman-Orozco, who presented herself as a human trafficking expert despite what the filing characterized as limited academic training and practical experience in the field. Her proposed testimony included claims suggesting that some minors could voluntarily participate in commercial sex without being trafficked, a position the USVI argued directly contradicted federal sex trafficking law. Prosecutors also challenged her opinions concerning banking regulations, suspicious activity reports, and JPMorgan's internal compliance practices, noting that she acknowledged lacking expertise in financial regulations. Additionally, the government accused her of introducing an unsupported theory of secondary exploitation that appeared designed to discredit trafficking survivors, their attorneys, and the government's motivations for bringing the lawsuit. The USVI maintained that allowing such testimony would confuse the jury and improperly introduce legal interpretations and speculative allegations under the guise of expert analysis.The memorandum also challenged the proposed testimony of retired FBI agent Joseph Fonseca, who sought to minimize the importance of financial records and suspicious activity reports in investigations involving sex trafficking. The USVI emphasized that Fonseca admitted during his deposition that he had never used suspicious activity reports during his FBI career and had not even understood what they were before JPMorgan hired him for the litigation. According to the filing, his limited familiarity with banking documentation made him unqualified to speculate about whether financial information supplied by JPMorgan could have assisted investigators pursuing Epstein. The government similarly attacked forensic economist Carlyn Irwin's proposed testimony concerning tax benefits awarded to Epstein's businesses through the Virgin Islands Economic Development Commission. Irwin had criticized the territory's oversight of those benefits and suggested that their approval could have involved an improper exchange between Epstein and government officials. However, the USVI argued that she lacked experience with territorial tax programs, had not conducted an independent fraud investigation, and possessed no evidentiary foundation for suggesting improper motives by public officials. The government maintained that JPMorgan was attempting to redirect responsibility toward Virgin Islands authorities while introducing speculative testimony that did not address the bank's alleged participation in and financial benefit from Epstein's trafficking operation. Citing Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards established in Daubert, the USVI asked Judge Jed Rakoff to exclude the three experts' opinions entirely or substantially restrict their testimony before trial.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

For years, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse operation, including Virginia Roberts Giuffre, encountered substantial legal and procedural obstacles when attempting to obtain documents, testimony, and other evidence from Prince Andrew concerning his relationship with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Beginning in 2015, Giuffre's attorneys repeatedly sought to question Andrew under oath about her allegations that Epstein and Maxwell had trafficked her to the British royal for sexual purposes when she was a teenager. Their initial attempts were unsuccessful, with one request sent to Buckingham Palace reportedly returned unopened and another delivered through the British Embassy in Washington rejected because it had not followed the appropriate diplomatic channels. Because Andrew resided in the United Kingdom, American attorneys could not simply compel his testimony through the ordinary procedures available against witnesses living in the United States, creating additional complications involving international legal assistance and British courts. Despite publicly insisting that he was willing to assist investigators, Andrew's cooperation remained a major point of contention. In January 2020, then-U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman publicly criticized Andrew's failure to assist federal investigators, and by March, Berman declared that the prince had effectively closed the door on voluntary cooperation. Giuffre's attorneys similarly accused Andrew and his representatives of refusing repeated requests for interviews, testimony, and discussions about the allegations. The situation became even more contentious after Giuffre filed her civil sexual assault lawsuit against Andrew in August 2021, seeking to hold him personally accountable for the abuse she alleged occurred in London, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.During the discovery phase of Giuffre's lawsuit, Andrew's legal team maintained that he possessed no responsive documents for many of the requests submitted by her attorneys, including communications with Epstein and Maxwell and records relating to visits to locations in New York, Florida, and London. His lawyers also reportedly claimed there were no documents supporting his widely publicized assertion that a medical condition had prevented him from sweating, an explanation he had offered during his disastrous 2019 BBC interview to challenge Giuffre's account of their encounter. Giuffre's attorneys characterized Andrew's attempts to suspend discovery while challenging her residency and the court's jurisdiction as efforts to delay scrutiny of his records and testimony. The absence of supposedly relevant documentation was particularly contentious given Andrew's longstanding association with Epstein and Maxwell, his documented visits to Epstein's properties, and evidence of communications between Andrew and Maxwell concerning Giuffre herself. These difficulties reflected a broader problem encountered by Epstein survivors who sought evidence from wealthy and influential individuals with the resources to contest subpoenas, challenge discovery demands, and prolong litigation through procedural motions. In January 2022, Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected Andrew's attempt to dismiss Giuffre's lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed toward depositions and more extensive discovery. However, before Andrew was required to testify under oath or undergo the full discovery process, the parties announced a confidential financial settlement on February 15, 2022. Andrew acknowledged Giuffre's suffering as a victim of abuse and expressed regret over his association with Epstein without admitting liability for her allegations. The settlement ended the litigation but also prevented a trial and the further compulsory examination of Andrew's records, leaving significant questions about his relationship with Epstein and Maxwell unanswered in a public courtroom.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

From the start, the Epstein investigation was engineered to produce narrow results. Narrow charges do not emerge naturally when evidence points to a sprawling criminal enterprise fueled by money, access, and institutional protection. The focus on Epstein alone was a deliberate choice designed to avoid following the financial infrastructure that made his crimes possible. The released emails and documents show awareness, coordination, and active containment, not ignorance. Sexual abuse was treated as the whole story because it could be isolated, while financial crimes would have exposed banks, intermediaries, and elite beneficiaries. Every dollar Epstein moved should have been treated as evidence of enterprise-level criminality, yet that scrutiny was avoided. RICO was never used because it would have forced prosecutors to acknowledge pattern, facilitation, and mutual benefit. That would have dragged the financial sector into the light, and that outcome was unacceptable to those in power. This was not incompetence or oversight. It was a controlled, scoped-down operation from the beginning.When Epstein became a liability who might talk, the narrow investigation became untenable, but his removal did not erase the evidence. Financial records, emails, and transaction histories still exist and still point to beneficiaries who profited while keeping their hands “clean.” The unanswered questions are all financial: who received money, who structured the vehicles, who vouched for him, and who chose profit over accountability. The contrast with cases like Martha Stewart exposes the hypocrisy of enforcement priorities, where market disruption is punished but elite stability is protected. Figures like Leon Black and Les Wexner exemplify how proximity to power insulates culpability through delay and fragmentation. The investigation was tilted long before Epstein’s death, designed to deliver a villain without a reckoning. Survivors were denied full accountability, and the public was given closure without truth. Until the financial architecture that enabled Epstein is confronted, justice has not begun—it has been deliberately postponed.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

For years, Virginia Roberts Giuffre's allegations against Prince Andrew were met with institutional resistance, repeated refusals to pursue a full criminal investigation, and a remarkable lack of accountability in the United Kingdom, despite the seriousness of her accusations and the evidence connecting Andrew to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre alleged that she was trafficked to London in 2001, when she was just 17 years old, and sexually abused by Andrew at Maxwell's residence in Belgravia. In 2015, London's Metropolitan Police received allegations involving Epstein and Maxwell, interviewed Giuffre, and examined available evidence, but ultimately decided in November 2016 not to open a full criminal investigation. Authorities justified that decision by arguing that most of the alleged trafficking activity occurred outside Britain and that American investigators were better positioned to pursue the case. However, Giuffre had specifically identified an alleged sexual assault involving a British royal on British soil, raising serious questions about why the matter never received a more extensive criminal examination.Channel 4 News subsequently revealed that Giuffre had approached British police again in 2016, offering additional evidence and identifying potential witnesses, yet her efforts still failed to produce a full investigation. Scotland Yard reviewed its position in 2019, 2021, and 2022, repeatedly declining to pursue the matter even as Andrew's relationship with Epstein attracted increasing international scrutiny. The decision became particularly controversial after Giuffre filed her civil lawsuit against Andrew in August 2021, placing allegations that British authorities had declined to investigate before an American federal judge. Throughout this period, Andrew maintained his denials, publicly questioned Giuffre's credibility, and continued to benefit from the extraordinary institutional resources and public standing associated with his position in the royal family. The contrast was difficult to ignore: while Giuffre spent years fighting to have her allegations seriously examined, the British criminal justice system never subjected Andrew to a full criminal investigation over her accusations.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In May 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell attempted to have Annie Farmer's civil lawsuit dismissed or transferred from the Southern District of New York to the federal District of New Mexico, arguing that the allegations against her concerned events that allegedly occurred almost entirely outside New York. Farmer had filed suit in November 2019 against Maxwell and the executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, accusing Epstein and Maxwell of sexually abusing her when she was a teenager in 1996. According to Farmer, Epstein initially cultivated a relationship with her by offering educational opportunities and assistance with college admissions before inviting her to his Zorro Ranch property in New Mexico. Farmer alleged that Maxwell sexually assaulted her during the visit by giving her an unwanted massage that involved touching her breasts, while Epstein engaged in additional inappropriate behavior. Maxwell's attorneys attempted to separate her alleged conduct from Epstein's actions in New York, emphasizing that Epstein had arranged Farmer's initial travel from Arizona to Manhattan without Maxwell's alleged participation. They maintained that the accusations specifically involving Maxwell concerned conduct in New Mexico, making that state the more appropriate jurisdiction for the litigation. The defense further argued that Farmer's claims were filed decades after the alleged incidents, were insufficiently specific, and were barred by applicable statutes of limitations. Maxwell consequently asked Judge Lorna Schofield to dismiss the complaint outright or, alternatively, transfer the claims against her to New Mexico, where her attorneys contended the underlying events had occurred.Farmer's legal team opposed Maxwell's attempt to dismiss or relocate the lawsuit, arguing that the complaint adequately described Maxwell's personal involvement in the abuse and that the broader circumstances surrounding Epstein's operation established legitimate connections to New York. Her attorneys emphasized that the allegations against Maxwell were not incidental or speculative, but included specific accusations of sexual assault and false imprisonment committed against Farmer when she was a minor. They also challenged Maxwell's characterization of the complaint as legally insufficient, maintaining that the allegations met federal pleading requirements and that factual disputes over the abuse should not be resolved through a preliminary dismissal motion. Farmer's attorneys pointed out that the court had already discouraged similar dismissal arguments advanced by Epstein's estate, making Maxwell's renewed attempt another contested procedural maneuver. Although Judge Schofield permitted Maxwell to submit her dismissal and transfer arguments, the court never issued a final ruling granting the requested relocation. In June 2020, the proceedings were stayed while Farmer pursued compensation through the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, which ultimately provided an alternative avenue for resolving her claims. Farmer subsequently sought to dismiss the civil action with prejudice, leading to further disagreements with Maxwell over the conditions of dismissal and the confidentiality of Farmer's compensation. The litigation therefore did not produce a substantive judicial determination that Maxwell's alleged conduct belonged exclusively before a New Mexico court. The attempted transfer nevertheless illustrated Maxwell's broader legal strategy of challenging jurisdiction, attacking the sufficiency of survivors' allegations, and seeking dismissal before the accusations could be tested through a civil trial. Farmer later testified publicly against Maxwell during her 2021 federal criminal trial in Manhattan, describing the abuse she said she experienced at Epstein's New Mexico ranch.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Long before Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025, Virginia Roberts Giuffre spent years demanding greater transparency surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the powerful individuals connected to their sexual abuse operation. Beginning with her public allegations against Epstein and Maxwell, Giuffre repeatedly challenged the secrecy that had allowed Epstein's activities and relationships to remain largely hidden from public scrutiny. Her 2015 defamation lawsuit against Maxwell produced a substantial collection of depositions, witness statements, correspondence, and other evidence that became the subject of years of litigation over public access. After the case settled in 2017, much of that material remained under seal, prompting investigative journalist Julie K. Brown and the Miami Herald to intervene in 2018 and demand its release. Giuffre and her attorneys joined that effort, arguing for the disclosure of nearly all the sealed material while Maxwell's lawyers fought to keep most of it confidential. Their efforts helped produce a landmark federal appeals court decision in 2019 that resulted in approximately 2,000 pages of previously sealed documents becoming public. However, the battle continued for years, with Giuffre and her legal representatives repeatedly advocating for additional disclosure as Maxwell and other interested parties challenged the release of sensitive testimony and records. The litigation eventually produced another major release in January 2024, exposing additional information about Epstein's relationships, his associates, and the allegations surrounding his trafficking operation. Throughout that process, Giuffre maintained that exposing the truth about Epstein's network was essential to understanding how he had operated for so long without meaningful consequences.Giuffre's years-long fight for transparency carried particular significance because it began well before the Epstein scandal became a major political issue and before lawmakers embraced the idea of requiring the Justice Department to release its investigative records. She understood from personal experience how sealed documents, confidentiality agreements, legal maneuvering, and institutional resistance could prevent survivors from obtaining answers about the people who had abused them and those who had facilitated their exploitation. Her willingness to publicly identify Epstein, Maxwell, and prominent individuals she accused of misconduct helped force questions into the open that powerful people had spent years attempting to avoid. Although some documents were eventually released through litigation, enormous portions of the federal investigative record remained inaccessible, leaving fundamental questions about Epstein's broader operation unresolved. Giuffre died on April 25, 2025, nearly seven months before the Epstein Files Transparency Act became law on November 19, meaning she never lived to witness the federal government being placed under a statutory obligation to disclose its Epstein-related records. Her family subsequently joined other survivors in urging Congress to pass the legislation, explicitly connecting the demand for transparency to Virginia's years of advocacy and the unanswered questions surrounding Epstein's associates. The campaign for disclosure therefore did not begin with congressional hearings, political speeches, or the introduction of the EFTA in July 2025, but grew out of years of legal battles and public advocacy by survivors who had repeatedly demanded access to information. Giuffre was among the most prominent voices in that struggle, helping establish the foundation for a transparency movement that eventually reached Congress. Her death before the legislation's passage underscored the extraordinary length of time survivors had been forced to fight for records that might have exposed additional wrongdoing and institutional failures. The Epstein Files Transparency Act represented a significant legislative development, but it also reflected a demand for accountability that Virginia Roberts Giuffre and other survivors had been making long before Washington finally responded.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell’s family says she intends to continue fighting her conviction even after U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer rejected her latest effort to overturn it. In a statement released after the ruling, her relatives called the decision “disappointing and shocking” and accused the judge of using a tone they believed showed sarcasm and disdain toward Maxwell’s arguments. Engelmayer rejected all 10 of the principal claims Maxwell raised in her pro se petition, describing them as frivolous, meritless and, in some instances, based on speculation or outright falsehoods. Maxwell had argued that documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act exposed constitutional and legal violations that undermined her 2021 conviction, including alleged suppression of evidence, false testimony and improper involvement by attorneys representing Epstein’s victims. The judge rejected those claims without granting the evidentiary hearing Maxwell had requested and also declined to certify the case for appeal, finding that she had not made a substantial showing that her constitutional rights were violated.Maxwell’s family nevertheless says she is not finished and is encouraging her to seek a certificate of appealability so she can take the case back to the Second Circuit. They maintain that Engelmayer’s ruling contains specific legal errors that deserve further review and say Maxwell will continue pursuing every available avenue. The judge, however, strongly defended the legitimacy of the prosecution, rejecting Maxwell’s claim that she had been selectively targeted as a substitute for Epstein after his death and writing that the evidence at trial established her knowing participation in enabling Epstein’s abuse of underage girls. Maxwell remains sentenced to 20 years in federal prison, her conviction has already been upheld by the Second Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court has previously declined to hear her case. Her latest challenge therefore leaves her in much the same legal position as before, but with her family making clear that they intend to keep pushing for another round of appellate review.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says a longtime, well-informed international source told him that significant Jeffrey Epstein material remains inside government files and has not yet been made public by the Justice Department. According to Hersh, the withheld material includes evidence concerning Epstein’s connections to both foreign and domestic intelligence services, particularly Israel’s Mossad and the FBI. Hersh describes his conversation with the source as “distressing” and says the undisclosed records could create problems for current and former members of the Trump administration if they are eventually released. The report comes as questions continue to mount over whether the government has fully complied with demands for transparency surrounding the Epstein files and whether intelligence-related material has received anything close to the congressional or media scrutiny applied to Epstein’s social and financial relationships.The claims remain allegations attributed to Hersh and his source, not independently established facts, but they add another layer to the broader fight over what the federal government is still withholding. Hersh’s reporting suggests that Epstein may have had relationships or performed services involving several foreign governments, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Russia, while lawmakers have separately begun examining the possibility of intelligence connections. The most politically significant portion of the report is the suggestion that unreleased information could implicate or embarrass people associated with Trump’s past and present administrations, particularly because the Justice Department has already faced intense criticism over redactions and withheld Epstein material. If Hersh’s account is accurate, the central question is no longer simply what remains hidden in the Epstein files, but why intelligence-related records allegedly sitting inside government archives have remained outside the public release and largely beyond serious congressional examination.to contact me:[email protected]:'Distressing discussion' on withheld Epstein files reveals 'problems' for Trump: report - Raw StoryBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Day six of Tyler Robinson’s preliminary hearing, held September 1, 2026, centered on closing arguments and the prosecution’s claim that the evidence easily cleared Utah’s probable-cause standard. Deputy Utah County Attorney Ryan McBride argued that the state had built its case through four overlapping categories of evidence: surveillance footage placing Robinson at Utah Valley University, DNA recovered from the rifle authorities identified as the murder weapon, Robinson’s alleged admissions after the shooting, and circumstantial evidence establishing motive, means and opportunity. Prosecutors also leaned heavily on Robinson’s alleged messages to Lance Twiggs, including statements that he had gone on a “mission” to kill Charlie Kirk and had “had enough of his hatred,” along with politically charged engravings found on ammunition. The state maintained that the evidence established not only that Robinson was the shooter, but that Kirk had been targeted because of his political expression. Prosecutors characterized the case as overwhelming and argued that the remaining factual disputes belonged before a jury rather than being resolved at the preliminary-hearing stage.The defense concentrated much of its closing argument on the aggravating circumstance that could keep the aggravated-murder charge death-penalty eligible: whether the shooter knowingly created a great risk of death to someone other than Kirk. Attorney Staci Visser stressed that there had been one shot, one bullet and one person struck, arguing that prosecutors were stretching possible dangers—such as a miss, ricochet or pass-through bullet—into proof that another person had actually been placed within the legally required “zone of danger.” Richard Novak separately challenged the state’s evidence concerning political motivation and whether Robinson could reasonably have known children were present. Prosecutor Chad Grunander answered that argument by describing the shot as “ballistic roulette,” emphasizing that Kirk was surrounded by security personnel, a questioner and thousands of spectators and arguing that a slight error in aim could easily have killed someone else. The fundamental dispute at closing was therefore not simply whether the state could identify Robinson as the alleged shooter, but whether prosecutors had established the aggravating circumstances and enhancements necessary to carry the entire case—including its potential death penalty—forward to trial.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.