Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Hope everybody Saturday morning
Speaker 1: is off to a great start and hopefully the rest
Speaker 1: of your day and your weekend is even better. Today
Speaker 1: on the program, we're going to talk about the john
Speaker 1: Does from the Gallaine Maxwell civil suit, who are now
Speaker 1: on the verge of being outed. For a long time,
Speaker 1: Glaine Maxwell and her team were arguing against having those
Speaker 1: names released, but after her goose was cooked well, her
Speaker 1: tune is changed and now not only does Virginia's team
Speaker 1: want these names released, looks like Maxwell's team has had
Speaker 1: enough as well fighting about it, and they're on board
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 2: So if things follow suit.
Speaker 1: Like they have in the past with Judge Presca, that
Speaker 1: is the judge overseeing the civil suit.
Speaker 2: Here, we should expect to have this stuff.
Speaker 1: Released, unredacted and released for public consumption. That would be
Speaker 1: my guess with Judge Presca. Now the John Does, they're
Speaker 1: gonna be able to argue the merits of keeping their
Speaker 1: names private. They're gonna have their shot to argue to
Speaker 1: that extent, and I don't think it's going to work
Speaker 1: out so well for them. I really don't think anyone
Speaker 1: has any empathy for people who were in Jeffrey Epstein's
Speaker 1: circle at this point, unless, of course, you're Bill Clinton,
Speaker 1: because Bill and Hillary Clinton obviously can do no wrong.
Speaker 1: But besides those two, I don't think that you have
Speaker 1: any chance when it comes to your relationship with Epstein
Speaker 1: in a courtroom at this point.
Speaker 2: And what we're going to.
Speaker 1: See here are these people who get their names released
Speaker 1: attempt to distance themselves from Epstein. My guess is every
Speaker 1: single one of these names is a name that we
Speaker 1: have talked about at length here on this podcast, and
Speaker 1: my guess would be some of those names are people
Speaker 1: that are actually accused of partaking in the abuse themselves.
Speaker 1: So with the transparency or lack thereof, I should say
Speaker 1: it is way beyond time that we move past that
Speaker 1: point and we get a full accounting of what goes
Speaker 1: on here in every single aspect of every single courtroom
Speaker 1: involved in the Jeffrey Epstein case. I posted an episode
Speaker 1: earlier this morning about Judge Christa Marx and the situation
Speaker 1: with her down in Florida, and look, it just shines
Speaker 1: a spotlight and shows you the kind of uphill battle
Speaker 1: that has been engaged for decades at this point. These
Speaker 1: survivors and these people who have been abused by Epstein
Speaker 1: and Maxwell, they've had nowhere to turn. The authorities let
Speaker 1: them down, society let them down. In a lot of instances,
Speaker 1: their own families let them down. And then you would
Speaker 1: think when people get caught red handed basically like Epstein did,
Speaker 1: that the hammer would come swinging down and they'd all
Speaker 1: go to prison forever. Yet none of that occurred, and
Speaker 1: still to this day, nobody is actually sitting in a
Speaker 1: prison yet. Glenn Maxwell's on her way, but she's not
Speaker 1: rotting away, you know, in some federal facility. Yet she's
Speaker 1: still in the holding tank basically what it is right
Speaker 1: she's at the county version of the federal prison right now.
Speaker 1: So it's gross when you look at it, all of
Speaker 1: these other people that were involved, and not even any
Speaker 1: indictments to see what's what in a courtroom, Shrug our
Speaker 1: shoulders and move on, No big deal. It was obviously
Speaker 1: just Epstein and Maxwell alone and they were just trafficking
Speaker 1: people back and forth between themselves. See how ridiculous that sounds. So,
Speaker 1: like we talked about last night, if this does get
Speaker 1: put into a mistrial, it might turn out even worse
Speaker 1: for Maxwell. So again, she has no good options at
Speaker 1: this point, and her attempting to keep anyone's name secret
Speaker 1: at the cost of her own finances or her own
Speaker 1: time just does not make any sense to anybody at
Speaker 1: this point. So her not fighting this is the way
Speaker 1: to go if you're looking at it from her perspective.
Speaker 1: All right, So we have an article this morning from
Speaker 1: CNN and the author is Eric Levinson, headline What's next
Speaker 1: for the John does in Galainne Maxwell's settled lawsuit. Now, again,
Speaker 1: anyone who has their name associated with Jeffrey Epstein, I
Speaker 1: really have no empathy for you. I really don't care
Speaker 1: if your name is put on blast and you're out
Speaker 1: there for every body to see and hear. This is
Speaker 1: from court documents, right, This isn't some paparazzi, you know,
Speaker 1: talking garbage. Everything we talk about on this podcast is
Speaker 1: backed up by sources and things that are going on
Speaker 1: in real time. And when you talk about stuff like this,
Speaker 1: it's important to make sure that you're not running around
Speaker 1: and left field and just using your opinion as fact.
Speaker 1: The judge overseeing a settled lawsuit against convicted sex offender
Speaker 1: Glen Maxwell now has to decide whether the identities of
Speaker 1: those mentioned in the suit will be revealed. And again,
Speaker 1: there should be no cover for these people. If you
Speaker 1: were involved with Epstein and you're in these court documents,
Speaker 1: you should be put on blast by the legacy media
Speaker 1: and everyone else, everyone else involved. There should be no
Speaker 1: place for you to hide. You shouldn't have any friends
Speaker 1: giving you any cover in the legacy media.
Speaker 2: None of that.
Speaker 1: And we'll see when these names get released how hard
Speaker 1: in the paint the legacy media goes. You see, they
Speaker 1: like to go after people that they feel like they're
Speaker 1: going to score some political points by doing it. If
Speaker 1: there's no political angle these days, these guys aren't interested.
Speaker 1: And to me, that's just gross and it's a dereliction
Speaker 1: of duty by the Fourth Estate. The decision stems from
Speaker 1: a twenty fifteen defamation lawsuit brought by Virginia Roberts, who
Speaker 1: claimed Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused her while she was a
Speaker 1: minor and that Maxwell aided in the abuse. The case
Speaker 1: was settled in twenty seventeen and placed under a protective order.
Speaker 1: Everything in their protective order is like its national security.
Speaker 1: It's such a joke. There is no reason this should
Speaker 1: be under protective order. Ever, this has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with nuclear secrets. This has nothing to do with building
Speaker 1: biological weapons. This goes right to the heart of how
Speaker 1: our justice system is. And that's why they file it
Speaker 1: on your seal. That's why they don't let it be
Speaker 1: released to the public because they know you.
Speaker 2: If you folks had.
Speaker 1: A full look at what was going on, you would
Speaker 1: not stand for it. But yet here we are once
Speaker 1: again being force fed narratives and people accepting them, and
Speaker 1: all of the lemmings and lap dogs and the legacy
Speaker 1: media are way way too busy carrying water for their
Speaker 1: insert tribe here to really break it down and give you.
Speaker 2: Folks the real truth.
Speaker 1: But parts of it have been unsealed since then, as Roberts,
Speaker 1: Maxwell and the number of third party figures have debated
Speaker 1: what should and shouldn't be released to the public. Look,
Speaker 1: here's the thing. Once Virginia's team was on board with
Speaker 1: it being released, I don't care about what Maxwell thinks,
Speaker 1: I don't care about what the John does think. If
Speaker 1: your name is associated with someone like Jeffrey Epstein, even
Speaker 1: in the smallest way, you better get ready to batten
Speaker 1: down the hatches because of the storm is approaching and
Speaker 1: you better have a good answer and a good reason
Speaker 1: for your associations with this man. The latest update in
Speaker 1: a year's long case came last week when Maxwell's attorney
Speaker 1: said they would no longer fight to keep secret the
Speaker 1: names of eight john Does and will leave it to
Speaker 1: the court to decide whether their names should be unsealed.
Speaker 1: And like I said, Judge Presca has been doing a
Speaker 1: real good job here when it comes to transparency and
Speaker 1: unsealing these files. I'm not a big fan of these judges,
Speaker 1: as you all know, but when they do a good job,
Speaker 1: just like anybody else, we should.
Speaker 2: Give them props.
Speaker 1: And Presca so far has done a pretty good job
Speaker 1: here and I would expect her to continue to do
Speaker 1: the same, and I would expect this all to be released.
Speaker 1: US District Judge Loretta Presca will now have to rule
Speaker 1: on how to handle those eight Does and how to
Speaker 1: balance the public's interest with their privacy rights. It's the
Speaker 1: type of decision judges must make all the time in
Speaker 1: the course of their jobs. But that doesn't make it simple,
Speaker 1: said Sarah Chrisoff, a partner at Day Pitney and a
Speaker 1: former assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Speaker 1: It's really a document by document process, Chrisoff said, it's
Speaker 1: incredibly intensive. Well, that might be the case, but again,
Speaker 1: all we can go on is what PRESCA has done
Speaker 1: in the past, right, There has been nothing to signal
Speaker 1: in the past that Judge Presca is not going to
Speaker 1: be about transparency here moving forward. So while I can't
Speaker 1: guarantee anything obviously, I am relatively confident that PRESCO will
Speaker 1: release at least the vast majority of these documents, and
Speaker 1: I can't wait to dig into them. I can't wait
Speaker 1: to see who's what the names are because guess what,
Speaker 1: It's one thing for us to have a hypothesis or
Speaker 1: to speculate. It's another thing when you see it in
Speaker 1: court documents, right, It shows you that you've been on
Speaker 1: the right path the whole entire time, and that these
Speaker 1: you know, bombing runs have been over the target. And inevitably,
Speaker 1: every single time we get court documents released, it corroborates
Speaker 1: everything we've been talking about on the podcast. So I'm
Speaker 1: always a big fan when we get these a tranch
Speaker 1: of documents dumped in our lab.
Speaker 2: What is this case?
Speaker 1: The case began in twenty and fifteen when Roberts sued
Speaker 1: Maxwell for defamation related to public comments about Robert's alleged
Speaker 1: sexual abuse in two thousand and one, and the case
Speaker 1: was settled and sealed in twenty and seventeen. So again,
Speaker 1: let's just go back. It's not alleged abuse.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Virginia's been paid out by Epstein, She's been paid out
Speaker 1: by the estate, and now we also have Glen Maxwell
Speaker 1: being charged with perjury over what was said in this deposition,
Speaker 1: once again proving that the federal government believes Virginia's story.
Speaker 1: So let's not say an accuser, all right. Virginia was
Speaker 1: paid out. The state recognized and realized what Epstein had done,
Speaker 1: and they took full responsibility when they paid that money
Speaker 1: out to each and every one of these girls. However,
Speaker 1: the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unsealed
Speaker 1: hundreds of pages of documents on August ninth, twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: a day before Epstein died in prison, ruling that the
Speaker 1: district court judge had improperly sealed hundreds of filings. The
Speaker 1: judge has since died. Well, I don't ever wish death
Speaker 1: on anybody, right, not a good look. But some of
Speaker 1: these judges, like I say, they run these courtrooms as
Speaker 1: if it was their own fiefdom, and they're some some
Speaker 1: feudal lord who has the decision of life and death
Speaker 1: basically in their hands. And that's the sort of system
Speaker 1: we have set up. And we have to remember that
Speaker 1: these judges are only human beings, and they have faults,
Speaker 1: and they have problems, and they have warts. Some of
Speaker 1: them are bad, some of them are evil, some of
Speaker 1: them good, but we don't know. Right, everybody's a gray character.
Speaker 1: And I'm not really comfortable with lifetime seats on the
Speaker 1: judges bench. I'm not a big fan of that at all.
Speaker 1: I think that that should be, you know, like any
Speaker 1: other position, maybe a ten year run or something like that.
Speaker 1: I don't know exact numbers or whatever, but a lifelong seat, Nah,
Speaker 1: no way. The Court of Appeals has remanded the case
Speaker 1: back to the district court to go through the rest
Speaker 1: of the documents individually and determine what can be unsealed.
Speaker 1: Judge Presca, who has since taken over the case, ruled
Speaker 1: to unseal more documents in July twenty twenty, including Maxwell's
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen deposition related to the lawsuit, as well as
Speaker 1: emails and depositions by others. See.
Speaker 2: This is what I mean.
Speaker 1: PRESCA has set a precedent so far, and would I
Speaker 1: would be very shocked if she veered off course at
Speaker 1: this point. She seems to be somebody who is ready
Speaker 1: to get this over with. She doesn't want this shit
Speaker 1: on her docket anymore, and she wants to, you know,
Speaker 1: get it out there and move on. That is what
Speaker 1: I see from my seat here in the Peanut gallery anyway,
Speaker 1: And I would hope that PRESCO would continue on this path,
Speaker 1: especially now with Maxwell and the conviction. You would think
Speaker 1: that it would even be more important to bring this
Speaker 1: out and put it into the public sphere. In her ruling,
Speaker 1: she said that the public's right to have access to
Speaker 1: the information carried heavier weight than the annoyance or embarrassment
Speaker 1: to Maxwell.
Speaker 2: And this is what I mean.
Speaker 1: PRESCA has seemed to be somebody who actually cares about
Speaker 1: transparency so far, and every now and then you'll run
Speaker 1: into one of these judges who doesn't mess around, right,
Speaker 1: somebody who is actually in the business of making sure
Speaker 1: that the laws follow and following the law as it's
Speaker 1: put on the books. Yeah, you know, one of those
Speaker 1: kinds of judges. Very rare indeed, but there are a
Speaker 1: few of them out there. In the context of this case,
Speaker 1: especially its allegations of sex trafficking of young girls, the
Speaker 1: court finds any minor embarrassment or annoyance resulting from Miss
Speaker 1: Maxwell's mostly non testimony is far outweighed by the presumption
Speaker 1: of public access. She said, So, when you have a
Speaker 1: judge that has that kind of speech going on in
Speaker 1: their courtroom, who is very clear about where they stand,
Speaker 1: it would take a huge, huge situation to move them
Speaker 1: from that position, at least I would think so. Anyway,
Speaker 1: And if Presca's past has any you know, telling of
Speaker 1: what the future is going to hold, then we can
Speaker 1: expect that these documents are going to be dumped. However,
Speaker 1: PRESCA ruled that several medical records, including in the court file,
Speaker 1: would remain sealed.
Speaker 2: Well, I would usually agree.
Speaker 1: With that, but we're at a point now where everybody's
Speaker 1: digging into everybody else's medical records.
Speaker 2: I mean, do hippo laws.
Speaker 1: Even matter anymore? It's an honest question.
Speaker 2: You see.
Speaker 1: What happens is when you start getting on a slippery slope, folks,
Speaker 1: and you start making.
Speaker 2: You know, moves for the short term.
Speaker 1: And you're not looking at the big picture, well, find
Speaker 1: yourself in a very dangerous place. So we have to
Speaker 1: always keep an eye on the big picture, even though
Speaker 1: we're dealing with something that is right in our face.
Speaker 1: And it's hard to do that sometimes. But those hippo
Speaker 1: laws are very important. I'm a very private person and
Speaker 1: I don't like people, you know, digging into my health
Speaker 1: and all of that. So when it comes to health
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff. I have medical records. I could
Speaker 1: see that staying sealed, and I'm not even mad about that, unless,
Speaker 1: of course, it's pertinent to the case. If it pushes
Speaker 1: the case forward and it has something to do with
Speaker 1: testimony or something like that, then yeah, let's get it
Speaker 1: out there. But just you know, basic medical records or
Speaker 1: you know, somebody's trip to go get some heart medicine
Speaker 1: or whatever. It's really no one's business in my opinion,
Speaker 1: if you're homing it. In addition, she noted that multiple
Speaker 1: anonymous women Jane those who accused Epstein of abuse but
Speaker 1: had not publicly spoken out, would continue to have their
Speaker 1: identities redacted in the documents. That's a good thing as well.
Speaker 1: Though the defamation case was a civil lawsuit, it ultimately
Speaker 1: led to criminal charges against Maxwell. And we've seen this
Speaker 1: every single time there has been a civil suit that
Speaker 1: Glen Max, I mean that Virginia has brought against these people,
Speaker 1: it has ended up in criminal charges as well. So
Speaker 1: while I am not confident we'll see that with Prince Andrew,
Speaker 1: the Prince of Nothing, I would say he has to
Speaker 1: be concerned because we've seen a pattern form here already.
Speaker 1: Maxwell Epstein both sued, then both afterwards were found criminally
Speaker 1: liable as well. So this is a real dangerous situation
Speaker 1: for Prince Andrew, no doubt about that. Again, enforcing any
Speaker 1: kind of criminal findings against him gonna be very difficult.
Speaker 1: Maxwell sixty, faces up to sixty five years in prison
Speaker 1: after she was found guilty last month last month in
Speaker 1: a New York federal court on five federal charges, including
Speaker 1: sex trafficking of a minor. The two perjury counts were
Speaker 1: severed from the sex trafficking trial and prosecutors agreed to
Speaker 1: dismiss them pending an appeal on her guilty verdicts. So
Speaker 1: that's basically the little dangled fruit at the end of
Speaker 1: the fishing pole here, right. Look, if you go through
Speaker 1: this and you don't give us any lip, and you
Speaker 1: just take the punishment as it's been handed down.
Speaker 2: We'll drop these other two charges.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, Maxwell and her team, they're sinking their teeth into
Speaker 1: the hopes of a miss trial. And again, I'm not
Speaker 1: a big time lawyer, you know, I didn't go to
Speaker 1: a big time school, you know, mister unlv over here.
Speaker 1: But it would seem to me that a second trial
Speaker 1: could even prove to be more ruinous, more disastrous for
Speaker 1: Glenn Maxwell. So they better tread very lightly here. What
Speaker 1: about these john Does. In a September twenty twenty one ruling,
Speaker 1: PRESCA said there were sixteen non party objectors or people
Speaker 1: not party to the suit who objected to their identities
Speaker 1: being released. PRESCA decided to deal with eight of them first,
Speaker 1: followed by the next EID. The identities of these does are,
Speaker 1: of course not clear broadly, though there are people whose
Speaker 1: names were mentioned in the earlier defamation case. And here
Speaker 1: comes the detective work for you folks out there. If
Speaker 1: you want to try and decode who these people are,
Speaker 1: have at it. I have a few guesses of my own,
Speaker 1: but no sense muddying the water, right, We'll wait to
Speaker 1: see what's what, and if their names aren't released, then
Speaker 1: we'll dig into that and try and play the guessing game.
Speaker 1: But until we have some more meat on the bone,
Speaker 1: I think you folks know by now that I don't
Speaker 1: really delve too deep into territory when I don't have
Speaker 1: a map, if you get my drift. Maxwell's attorneys had
Speaker 1: argued to keep those identity secret, but last week told
Speaker 1: the court they no longer wished to address the objection
Speaker 1: of the objections further, each of the list, it does,
Speaker 1: has counsel who have ably asserted their own respective privacy rights.
Speaker 1: Miss Maxwell therefore leaves it to this court to conduct
Speaker 1: the appropriate review. In other words, Maxwell's tapping out, and
Speaker 1: you bitch asses are on your own figure it out,
Speaker 1: get your own lawyers ready to go, because we're done.
Speaker 1: Maxwell got her goose cook. None of you stepped up
Speaker 1: to the plate to help her. Now she has nothing
Speaker 1: to say to help you. Basically, what's going on here,
Speaker 1: And she kept her silence for this long and you know,
Speaker 1: didn't let all of these names out or whatever obviously
Speaker 1: self serving purposes while she was facing charges. But at
Speaker 1: the same time it was protecting these people as well.
Speaker 1: Now they got to do it with their own lawyers
Speaker 1: their own litigation, and that comes with its own amount
Speaker 1: of danger, because once you have court filings and stuff,
Speaker 1: and stuff goes into the docket, you know it's a
Speaker 1: matter of public knowledge at that point. Robert's attorneys have
Speaker 1: argued for the identities to be unsealed, noting that several
Speaker 1: of the does simply didn't want their names associated with
Speaker 1: the case. Generalized aversion to embarrassment and negativity that may
Speaker 1: come from being associated with Epstein and Maxwell is not
Speaker 1: enough to warrant continued sealing of information. This is especially
Speaker 1: true with respect to this case of great public interest
Speaker 1: involving serious allegations of the sex trafficking of minors. Robert's attorney,
Speaker 1: Sigared McCauley wrote last week, now that Maxwell's criminal trial
Speaker 1: is coming gone, there is little reason to retain protection
Speaker 1: over the vast amounts of information about Epstein and Maxwell
Speaker 1: sex trafficking operation that were originally filed under seal in
Speaker 1: this case. And I mean, does she need to say
Speaker 1: anymore that gets right to the point there, right to
Speaker 1: the heart of the matter. Unseal it, let us see
Speaker 1: it and let the public make their own decisions.
Speaker 2: What are you so worried about.
Speaker 1: I know it might catch up some of like Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi's daughter says, some of your faves, but you know what,
Speaker 1: if they're caught up in this, they shouldn't be your
Speaker 1: faves anyway. And the people that still support Clinton, I
Speaker 1: honestly I have to wonder about you folks at this point.
Speaker 1: What issues will the judge consider in this decision. Judges
Speaker 1: always have to balance the public the public's right to
Speaker 1: know with issues of privacy. Chrisoff noted, generally this is
Speaker 1: made on a document by document or even line by
Speaker 1: line basis, rather than in one broad decision. It's a
Speaker 1: very particular it's a very particular determination whether a specific
Speaker 1: document should be under seal or not under seal, and
Speaker 1: within that document, whether portion should be redacted or not.
Speaker 1: She said, no, no redactions. Let's get it all out there.
Speaker 1: I'm tired of these big blocks of black cover up
Speaker 1: on these documents. Can we just get the full story please?
Speaker 1: And then they cry, oh, people are conspiracy theorists, these
Speaker 1: morons in the legacy media, as if they haven't helped
Speaker 1: push that whole entire thing along. And it all comes
Speaker 1: back to transparency. If you would just shoot people straight,
Speaker 1: just shoot people straight for once and let people come
Speaker 1: up to their own conclusions and you know, decide for themselves.
Speaker 1: But they never do that, right, Let's keep this transparent,
Speaker 1: We'll hide this, will file this under seal with no
Speaker 1: real reasoning behind it. And then, well, the people who
Speaker 1: are into conspiracy theories and wild shit, they're often running,
Speaker 1: Like I said yesterday, can you blame them?
Speaker 2: In this case?
Speaker 1: These decisions are being made years after the fact by
Speaker 1: a judge who was not part of the initial proceedings.
Speaker 1: That challenge helps explain why this process has moved so slowly,
Speaker 1: Chrisoff explained. When doing it later and having to look
Speaker 1: back and recreate what happened and do some slothing, it
Speaker 1: takes a lot longer, she said, yeah, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: But let's not act like Judge Presca's sitting around in
Speaker 1: the middle of the night in her jurors robe, eating
Speaker 1: coffee cake and digging through the files herself.
Speaker 2: That's what her clerks are for, you know.
Speaker 1: They put it together, bring it to her, and then
Speaker 1: she makes a decision. What is the timing for a ruling?
Speaker 1: The exact timing of a ruling isn't quite clearer, but
Speaker 1: a court document in November set out the timeline for
Speaker 1: each side's response. Roberts and Maxwell were ordered to respond
Speaker 1: no later than two weeks after the end of Maxwell's
Speaker 1: criminal trial. The trial ended in late December, and the
Speaker 1: parties dutifully filed their responses last week. The Miami Herald,
Speaker 1: which has closely covered the Epstein saga, may file a
Speaker 1: responsive brief no later than two weeks after that. The
Speaker 1: ruling states that would correlate to January twenty sixth. And again,
Speaker 1: why is it the Miami Herald that's doing this? Where's
Speaker 1: the New York Times? Where's the Washington Post? Aren't these
Speaker 1: the big heavy hitters. Oh, they sure are when the
Speaker 1: CIA wants to use them to destroy somebody like Gary Webb.
Speaker 1: But when it comes to real journalism and really doing
Speaker 1: the right thing, have they really been doing that?
Speaker 2: Folks?
Speaker 3: Have they really shot you straight? Let's go back to
Speaker 3: the war in Iraq. We'll start there and just start
Speaker 3: from that point on and tell me if they've been
Speaker 3: lying to you or if they've been truthful. And if
Speaker 3: you say truthful, come on, really, you have to do
Speaker 3: some soul searching at that point because the legacy media,
Speaker 3: both sides of the Aisle, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, all of them.
Speaker 2: Have lied to you.
Speaker 1: And remember lies of omission are lies as well. The
Speaker 1: Miami Herald, a smaller outlet nowhere near the resources, and
Speaker 1: they're the ones that are going hard in the pain here,
Speaker 1: not you guys. Non party objectors may file or reply
Speaker 1: to those briefs a week after that. The party shall
Speaker 1: then file any replies no later than two weeks after that,
Speaker 1: the ruling states, putting the timetable into mid February. A
Speaker 1: ruling would then come sometime after that. So we're getting
Speaker 1: down to it, folks, And like I said a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks ago, there is so much still going on
Speaker 1: in this case, and it's very difficult to stay on
Speaker 1: top of it unless you're on it every single day.
Speaker 1: And you folks have shown that that's exactly what you
Speaker 1: want to do, that's exactly where you are, and that
Speaker 1: you folks are in this fight till the very end.
Speaker 1: And I appreciate all of you, every last one of you,
Speaker 1: honestly spending your time getting up to date on this case,
Speaker 1: following this case and getting your rage in the right order.
Speaker 1: You know, we have to demand better from the people
Speaker 1: who are in charge. We have to demand better from
Speaker 1: the courts, from the justice system. People like Maxwell and Epstein,
Speaker 1: they have to be punished. And the two tier justice
Speaker 1: system that we're living under, where people like Calif Browder
Speaker 1: get put into someplace like Riker's Island for as long
Speaker 1: as he was in there without a trial, it's just
Speaker 1: not right. And then you have people like Maxwell who
Speaker 1: are exerting all kinds of power privilege when they're in prison. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't have a place for my computer. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: guess what. There's a lot of people that have it
Speaker 1: a lot worse than you, that are sitting in jail
Speaker 1: cells right now. And believe me, the crimes they committed
Speaker 1: or are accused to commit, are a lot less than
Speaker 1: what you're in there for. So when we start talking
Speaker 1: about transparency and airing out are so called elite, I
Speaker 1: am here for it and I want to continue to
Speaker 1: see it happen. And there's a lot going on behind
Speaker 1: the scenes, folks. There's a lot building up behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: a lot of talk and who knows what's gonna come next.
Speaker 1: But remember there could still be some sealed indictments we
Speaker 1: don't know about. There's still an inn paneled Grand Jerry.
Speaker 1: So things are happening behind the scenes, things are in motion.
Speaker 1: The question is when are we going to start seeing
Speaker 1: some results. Hopefully that starts very soon. All right, everybody
Speaker 1: that's gonna do it. For this episode today, we're gonna
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about the depositions that are about
Speaker 1: to be released on Monday. So we talked a little
Speaker 1: bit about this a couple of days ago, how there
Speaker 1: was an eminent document drop after the DOES missed the
Speaker 1: deadline to object to this coming out, and I I
Speaker 1: said it was gonna be very soon. But now it
Speaker 1: looks like we have a date, and that date is Monday, folks.
Speaker 1: So obviously we'll be prepared to dive into that deposition
Speaker 1: on Monday and take a look at what's what, right,
Speaker 1: and we will jump on and report about it.
Speaker 2: Obviously, we'll talk about it.
Speaker 1: We'll discuss some of the things that are inside of
Speaker 1: this deposition, and we'll see if there's any any bombshells. Right. Again,
Speaker 1: like usual, I would temper everyone's excitement. A lot of
Speaker 1: the stuff is probably known, but there will be a
Speaker 1: lot of context like usual, and there will be some
Speaker 1: little nuggets of gold for us to find and harvest,
Speaker 1: So definitely be on the lookout for that Monday, and
Speaker 1: I will I'm going to the mountains early Monday morning,
Speaker 1: at like three point thirty in the morning, So when
Speaker 1: I get home from the mountains, I'll dive in and
Speaker 1: see what's what, and then we'll do a an episode
Speaker 1: to try and make head or tails of what the
Speaker 1: deposition involves. So our article today is from lawn crime
Speaker 1: dot com. The author Adam Klassfeld, And if you don't
Speaker 1: follow Adam Klassfeld on Twitter, you probably should. The guy
Speaker 1: has a lot of great information about the Epstein case
Speaker 1: about other things that are going on. If you're interested in,
Speaker 1: you know, a Trump news, he always has some stuff
Speaker 1: going on about, you know, the different legal proceedings with
Speaker 1: Trump et cetera, et cetera. But as far as the
Speaker 1: Maxwell Epstein document dumps, as far as court document dumps,
Speaker 1: Adam Klassfeld has been all over it and he's done
Speaker 1: a superior job. So make sure that if you're not
Speaker 1: following him on Twitter, you give him a follow. More
Speaker 1: transparency is eminent in the long settled defamation lawsuit against
Speaker 1: a Q sex track faker Gilen Maxwell, with a federal
Speaker 1: judge ordering the release of a deposition on Monday featuring
Speaker 1: the testimony of an unidentified dough one. So we're gonna
Speaker 1: hear from an unidentified Doe as far as depositions go,
Speaker 1: somebody who gave a deposition in regards to the case
Speaker 1: between Maxwell and Virginia Roberts. And this is the deposition
Speaker 1: that is going to be dumped on Monday, one of
Speaker 1: the many documents that was under seal that PRESCA order
Speaker 1: to be unsealed, and the appellate courts held up that order.
Speaker 1: So this is a from Doe one, and it's going
Speaker 1: to be interesting to see what it entails. Right again,
Speaker 1: it's very interesting for me to see what sort of
Speaker 1: context we can find within these documents. I'm not expecting
Speaker 1: world shattering dumps here. I don't expect it to be
Speaker 1: some kind of, you know, earth moving informational dump where
Speaker 1: we're like, holy shit, we never knew any of this.
Speaker 1: But I do expect it to provide some more context.
Speaker 1: Right when we're as deep as we are on this podcast,
Speaker 1: eight hundred and twenty episodes, four hundred plus straight days
Speaker 1: without missing a day, Yeah, you know, we're looking for
Speaker 1: some context. Having received no objections from dose one or two.
Speaker 1: The transcript of dose do ones, deposition, and materials quoting
Speaker 1: or disclosing information from that transcript shall be posted on
Speaker 1: the public docket no later than Monday, November twenty third,
Speaker 1: at nine am. US District Judge Loretta Presca wrote in
Speaker 1: a five page order on Friday. So Presca look, like
Speaker 1: I said, Presca is unleashed at this point. She is
Speaker 1: not playing games with these people. She has had enough.
Speaker 1: She's had are a belly full of the nonsense. And
Speaker 1: if there is anyone on the federal level who has
Speaker 1: proven to be someone who truly cares about justice, somebody
Speaker 1: who cares about the law and being an arbiter of
Speaker 1: the law, fairly, it has been Judge Presca. When this
Speaker 1: all first started in her courtroom, I was pretty critical
Speaker 1: of her right because again I am, and I'm very
Speaker 1: willing to admit it, folks, I am very cynical about
Speaker 1: this whole process, sometimes too cynical perhaps, And you know,
Speaker 1: it's to the point where I have a very hard
Speaker 1: time trusting any of the institutions in the United States
Speaker 1: that I should be able to trust. And that's a
Speaker 1: big problem for me. That is a very, very, very
Speaker 1: big problem for me. If we can't trust these institutions
Speaker 1: to fairly arbitrate the law and fairly administer the law
Speaker 1: as written, then we're all in big trouble, and we
Speaker 1: might as all we might as all might as well
Speaker 1: just all pack it in and move right into nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty four and an Orwellian existence. These people are not
Speaker 1: above the law. These people are not playing on a
Speaker 1: different field. And thankfully Judge Presca recognized that, and Judge
Speaker 1: Presca did what she could do from her chair in
Speaker 1: her courtroom. And I think that a lot of credit
Speaker 1: needs to go to Judge Presca because it's a courageous
Speaker 1: move on her part. Well, you don't think she was
Speaker 1: facing her colleagues and they were looking at her sideways.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they were all of these Harvard trained dirt bags.
Speaker 1: Neither of the does has been identified, but both have
Speaker 1: been given ample opportunity to object to the release of
Speaker 1: information that the Second Circuit task Judge Presco with un
Speaker 1: ceiling back in August of twenty nineteen. Now again, in
Speaker 1: my opinion, I think it's going to come out that
Speaker 1: the two does who are having their depositions released here
Speaker 1: are not interested in keeping their names private anymore because
Speaker 1: they're already working with the federal government against Gilane Maxwell
Speaker 1: as far as testifying, and that would all be coming
Speaker 1: out in the discovery anyway. So I believe that that
Speaker 1: is the motivation here with these does and that's the
Speaker 1: reason why they did not object to their names being
Speaker 1: released after they were under seal already. Now again, I
Speaker 1: might be completely off, right, I don't have Like I
Speaker 1: always tell you folks, I'm not here to blow smoke
Speaker 1: up your ass, right, I'm not here acting like I'm
Speaker 1: Walter Kronkite out in the field breaking news, all right,
Speaker 1: That's not what I'm doing here. I'm commentating on the
Speaker 1: news that's being provided and when I have a chance to,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe talk to sources or people who have
Speaker 1: not been on the record. Obviously I do that. Hell
Speaker 1: I flew all the way to New Mexico to do that.
Speaker 1: But what I am telling you in my opinion here
Speaker 1: is that these girls are probably lined up as witnesses
Speaker 1: for the government at this point. That order followed watershed
Speaker 1: publication of the Miami Herald series Perversion of Justice, which
Speaker 1: renewed attention to dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's two thousand and
Speaker 1: eight plea deal and has been widely credited for his
Speaker 1: prosecution and Maxwell's you see, that's a big problem right there,
Speaker 1: unto itself. Again, like I've said a million times, I
Speaker 1: think it's awesome that the Miami Herald initiated this investigation,
Speaker 1: and I think it's great that Julie K. Brown dug
Speaker 1: so hard and found that so many different threads. Right,
Speaker 1: shouldn't even say found, I should say rediscovered a bunch
Speaker 1: of different threads to pull on. Because all of this
Speaker 1: stuff was out there for a long time. Nobody cared though, Right,
Speaker 1: None of these legacy media outlets gave two shits, and
Speaker 1: the Miami Herald didn't give two shits either until Acosta
Speaker 1: rolled in at the end of the day. For me,
Speaker 1: I think that it's pretty ironic, right that Acosta him
Speaker 1: getting that job with Trump's cabinet pretty much initiated this
Speaker 1: whole entire thing. And I really don't care how we
Speaker 1: get from point A to point B as long as
Speaker 1: we get there. But the question still remains, where were
Speaker 1: all of these so called high profile journalists for a
Speaker 1: decade leading up to this? Where was the interest?
Speaker 2: Then?
Speaker 1: Where was the digging? Then? Where was all of the
Speaker 1: podcasting then, and all of the reporting then, and the
Speaker 1: expos's then. Oh yeah, that's right. You guys had them,
Speaker 1: but you were quashing them so that you could have
Speaker 1: access to the royals. I have zero faith in the
Speaker 1: legacy media. Now, don't get me wrong. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: all of the outlets or all of the journalists are bad, right,
Speaker 1: because that's not the case. We know that a lot
Speaker 1: of journalists that work for these outlets who might have
Speaker 1: used to they might have used to have been with,
Speaker 1: like the New York Times or one of these other
Speaker 1: legacy media outlets, but now they're working on their own
Speaker 1: or for other outlets that are more willing to dig
Speaker 1: into the case. But the main legacy media outlets that
Speaker 1: people turn to for the news usually nationwide, you know,
Speaker 1: the New York Times, the Washington Post, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: They didn't give a shit, and they still don't give
Speaker 1: a shit. Following the expose, the Herald went to the
Speaker 1: Second Circuit Court of Appeals to unseal broad swaths of
Speaker 1: the court record an alleged survivor, Virginia Roberts, lawsuit claiming
Speaker 1: Maxwell defamed her by denying that she made her Epstein's
Speaker 1: sex slave. Look, it is a very interesting situation all around, right,
Speaker 1: all of the moving parts, as far as as getting
Speaker 1: this stuff unsealed, all of the stuff that led up
Speaker 1: to it, and finally to the point where we're at now.
Speaker 1: It has been one winding ass road to get here.
Speaker 1: So the Miami Herald, Look, I don't want it to
Speaker 1: seem like I'm trying to denegrate the Miami Herald, because
Speaker 1: I'm not. I certainly put them a million pegs above
Speaker 1: places like The New York Times. And I think that
Speaker 1: the Miami Herald going so hard after this was a
Speaker 1: huge deal and a gigantic step in the right direction
Speaker 1: for a so called mainstream outlet to do that. So
Speaker 1: I think that out of all of these mainstream outlets,
Speaker 1: out of all.
Speaker 2: Of these.
Speaker 1: You know, institutions that decided that they were going to
Speaker 1: investigate Jeffrey Epstein, Miami Herald is by far, head and
Speaker 1: shoulders above everybody else. And they really doug hard, and
Speaker 1: they do deserve a lot of credit for kicking this
Speaker 1: back into gear. But my problem isn't so much with them,
Speaker 1: it's with the rest of the legacy media. Where the
Speaker 1: hell were they for decades leading up to this. Robert's
Speaker 1: settlement with Maxwell kept much of the court record under
Speaker 1: wraps for years, but a second circuit ruling in The
Speaker 1: Herald's favor has led to increasing sunlight on the case
Speaker 1: ever since. And what do they say? Sunlight is the
Speaker 1: best disinfectant? Isn't that what they tell us, folks? And
Speaker 1: that most certainly is the case here. This needs to
Speaker 1: all be out into the public view. We need to
Speaker 1: see all of the documents. This is not national security.
Speaker 1: If you have to redact some of the survivors or
Speaker 1: victims' names, and that's fine, but anyone who was involved
Speaker 1: as far as criminally, I don't want to hear anything
Speaker 1: about redactions. I don't want to hear anything about these
Speaker 1: people being protected. All of this needs to come to
Speaker 1: a head and then bust out. In July, Judge Presco
Speaker 1: ordered the release of an email correspondence from five years
Speaker 1: ago showing what appeared to be a press stamen in
Speaker 1: Maxwell's voice only it was written by Epstein to her.
Speaker 1: And when that happened, we knew that it was the deal, right,
Speaker 1: We knew that Epstein and Maxwell were still in contact.
Speaker 1: These people don't just stop talking to each other. They
Speaker 1: were very very much connected, they were very much involved.
Speaker 1: And if anyone thinks that they just dropped off and
Speaker 1: stopped talking, well they have not been paying attention. Since
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein was charged in two thousand and seven for
Speaker 1: solicitation of a prostitute, I have been the target of
Speaker 1: outright lies, innuendo, slander, defamation, and silacious gossip and harassment,
Speaker 1: Epstein wrote Gmax in an email dated January twenty first,
Speaker 1: twenty and fifteen. So they were trying to lay the
Speaker 1: groundwork to make it look like Elaine Maxwell had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Epstein, trying to distance her from him, right,
Speaker 1: and Epstein was the one coordinating all of it. Still
Speaker 1: the maestro, still the puppeteer. The message undercut Maxwell's legal
Speaker 1: defense because she had claimed the two of them had
Speaker 1: been out of contact for more than a decade. On
Speaker 1: October twenty second, Maxwell's deposition from the old defamation case
Speaker 1: was made public, showing what prosecutors alleged to be perjury.
Speaker 1: And that again goes back to the two those who
Speaker 1: were talking about here in this article, who did not
Speaker 1: meet that deadline and why they would not meet that
Speaker 1: deadline again for me. Most it almost has to be
Speaker 1: that they're going to be providing testimony in this case,
Speaker 1: and they know the cats out of the bag anyway,
Speaker 1: and they're ready to go to the mattresses and tell
Speaker 1: their story about who Geyland Maxwell is and what she did.
Speaker 1: Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls
Speaker 1: for sexual massages? Asked Sigurd McAuley, at the time, an
Speaker 1: attorney for her prominent accuser, Virginia Roberts. If you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know what you were talking about, Maxwell responded,
Speaker 1: so right there, we know that that probably one of
Speaker 1: those perjury charges, right saying she didn't know about the
Speaker 1: whole operation, etc. Etc.
Speaker 2: Bs.
Speaker 1: Come on, everybody knows that she knew the deal. I
Speaker 1: don't know what you were talking about, Maxwell responded. Federal
Speaker 1: prosecutors quoted the exchange in one of their charges of
Speaker 1: false statements in this article. You can read the five
Speaker 1: page order as well. Make sure you click on the
Speaker 1: link and go and check out the article as well,
Speaker 1: and her her comments here were obvious lies, and federal
Speaker 1: prosecutors quoted the exchange in one of their charges of
Speaker 1: false statements. So we can kind of do our own
Speaker 1: legwork here right, our own slothing, our own investigative work,
Speaker 1: and put the pieces together. And that's what you folks
Speaker 1: have been so good at since the very beginning. I mean,
Speaker 1: some of the investigation that you folks do is just
Speaker 1: amazing out there, right me, like you, Like I always
Speaker 1: tell you, I'm just one person. I do what I can,
Speaker 1: but there's things that slip by me. So when you
Speaker 1: folks send me articles, and you folks send me emails,
Speaker 1: and you know, send me different threads to yank on,
Speaker 1: believe me, I'm.
Speaker 2: All over it.
Speaker 1: So I highly respect those of you out there who
Speaker 1: dig into this case and spend time digging into this case,
Speaker 1: and believe me, it does not go unnoticed and it
Speaker 1: is much appreciated. I think that something like this has
Speaker 1: to be a community effort, right. There's not just one
Speaker 1: person who can possibly spend the time or has the
Speaker 1: resources to really dig into this case alone. So it's
Speaker 1: really been a big, big time community and group effort
Speaker 1: to try and advance this ball over the goal line.
Speaker 1: So keep it up, folks, keep sending all those articles,
Speaker 1: keep sending all of those threads to yank on, and
Speaker 1: just generally keep up being an awesome group of folks.
Speaker 1: All right, everybody, I will be back later on tonight,
Speaker 1: probably with a daily drop, depending on what's going on
Speaker 1: in the news. Yeah, more than likely they there'll be
Speaker 1: a daily drop tonight, maybe a little bit later than usual,
Speaker 1: but there probably will.
Speaker 2: Be one tonight.
Speaker 1: Considering there's a couple of articles I have archived that
Speaker 1: I wanted to discuss and if it's slow tonight, well
Speaker 1: that will be the perfect time to do so. If
Speaker 1: you'd like to contact me, you can do that at
Speaker 1: Bobby Kapuci at protonmeil dot com. That's Bob b Y
Speaker 1: c A p U C c I at ProtonMail dot com.
Speaker 1: You can also find me on Twitter at b O
Speaker 1: B B y underscore c A p U C c I.
Speaker 1: All of the links that go at this episode can
Speaker 1: be found in the description box and to