Mega Edition: Johanna Sjoberg's Deposition In The Maxwell/Virginia Roberts Suit (Part 4-6) (5/24/26)

Ghislaine Maxwell's Undisputed Statement Of Facts Pursuant To Virginia's Allegations (Part 3)

Ghislaine Maxwell’s Rule 56.1 request in the defamation lawsuit brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre was a procedural move designed to narrow the case before trial by asking the court to treat Maxwell’s version of certain facts as undisputed. Under Local Rule 56.1, parties seeking summary judgment have to lay out the material facts they claim are not genuinely in dispute, with citations to admissible evidence. Maxwell argued that Giuffre’s response failed that test because, in Maxwell’s view, Giuffre did not properly support many of her denials with admissible evidence. Maxwell also objected to Giuffre adding her own supposedly “undisputed facts,” arguing that Giuffre had not filed her own cross-motion for summary judgment and therefore could not use the Rule 56.1 process to smuggle in a competing fact narrative. The request mattered because it was not just a dry filing dispute; it went directly to how Maxwell wanted the court to view the foundation of Giuffre’s claims. Maxwell sought to have several facts deemed admitted, including points about Giuffre’s earlier media interviews, the 2011 and 2015 statements issued on Maxwell’s behalf, the way Giuffre’s allegations appeared in prior court filings, and whether media republication of Maxwell’s denials could legally be pinned on Maxwell. In plain English, Maxwell was trying to box Giuffre in procedurally: if the court accepted Maxwell’s Rule 56.1 position, it would weaken Giuffre’s ability to argue that there were disputed facts requiring a jury trial. But the broader context is that this was part of Maxwell’s aggressive defense strategy in the 2015 defamation case, where Giuffre sued after Maxwell publicly branded her allegations false; the case eventually settled, while the sealed filings later became a major source of Epstein-related disclosures. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Ghislaine Maxwell's Undisputed Statement Of Facts Pursuant To Virginia's Allegations (Part 2)

Ghislaine Maxwell’s Rule 56.1 request in the defamation lawsuit brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre was a procedural move designed to narrow the case before trial by asking the court to treat Maxwell’s version of certain facts as undisputed. Under Local Rule 56.1, parties seeking summary judgment have to lay out the material facts they claim are not genuinely in dispute, with citations to admissible evidence. Maxwell argued that Giuffre’s response failed that test because, in Maxwell’s view, Giuffre did not properly support many of her denials with admissible evidence. Maxwell also objected to Giuffre adding her own supposedly “undisputed facts,” arguing that Giuffre had not filed her own cross-motion for summary judgment and therefore could not use the Rule 56.1 process to smuggle in a competing fact narrative. The request mattered because it was not just a dry filing dispute; it went directly to how Maxwell wanted the court to view the foundation of Giuffre’s claims. Maxwell sought to have several facts deemed admitted, including points about Giuffre’s earlier media interviews, the 2011 and 2015 statements issued on Maxwell’s behalf, the way Giuffre’s allegations appeared in prior court filings, and whether media republication of Maxwell’s denials could legally be pinned on Maxwell. In plain English, Maxwell was trying to box Giuffre in procedurally: if the court accepted Maxwell’s Rule 56.1 position, it would weaken Giuffre’s ability to argue that there were disputed facts requiring a jury trial. But the broader context is that this was part of Maxwell’s aggressive defense strategy in the 2015 defamation case, where Giuffre sued after Maxwell publicly branded her allegations false; the case eventually settled, while the sealed filings later became a major source of Epstein-related disclosures. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Ghislaine Maxwell's Undisputed Statement Of Facts Pursuant To Virginia's Allegations (Part 1)

Ghislaine Maxwell’s Rule 56.1 request in the defamation lawsuit brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre was a procedural move designed to narrow the case before trial by asking the court to treat Maxwell’s version of certain facts as undisputed. Under Local Rule 56.1, parties seeking summary judgment have to lay out the material facts they claim are not genuinely in dispute, with citations to admissible evidence. Maxwell argued that Giuffre’s response failed that test because, in Maxwell’s view, Giuffre did not properly support many of her denials with admissible evidence. Maxwell also objected to Giuffre adding her own supposedly “undisputed facts,” arguing that Giuffre had not filed her own cross-motion for summary judgment and therefore could not use the Rule 56.1 process to smuggle in a competing fact narrative. The request mattered because it was not just a dry filing dispute; it went directly to how Maxwell wanted the court to view the foundation of Giuffre’s claims. Maxwell sought to have several facts deemed admitted, including points about Giuffre’s earlier media interviews, the 2011 and 2015 statements issued on Maxwell’s behalf, the way Giuffre’s allegations appeared in prior court filings, and whether media republication of Maxwell’s denials could legally be pinned on Maxwell. In plain English, Maxwell was trying to box Giuffre in procedurally: if the court accepted Maxwell’s Rule 56.1 position, it would weaken Giuffre’s ability to argue that there were disputed facts requiring a jury trial. But the broader context is that this was part of Maxwell’s aggressive defense strategy in the 2015 defamation case, where Giuffre sued after Maxwell publicly branded her allegations false; the case eventually settled, while the sealed filings later became a major source of Epstein-related disclosures. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Pam Bondi Heads To DC For A Closed Door Epstein Related Meeting With Congress (5/29/26)

Pam Bondi’s congressional appearance today is centered on her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files while she was attorney general, especially the messy rollout, the shifting public explanations, and the lingering questions about what the Justice Department released, withheld, redacted, or claimed did not exist. Bondi is appearing before the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door, transcribed interview rather than a public, televised hearing, which is already a major source of criticism because the subject is supposed to be transparency. Lawmakers are expected to press her on her earlier public suggestion that an Epstein “client list” was on her desk, the later DOJ/FBI memo saying there was no evidence of such a chargeable list, the release of millions of pages of Epstein-related material, and the backlash from survivors and members of Congress who argue the process still left too many unanswered questions. The DOJ missed the act’s December 19 deadline and later released documents in a way that drew criticism over redactions, survivor privacy concerns, and whether the most important institutional questions were being dodged. Bondi is expected to defend the department’s handling of the files, while House Oversight members are likely to focus on whether the release was truly comprehensive or another stage-managed disclosure designed to quiet public outrage without fully explaining how Epstein operated, who benefited, and why the system protected him for so long. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Pam Bondi testifies behind closed doors in House committee's Epstein probe - CBS News [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pam-bondi-epstein-files-house-oversight-committee/]

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez Links Alleged Attack to Her Epstein Ranch Investigation (5/29/26)

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, a former newspaper reporter and bestselling novelist who has spent recent years investigating Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch in New Mexico, says she has left her home and is preparing to leave the United States after what she claims were “directed energy weapon” attacks connected to her Epstein reporting. She has alleged that her work on Zorro Ranch, local cover-up claims, and possible intelligence-linked trafficking networks made her a target, and she described suffering symptoms she compared to “Havana syndrome,” including neurological pressure-type effects. She claimed the attacks came in multiple episodes, possibly from equipment on or near her roof or from a semi-truck parked near her home. There is no public evidence confirming that she was attacked with directed energy weapons or that her claims about buried victims, military contractors, or intelligence-linked retaliation have been substantiated. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Reporter who investigated Jeffrey Epstein is 'fleeing' the US after alleged attack [https://nypost.com/2026/05/26/media/reporter-who-investigated-jeffrey-epstein-is-fleeing-the-us-after-alleged-attack/]