Alan Dershowitz Lawyers Allegedly Advised Him Against Appearing In Front Of Congress (7/24/26)

Mega Edition: Jes Staley Complains About Being Railroaded By The Epstein Allegations (7/25/26)

Jes Staley has repeatedly argued that he was unfairly railroaded by his association with Jeffrey Epstein, portraying himself as collateral damage in a scandal he claims was exaggerated and mischaracterized. In public statements and court filings, Jes Staley has insisted that his relationship with Epstein was overstated, that he had no knowledge of Epstein’s criminal conduct, and that the fallout cost him his career and reputation unjustly. Staley has framed the allegations as a narrative pile-on—suggesting that regulators, banks, and the media needed a single, convenient figure to absorb blame once Epstein’s crimes became impossible to ignore. Those denials, however, collapse under the weight of the documented facts. Emails, travel records, and testimony show that Staley maintained a far closer and longer relationship with Jeffrey Epstein than he publicly acknowledged, including repeated personal contact well after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. Evidence revealed during regulatory investigations and litigation contradicts Staley’s claims of distance and ignorance, exposing a pattern of sustained engagement that undercuts his credibility. When set against the paper trail, Staley’s insistence that he was merely an unlucky bystander rings hollow—less a case of being railroaded, and more an example of how implausible denials unravel once they’re tested against emails, calendars, and sworn findings. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell And Her Most Cherished Forever Friend (7/25/26)

Prince Andrew publicly tried to distance himself from Ghislaine Maxwell as scrutiny of Jeffrey Epstein’s network intensified, presenting their relationship as something largely confined to the past. However, later reporting and released communications indicated that the connection continued privately for years. Maxwell reportedly remained in contact with Andrew until at least 2019, long after the period when he suggested that he had severed ties with Epstein’s circle. Their continued communication showed that she was not simply a forgotten acquaintance, but someone Andrew could still turn to as the scandal closed in around him. The messages also suggested that Andrew, Maxwell and Epstein coordinated behind the scenes when allegations involving Virginia Giuffre began receiving wider attention. In 2011, Andrew contacted Maxwell and Epstein seeking assurances that public statements would make clear that he knew nothing about the accusations, even though he later portrayed his relationship with the pair as effectively over. The private exchanges exposed a sharp difference between the public narrative of separation and the reality of continued contact, mutual reassurance and apparent efforts to manage the growing scandal away from public view. Andrew has denied wrongdoing and has said he does not recall meeting Giuffre. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: Jean Luc Brunel Goes To Ground In The Wake Of Epstein's Arrest (7/25/26)

After Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest in July 2019, Jean-Luc Brunel seemed to all but disappear from public view. The French modeling agent, long accused of helping Epstein recruit and exploit young women and girls, was reportedly seen only rarely as scrutiny intensified around Epstein’s network. Brunel had spent decades moving through elite fashion circles, but once Epstein was back in custody, he became increasingly difficult to locate, stopped appearing publicly, and avoided the media almost entirely. His sudden absence fueled speculation that he was hiding, being protected, or attempting to stay beyond the reach of investigators. For months, Brunel existed more as a name in court filings, survivor accounts, and investigative reporting than as a visible person. His low profile stood in sharp contrast to the growing attention on his alleged role in Epstein’s operation, especially claims that he used modeling opportunities to gain access to vulnerable young women. That ghostlike period ended in December 2020, when French authorities arrested him at Charles de Gaulle Airport as he was preparing to travel to Senegal. His disappearance after Epstein’s arrest only deepened suspicions that he understood the legal danger he faced and was doing everything possible to remain out of sight. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 7)

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein’s 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations. Edwards further argues that the government’s resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government’s possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney’s Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability. to contact me: bobbycacpucci@protonmail.com source: gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf [https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf]

The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 6)

The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards, representing Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, explains that the requested records are essential to proving that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating and finalizing Epstein’s 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement without notifying the victims. He asserts that internal DOJ communications, emails, memoranda, and investigative records would show what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how deliberate their decision was to exclude victims from the process despite clear statutory obligations. Edwards further argues that the government’s resistance to producing these materials undermines transparency and prevents the court from fully evaluating the extent of the misconduct. He emphasizes that the victims cannot meaningfully litigate their CVRA claims without access to evidence exclusively in the government’s possession, particularly records documenting decision-making within the U.S. Attorney’s Office and DOJ headquarters. The affidavit frames the document production not as a fishing expedition, but as a narrowly tailored request necessary to expose how Epstein was granted extraordinary leniency, how victims were intentionally misled, and how federal officials acted with impunity while shielding both Epstein and themselves from accountability. to contact me: bobbycacpucci@protonmail.com source: gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf [https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867/gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.265.1_1.pdf]