Former Gov. John De Jongh And His Battle With Epstein Survivors Over Jurisdiction

Mega Edition: The Dumpster Fire Known As The BOP (6/22/26)

The failure to keep Jeffrey Epstein alive was not just a jailhouse screwup; it was a neon-lit indictment of the Bureau of Prisons as an institution. Epstein was one of the most high-profile federal detainees in the country, a man whose survival mattered to victims, investigators, the courts, and the public’s faith in the justice system. Yet the BOP managed to leave him effectively unprotected inside MCC New York, despite his prior incident in custody, despite the obvious stakes, and despite basic procedures that were supposed to prevent exactly this outcome. The DOJ Inspector General found failures involving his housing, supervision, required rounds, staff performance, and institutional follow-through, including the failure to ensure he had a cellmate and the failure of staff to carry out required responsibilities in the hours before his death. In other words, the agency did not merely drop the ball; it dropped the ball, kicked it into traffic, falsified the paperwork, and then asked the country to accept that this was just another unfortunate bureaucratic accident. That is why Epstein’s death personifies the absolute dumpster fire the BOP was and continues to be: an agency defined by understaffing, broken infrastructure, bad management, weak accountability, and a culture where catastrophic failures somehow become nobody’s fault in any meaningful way. The DOJ’s own watchdog has described federal corrections management as a long-running major challenge, with persistent problems including staffing shortages, deteriorating facilities, and contraband, while reporting around Epstein’s death tied his case to broader BOP failures rather than a single isolated lapse. And that is the real insult. If the BOP could not properly safeguard the most watched prisoner in America, inside one of the most scrutinized cases in modern history, then what chance does an ordinary prisoner have when nobody is watching, nobody is famous, and nobody in power is afraid of the consequences? Epstein’s death did not create the crisis of confidence around the BOP; it exposed it in the ugliest possible way. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Mega Edition: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 10-12) (6/21/26)

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell’s deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz’s defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors’ allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein’s secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack. The deposition also addresses Dershowitz’s accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz’s narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified. to contact me: EFTA00594390.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00594390.pdf]

Mega Edition: Paul Cassell's Deposition In Cassell/Edwards V. Dershowitz (Part 7-9) (6/21/26)

In the Broward County defamation litigation CACE 15-000072, the deposition at issue is sworn testimony from Paul Cassell, one of the attorneys representing Epstein survivors and a former federal judge. Cassell’s deposition focuses on his role in challenging the 2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein, and on statements he made publicly about Alan Dershowitz that later became the basis for Dershowitz’s defamation claims. Cassell explains the factual foundation for his remarks, emphasizing that they were rooted in court filings, sworn victim testimony, investigative reporting, and contemporaneous evidence. He details how survivors’ allegations against Dershowitz emerged, how they were evaluated by legal teams, and why he believed it was appropriate and accurate to reference them in public advocacy surrounding Epstein’s secret plea deal. Cassell consistently frames his conduct as part of his duty to represent victims and expose prosecutorial misconduct, not as a personal attack. The deposition also addresses Dershowitz’s accusation that Cassell acted recklessly or with malice, which Cassell firmly rejects. He testifies that he never fabricated claims, never coached witnesses to lie, and never acted outside ethical or professional boundaries. Cassell underscores that his statements reflected allegations already made under oath by victims and contained in legal records, and that suppressing discussion of those allegations would further harm survivors. Throughout the testimony, Cassell situates the dispute within the larger Epstein cover-up, arguing that the real issue is not reputational discomfort among the powerful but the systemic failure to protect exploited minors. The deposition ultimately functions as a defense of victim-centered advocacy and transparency, directly countering Dershowitz’s narrative that survivor allegations were invented, coerced, or irresponsibly amplified. to contact me: EFTA00594390.pdf [https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00594390.pdf]

Unanswered Questions: Princess Sofia Of Sweden And Her Interactions With Epstein

Princess Sofia’s newly exposed ties to Jeffrey Epstein have triggered heavy criticism because the palace’s explanation leans heavily on distance and hindsight rather than accountability. While the Royal Court insists she merely “met” Epstein a few times in the mid-2000s, leaked emails paint a picture of someone orbiting his social world far more closely than the sanitized palace version suggests. She didn’t just bump into him — she was introduced, socialized, exchanged emails, and was even invited to his private island. The palace’s claim that she “declined” the trip reads more like damage control than moral clarity, especially given how many young women in that era were drawn into his orbit under similarly innocuous pretenses. Critics argue that Sofia benefited from the glamorous social connections Epstein helped facilitate while now relying on the defense that “no one knew” who he really was. The timing has also raised eyebrows. Her sudden withdrawal from the Nobel Prize ceremony — a major royal showcase she has consistently attended — didn’t go unnoticed, and it fueled suspicion that the royal family is scrambling to contain fallout rather than confront it. The broader criticism is that the Swedish monarchy is handling Sofia’s Epstein ties with the same evasive tone we’ve seen from other powerful institutions: acknowledging the bare minimum while declining to explain why she maintained contact long enough for invitations, introductions, and social overlap with a man who already had a reputation — even then — for inappropriate behavior around young women. The palace’s framing tries to minimize the connection, but in doing so, it underscores the same elitism and selective amnesia that let Epstein operate untouched for decades. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com source: Royal princess curiously vanishes amid shock Epstein revelations after the ex-lingerie model was invited to Paedo Island [https://www.the-sun.com/news/15622981/princess-sofia-sweden-royals-nobel-prize-jeffrey-epstein/]

Shareholders At Microsoft Corp Push For Reid Hoffman's Ouster Over Epstein Ties

A Microsoft shareholder is urging the company to remove or distance itself from board member Reid Hoffman, arguing that his past association with Jeffrey Epstein poses a reputational risk to the company. The effort is being led by the conservative watchdog organization National Legal and Policy Center, which has repeatedly raised concerns about Hoffman's judgment and suitability for a leadership role at Microsoft. The shareholder campaign points to Hoffman's acknowledged interactions with Epstein after Epstein's 2008 conviction, including visits and meetings that Hoffman has previously described as mistakes he regrets. The article argues that large public companies should hold directors to high ethical standards and that even indirect associations with figures such as Epstein can create long-term reputational and governance concerns. Critics of the proposal, however, have generally noted that Hoffman has publicly expressed regret for his relationship with Epstein and has denied any involvement in or knowledge of Epstein's criminal conduct. The renewed pressure comes amid a broader wave of scrutiny surrounding individuals and institutions that maintained relationships with Epstein, as congressional investigators and shareholders continue examining the extent of those connections years after his death. to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com