Episodes

  • Former Prince Andrew Has Been Arrested By Authorities In The U.K. (2/20/26)

    Former Prince Andrew Has Been Arrested By Authorities In The U.K. (2/20/26)
    Feb 20 2026
    Former Prince Andrew, now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, was arrested on February 19, 2026 — his 66th birthday — by British police on suspicion of misconduct in public office after authorities began investigating allegations linked to his conduct during his time as a UK trade envoy. Thames Valley Police confirmed they arrested a man in his sixties in Norfolk on those suspicions and were carrying out searches at properties in both Norfolk and Berkshire; under UK procedure the arrested person was not immediately named but the reporting makes clear it was Mountbatten-Windsor. The inquiry stems from documents in the recently released Epstein files suggesting he may have shared confidential government information with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and he remains in custody while the investigation continues.


    The arrest represents a historic moment as the first senior British royal to be taken into custody in modern times and follows years of public scrutiny over his association with Epstein and prior civil litigation, including a high-profile settlement with accuser Virginia Giuffre. King Charles III responded to the news by affirming that “the law must take its course,” emphasizing cooperation with police, while Giuffre’s family welcomed the development as a sign that no one is above the law. The exact legal outcome — whether formal charges will be filed — remains to be seen as the investigation unfolds.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    UK police arrest Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for misconduct in public office | AP News
    Show More Show Less
    14 mins
  • Mega Edition: The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 5-7) (2/20/26)

    Mega Edition: The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 5-7) (2/20/26)
    Feb 20 2026
    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
    Show More Show Less
    33 mins
  • Mega Edition: The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 3-4) (2/20/26)

    Mega Edition: The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 3-4) (2/20/26)
    Feb 20 2026
    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
    Show More Show Less
    25 mins
  • Mega Edition: The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 1-2) (2/19/26)

    Mega Edition: The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 1-2) (2/19/26)
    Feb 20 2026
    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
    Show More Show Less
    25 mins
  • Deutsche Bank And Their 150 Million Dollar Jeffrey Epstein Mistake

    Deutsche Bank And Their 150 Million Dollar Jeffrey Epstein Mistake
    Feb 20 2026
    In July 2020, New York state regulators fined Deutsche Bank $150 million for its failure to properly monitor its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, along with other high-risk clients. The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) determined that the bank ignored clear warning signs while maintaining Epstein as a client from 2013 to 2018, years after his 2008 sex-crime conviction. Regulators found that Deutsche Bank processed millions in suspicious transactions for Epstein, including payments to women with Eastern European surnames and large cash withdrawals that should have triggered scrutiny. The DFS concluded that the bank chose profit over compliance, prioritizing Epstein’s business despite internal concerns that he posed legal and reputational risks.

    The fine was the first major enforcement action against a financial institution for its role in facilitating Epstein’s activities. Regulators detailed how Deutsche Bank repeatedly failed to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) despite obvious red flags tied to Epstein’s network of shell companies and payments structured to look like consulting or tuition expenses. The settlement required Deutsche Bank to improve oversight and compliance systems, but it also underscored a larger problem: financial institutions were essential enablers of Epstein’s empire, allowing him to move money and maintain access to elite circles even after his conviction. The $150 million penalty was significant in size, yet critics argued it was still a slap on the wrist for a global bank that had enabled Epstein’s financial maneuvering for years.




    To contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/07/jeffrey-epstein-case-deutsche-bank-fined-150-million-penalty-for-relationship.html
    Show More Show Less
    29 mins
  • Brad Edwards Breaks Down His Battle Against Jeffrey Epstein

    Brad Edwards Breaks Down His Battle Against Jeffrey Epstein
    Feb 19 2026
    Bradley J. Edwards spent more than a decade fighting what many believed was an untouchable power structure surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. Based in Florida, Edwards began representing victims in the mid-2000s, when Epstein had already secured a highly controversial 2008 non-prosecution agreement that shielded him from federal prosecution and insulated potential co-conspirators. Edwards challenged that deal relentlessly, arguing that federal prosecutors violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by keeping survivors in the dark. His legal strategy wasn’t just about individual settlements; it was about dismantling the machinery that protected Epstein. Through civil litigation, public pressure, and persistence in federal court, Edwards forced scrutiny back onto a case many thought was buried.

    His work helped reopen national attention on Epstein years after the original plea deal, culminating in a 2019 federal ruling that prosecutors had indeed violated victims’ rights. Although Epstein’s arrest and subsequent death prevented a criminal trial, Edwards continued pursuing civil accountability against the estate and alleged enablers. He also represented survivors in high-profile litigation involving institutions and powerful individuals connected to Epstein’s orbit. Throughout the process, Edwards positioned himself as both litigator and advocate, often publicly criticizing the justice system’s handling of the case. His long campaign transformed what began as a quiet Florida prosecution into one of the most consequential accountability battles in modern American criminal law.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show More Show Less
    34 mins
  • Les Wexner Issues A Statement Prior To His Epstein Related Congressional Appearance (2/19/26)

    Les Wexner Issues A Statement Prior To His Epstein Related Congressional Appearance (2/19/26)
    Feb 19 2026
    In a detailed written statement submitted ahead of his closed-door deposition before the U.S. House Oversight Committee, billionaire Les Wexner said he was “pleased” for the chance to “set the record straight” about his long-standing financial and personal connection to the late Jeffrey Epstein. Wexner described Epstein as a “con man” and said he had been “naïve, foolish, and gullible” to trust him, but emphatically denied ever having any knowledge of or involvement in Epstein’s criminal conduct. He reiterated that he cut all ties nearly two decades ago when he learned of Epstein’s misconduct, asserted he had “done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide,” and called attention to the pain suffered by Epstein’s survivors, expressing sympathy for their suffering.

    Wexner also portrayed himself as a family man, philanthropist, and longtime Ohio community leader, framing his statement around a desire to correct what he characterized as “outrageous untrue statements and hurtful rumor, innuendo, and speculation” about him. He stressed his long career building retail brands, his ethical values, and said that his relationship with Epstein ended after he discovered financial misconduct rather than criminal activity. Throughout the statement, he sought to distance himself from the most egregious aspects of the Epstein scandal while acknowledging the opportunity to cooperate with congressional inquiries.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com




    source:

    Ohio billionaire Les Wexner issues statement ahead of deposition in Jeffrey Epstein investigation – WHIO TV 7 and WHIO Radio
    Show More Show Less
    12 mins
  • The Epstein Enterprise: A System Designed to Recruit and Exploit (2/19/26)

    The Epstein Enterprise: A System Designed to Recruit and Exploit (2/19/26)
    Feb 19 2026
    At its core, the case hinges on a straightforward legal framework: sex trafficking of minors involves recruiting or obtaining someone under eighteen for sexual activity in exchange for money or something of value. The conduct described in this instance followed a consistent pattern. Underage girls were allegedly approached with offers of cash for “massages,” encounters escalated into sexual acts, and payments were made afterward. Reports further described a referral system in which girls were encouraged to bring other girls and were compensated for doing so. Because minors cannot legally consent to commercial sex, the presence of payment and recruitment carries decisive legal weight. The absence of overt force does not negate the charge when the alleged victims are under eighteen.


    The allegations were not confined to a single episode or location. Similar accounts surfaced across multiple properties and over an extended period, suggesting repetition and coordination rather than isolated misconduct. Critics note that a prior plea agreement and the lack of a completed federal trial do not eliminate the factual allegations that formed the basis of later indictments. The commercial element—cash tied to sexual access involving minors—remains central. When recruitment, payment, and repetition converge, investigators and prosecutors characterize that structure as organized commercial sexual exploitation of minors. Stripped of political framing, the factual framework aligns with the statutory definition of sex trafficking.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    Show More Show Less
    12 mins