Jeffrey Epstein – Associates – Too Close For Comfort.

By Ruby Henley

 

Jeffrey Epstein once had three 12-year-old girls from poor families flown in from France as a birthday gift for himself, according to court documents.

Virginia Giuffre — who has claimed Epstein and his gal pal Ghislaine Maxwell coerced her into being a “sex slave” when she was 15 — said in court papers that the girls who were flown in were molested by Epstein.

He told them they could stay with him, but they wanted to go home.  Can you imagine their lives? How could they even trust their parents again?

 

nypost.com/2019/08/19/jeffrey-epstein-was-sent-three-12-year-old-french-girls-as-birthday-gift/

QUOTE – The allegations were revealed in 2015 court papers, as part of a 2008 civil lawsuit filed by two Epstein accusers against the US following a plea deal that they argued violated the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act.

The case is still ongoing, and federal Judge Kenneth Mara recently ruled that Florida federal prosecutors acted illegally when they failed to inform Epstein’s underage victims of the wrist-slap deal — which included a non-prosecution agreement that shielded the financier’s alleged co-conspirators.

Epstein, who served just 13 months in prison after pleading guilty to having sex with a minor, hanged himself in a Manhattan jail cell Aug. 10 while being held on federal sex-trafficking charges, authorities said.

Giuffre said Epstein had described to her how the girls had massaged him and performed oral sex, according to the Daily Mail.

“He went on to tell me how Brunel bought them in Paris from their parents, offering them the usual sums of money, visas, and modeling career prospects,” she said, according to the news outlet.

“Laughing the whole way through, Jeffrey thought it was absolutely brilliant how easily money seduced all walks of life, nothing or no one that couldn’t be bought.”

The same civil suit filed against the Miami US Attorney’s Office alleged that young girls from South America and Eastern Europe also were recruited for sex with Epstein.

The multimillionaire financier invested $1 million to help launch Brunel’s Miami-based modeling firm MC2 in return for a “supply of girls on tap,” according to the lawsuit.

 

Now that the famous photo of Prince Andrew has been exposed for the world to see, you would think he could not deny his friendship with Epstein.  That is what you would think, but think again.

Prince Andrew also has strongly denied claims of any impropriety, with a rep saying that “any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue.”

Buckingham Palace also said in a statement: “The Duke of York has been appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes.

“His Royal Highness deplores the exploitation of any human being and the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behavior is abhorrent.”

 

archive.vanityfair.com/article/share/ac60f552-4163-4d39-a36b-d2014fe20062

QUOTE – At one time Prince Andrew threw a pitch defending his relationship with Epstein.   Prince Andrew once had a screaming match with a friend who begged him to cut ties with Jeffery Epstein — with the royal proudly declaring his ongoing loyalty to his pedophile pal, according to a report.

The showdown came after Epstein was convicted of sex with a minor, serving jail time in Florida in 2008, with friends desperate for the royal to end his 20-year friendship, according to a 2011 story in Vanity Fair.

“After Jeffrey was convicted, I phoned Andrew and told him, ‘You cannot have a relationship with Jeffrey. You can’t do these things.’ And he said, ‘Stop giving me a hard time. You’re such a puritan,’” the unidentified friend said, according to the report.

“From there, our conversation descended into a screaming match, and finally Andrew said, ‘Leave me alone. Jeffrey’s my friend. Being loyal to your friends is a virtue. And I’m going to be loyal to him.’”

 

human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/what-is-a-pedophile-hebephile-ephebophile-teleiophile-infantophile+

QUOTE – Hebephile, a newly proposed diagnostic classification in which people display a sexual preference for children at the cusp of puberty, between the ages of, roughly, 11 to 14 years of age. Pedophiles, in contrast, show a sexual preference for clearly prepubescent children. There are also ephebophiles (from ephebos, meaning “one arrived at puberty” in Greek), who are mostly attracted to 15- to 16-year-olds; teleiophiles (from teleios, meaning, “full grown” in Greek), who prefer those 17 years of age or older); and even the very rare gerontophile (from gerontos, meaning “old man” in Greek), someone whose sexual preference is for the elderly. So although child sex offenders are often lumped into the single classification of pedophilia, biologically speaking it’s a rather complicated affair. Some have even proposed an additional subcategory of pedophilia, “infantophilia,” to distinguish those individuals most intensely attracted to children below six years of age.

Based on this classification scheme of erotic age orientations, even the world’s best-known fictitious “pedophile,” Humbert Humbert from Nabokov’s masterpiece, Lolita, would more properly be considered a hebephile. (Likewise the protagonist from Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice, a work that I’ve always viewed as something of the “gay Lolita”).

Why most “pedophiles” aren’t really pedophiles, technically speaking | Scientific American

The meaning of the word “Pedophile” was manipulatively changed and distorted. Pedophile is a clearly defined scientific term meaning an adult that has attraction to pre-pubertal children.

We are discussing grammar, semantics, and politics of language manipulation here.

We are not defending or condoning pedophile activities. END OF QUOTE

 

There is another picture which has just been exposed.  I should say, ‘painting,’ featuring Bill Clinton very elegantly dressed in a blue dress, red shoes, and pointing his finger at his audience.  Sound familiar?

Could it be he is making fun of us?  Remember – ‘I did not have sex with that woman.’

You can view the painting at the following link –

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7353967/Did-Jeffrey-Epstein-portrait-Bill-Clinton-blue-dress-red-heels-NYC-mansion.html

QUOTE – Jeffrey Epstein had an oil painting of Bill Clinton in a blue dress — lounging on a chair in the Oval Office — hanging up in his Manhattan townhouse, according to law enforcement sources.

“It was hanging up there prominently — as soon as you walked in — in a room to the right,” a source told The Post. “Everybody who saw it laughed and smirked.”

But the bizarre home decor didn’t stop there.

Epstein, 66, also kept a mannequin hanging from the ceiling — dressed up in a wedding gown, the source said, noting how the doll was situated above a staircase.

A woman who visited Epstein’s $56 million home confirmed the existence of the Clinton painting to the Daily Mail, but didn’t mention the mannequin. She was able to snap a picture of the painting, which was posted online.

A piece dubbed “Parsing Bill” was painted and sold by a New York-based artist named Petrina Ryan-Kleid. Saatchi Art, an online art gallery, describes it as an “oil on canvas” with dimensions of 40 W x 40 H x 2 in. The painting inside Epstein’s home appears to be the same size, and sources told The Post it was also done with oil. END OF QUOTE

The next story is on a man who associated with Epstein.  It is one I have waited to mention until I had the right source.  I feel I have it now, but it is still very complex. This is not slanderous, as it is written by a respected website which I feel I can trust.

It had been mentioned that Epstein was a friend of Alan Dershowitz.  I did not know whether this was, in fact, true.

Today I found the following article, and I feel it can be trusted.

 

biglawbusiness.com/dershowitz-wins-unsealing-of-epstein-related-defamation-case

QUOTE –

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, right-wing blogger Mike Cernovich, and the Miami Herald won the unsealing July 2 of a defamation lawsuit stemming from the prosecution of convicted billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The defamation case grew out of Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea to soliciting sex with a minor. Two of his victims, later joined by two more, filed suit under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act seeking to void the plea deal, which involved only limited jail time. Over the course of that challenge, the Epstein victims made sexual misconduct allegations—but didn’t bring formal claims—against other high-profile people, including Dershowitz, one of his attorneys, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell.

Maxwell called one of her accusers, Virginia Giuffre, a liar. Giuffre sued for defamation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Facing voluminous requests by both sides to seal documents, the judge overseeing the case issued an order presumptively sealing all court papers, including legal briefs relating to the Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment.

The defamation suit eventually settled.

Dershowitz moved to intervene in the case to seek unsealing of documents that he said would exonerate him. Cernovich and the Herald moved to unseal the entire case on journalistic grounds. The judge allowed all three to join the case but denied their unsealing requests.

They appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which vacated that order July 2.

Judge José A. Cabranes, writing for the court, said the trial judge “failed to conduct the requisite particularized review” before sealing virtually the whole case. The briefs urging and opposing summary judgment, in particular, carry a strong presumption of public access, Cabranes said.

Overcoming that presumption requires specific findings that the judge didn’t make because he couldn’t have, the court said.

“Upon reviewing the summary judgment materials in connection with this appeal, we find that there is no countervailing privacy interest sufficient to justify their continued sealing,” Cabranes wrote.

The court ordered the summary judgment papers unsealed. It remanded the case to the district court, ordering the trial court to remedy its “failure to conduct an individualized review of the sealed materials.”

 

Judge Christopher F. Droney joined the ruling.

Judge Rosemary S. Pooler dissented in part, saying it should be up to the trial judge to decide on remand whether to unseal the summary judgment papers.

The case is Maxwell v. Giuffre, 2d Cir., No. 16-3945, 7/2/19.

To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Leonard in Washington at mleonard@bloomberglaw.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jo-el J. Meyer at jmeyer@bloomberglaw.com

 

I am going to drop it here, but there is more to this story.  Epstein was arrested three days later.

 

I am making no assumptions on any of this.   I am only leaving a trail of breadcrumbs.

 

Here is this.  Take what you will from it.

To end this story, I think some of you will find the following very interesting.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/15/jeffrey-epstein-latest-house-arrest-request

QUOTE –

Rossmiller, who has repeatedly said Epstein’s wealth would make it possible for him to flee, also cited unknown factors surrounding Epstein’s finances.

 

During a search of Epstein’s Manhattan home, authorities found a “locked safe” containing cash, diamonds and an expired passport apparently with Epstein’s picture but a “name that was not his”. The passport, from the early 1980s, was from a “foreign country” and listed Epstein’s country of residence as “SAUDI ARABIA”.

It was also revealed in court that Epstein’s financial information disclosure, necessary for his bail request, ran to just one page.

Rossmiller said the document lacked information on Epstein’s assets, such as diamonds and art, “both of which were [found] in abundance” at his home.

 

The one-page document was unsealed. It listed Epstein’s net worth as $559,120,954, comprised of nearly $195m in hedge funds and private equity, $113m in equities, $57m in cash and $14m in fixed income, with six properties comprising the remainder.

The document also said the market value of his East 71st Street mansion was just under $56m, not $77m, as prosecutors have claimed.

Wild said publicity had not necessarily made it easier to come forward, as Epstein’s attorneys have argued in court.

 

“He’s a scary person to have walking the streets,” she said, with a reserved air, wearing a white shirt and black trousers as she addressed the judge.

The second accuser, Annie Farmer, stood and said: “I was 16 years old when I had the misfortune of meeting Jeffrey Epstein here in New York.”

She said it was difficult to come forward because of Epstein’s “wealth and privilege”. Berman asked if she was saying that Epstein engaged in sexual contact with her.

She said: “He was inappropriate with me.”

The judge asked if she would go into details.

She said: “I would prefer not to go into the details at this time.”.

 

In 2007, Epstein and the US attorney’s office in Miami, then led by Alexander Acosta, brokered a deal that ended a federal investigation into allegations involving at least 40 teenage girls.

Recently, Acosta resigned as Trump’s labor secretary following extensive criticism. Weinberg said the deal was approved by the justice department’s former criminal division head, as well as a former deputy attorney general.

 

 

1,916 views