Elizabeth Vos, Epstein Case: Documentaries Won’t Touch Tales of Intel Ties

By Elizabeth Vos

Two new documentaries on the Jeffery Epstein affair delve into lurid details & give voice to his victims, but both scratch the surface of the political & intelligence dimensions of the scandal, writes Elizabeth Vos.

Investigation Discovery premiered  a three-hour special, “Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein?” on May 31, the first segment in a three-part series, that  focused on Epstein’s August 2019 death in federal custody. The series addresses Epstein’s alleged co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, his links with billionaire Leslie Wexner, founder of the Victoria Secrets clothing line, and others, as well as the non-prosecution deal he was given.

The special followed on the heels of Netflix’s release of “Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich,” a mini-series that draws on a book of the same name by James Patterson.

Promotional material for “Who Killed Jeffery Epstein?” promises that:  “… exclusive interviews and in-depth investigations reveal new clues about his seedy underworld, privileged life and controversial death. The three-hour special looks to answer the questions surrounding the death of this enigmatic figure.”  Netflix billed its series this way: “Stories from survivors fuel this docuseries examining how convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein used his wealth and power to carry out his abuses.”

Neither documentary however deals at all with Epstein’s suspected ties to the world of intelligence.

Absent from both are Maxwell’s reported links to Israeli intelligence through her father, Robert Maxwell, former owner of The New York Daily News and The Mirror newspaper in London. Maxwell essentially received a state funeral in Israel and was buried on the Mount of Olives after he mysteriously fell off his yacht in 1991 in the Atlantic Ocean.

Ari Ben-Menashe. (From his memoir, “Profits of War”)

In an interview with Consortium News, former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe said Epstein did not work with Mossad. “Military intelligence was who he was working with,” said Ben-Menashe. “Big difference,” he said. “He never worked with Mossad, and Robert Maxwell never did, either. It was military intelligence.”

Ben-Menashe claimed Robert Maxwell was Epstein’s “tie over. Robert Maxwell was the conduit [in the Iran-Contra scandal]. The financial conduit.”

In “Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales,” a book published in December, Ben-Menashe is quoted as saying he worked with Robert Maxwell who introduced his daughter and Epstein to Israeli intelligence, after which they engaged in a blackmail operation for Israel. “[Epstein] was taking photos of politicians f**king fourteen-year-old girls — if you want to get it straight. They [Epstein and Maxwell] would just blackmail people, they would just blackmail people like that,” he says in the book.

Ben-Menashe also claims that Robert Maxwell had attempted to blackmail Mossad. “He really lost his compass once he started playing these games with people,” he told Consortium News.    

Prince Andrew

Prince Andrew in a carriage procession, June 2012. (Carfax2, CC BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)

About a week after both documentaries premiered, the U.S. Department of Justice approached the U.K.’s Home Office requesting that Prince Andrew answer questions in the U.K. over his links to Epstein, The Mirror reported.  If he refuses, the paper said, U.S. prosecutors would ask that he be brought to a British court to respond to their questions. Andrew’s lawyers say he three times agreed to be questioned by U.S. authorities, but it is not known if Andrew attached conditions, such as immunity.

Both documentaries mention Prince Andrew in the context of allegations about him from one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre. But neither film goes into much detail about Andrew’s role in the Epstein operation, which Ben-Menashe said, was to lure powerful men into Epstein’s orbit.

“One of the things that are really key to this is that he [Epstein] befriended a very useful idiot called Prince Andrew,” Ben-Menashe told CN. “Now what really happened was that this Prince Andrew, with nothing to do, was having fun with this, and Prince Andrew brings in the fancy people, invites them to play golf with him, and then takes them out for fun. Then Epstein shows up, and these people are basically blackmailed.”

“The only person that can talk, that probably knows quite a bit, is the great prince,” Ben-Menashe said. “He was with him [Epstein] all the time. I really don’t know what his future is going to be like, either.”

Since a number of influential figures were named in a lawsuit filed by Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell the day before Epstein was found dead in his federal prison cell in New York, Ben-Menashe said: “I’m starting to think that lawsuit was his death sentence, because people didn’t want to be named. That’s my guess, it’s just a guess. Obviously, somebody decided that he had to go.”

Epstein’s death was ruled a “suicide” by New York’s chief medical examiner. A pathologist hired by Epstein’s brother said it was homicide.

An Angry Call

Just before Ben-Menashe spoke to Consortium News on Monday, he said he had received an angry telephone call from Israel’s Channel 13 television station.

“They called me, and they went wild: ‘What, you believe Israel would use little girls? You are saying that? You are insulting the nation, you are making us anathema around the world.’ I said, ‘The truth is the truth.’ And Jeffrey Epstein’s story is something that nobody wanted to hear. He was working with the Israelis, he was working with Maxwell,” Ben-Menashe said.

He added: “It’s a very bad story, and I can see why the Israelis are so concerned about it.  I believe [Channel 13] were expressing anger, and I believe this was a message. I don’t like messages like that… it has to do with the timing and these stories coming out about Epstein. They [Israel] are starting to become anathema to the world, this adds to it — the Epstein story.”

Victims’ Voices

The Netflix and Investigation Discovery productions allow survivors to recount their experiences in interviews as well as taped police recordings and focus on the sweetheart plea deal provided to Epstein by former Trump Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta during Acosta’s tenure as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida.

Each series outlines Epstein’s relationships with Wexner, Maxwell, and a variety of elite figures.  Investigation Discovery focuses on the controversy surrounding Epstein’s death while Netflix’s “Filthy Rich” examines the second attempt to prosecute Epstein in the context of the Me Too movement.

The Netflix series describes the initial investigation of Epstein as it shifted from the state to the federal level, and airs allegations that Florida  journalists  covering the story were threatened. Netflix also interviews psychologist Dr. Kathryn Stamoulis, a specialist in adolescent sexuality, who gives a description of Epstein’s targeting and grooming of young girls. Epstein survivor Giuffre later describes in the film being groomed to tolerate exploitation and sex trafficking as part of a “deranged family.”

The final section of the fourth episode in Netflix’s miniseries includes a survivor stating that this was not simply an Epstein operation, but an “international sex trafficking ring that reached all over the world.” Epstein is described as a “very small piece in a huge network.” But the documentary goes no further than that.

As in the Belgian Dutroux case, victims alleged that multiple abusers acted in concert with each other, using blackmail to keep each other in line. In both instances, authorities and the media portrayed the abuse as chiefly the product of an aberrant lone predator.

“This wouldn’t be the only time this happened, but this guy got way over his head,” Ben-Menashe told Consortium News. “He probably was blackmailing too many people, too many powerful people. And then, this is a story the Israelis wouldn’t want to come out, anyway.”

Thriving in Murky Waters

Another angle the documentaries did not approach was the environment in which Epstein thrived like an algae bloom in stagnant water, that is, within a long history of child trafficking rings linked with intelligence agencies, often with the aim of gathering blackmail material. It was within this reality that Epstein appeared to be rendered untouchable.

Omitting the intelligence aspect of Epstein’s history allows the Establishment media to portray his case as a mysterious and unsolvable aberration, rather than perhaps a continuation of business-as-usual amongst those in power.

The glaring refusal to address Epstein’s intelligence involvement becomes  clear when Investigation Discovery and Netflix’s programs discuss the role of Acosta in securing Epstein’s “sweetheart” plea deal, but do not reference Acosta’s widely reported explanation as to why Acosta agreed to the deal.  As reported by The Daily Beast, Acosta claimed that he cut the non-prosecution deal because he had been told that “Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.”

Independent journalist Whitney Webb has reported on Epstein’s many ties with intelligence, telling  CNLive! in August last year that there is evidence this included with the CIA.

Webb spoke about  Iran-Contra links to Epstein via his and billionaire Wexner’s efforts to relocate Southern Air Transport (formerly the CIA’s Air America) from Florida to Ohio: “What’s significant here is that out of all the airlines in the United States, Wexner and Epstein choose the airline, the only airline that is outed, publicly known at the time, to be a CIA cut-out. Out of all the airlines that exist, that’s the one they go for,” she said.

Webb also cited reporting by Nigel Rosser, a British journalist, who wrote in the Evening Standard in 2001 that Epstein claimed he worked for the CIA in the 1990s.

Lip Service

Investigation Discovery and Netflix give lip service to Wexner’s ties with Epstein, omitting that Wexner gave Epstein the largest private residence in New York City — essentially for free. Investigation Discovery does not mention that the residence was extensively wired with surveillance equipment, per Webb and The New York Times.

“James Patterson, before writing his book on Epstein, ‘Filthy Rich,’ on which this documentary [by Netflix] is based, wrote a novel [‘The President is Missing’] with Bill Clinton , who is of course quite close to the Epstein scandal, so that definitely, in my opinion, raises some eyebrows,” Webb told Consortium News.

“I think that one of the goals of this [Netflix] documentary is to basically imply that Epstein was the head of the operation and that now that he is dead, all of that activity has ceased,” Webb said. “If they had actually bothered to explore the intelligence angle, in some of the more obvious facts about the case, like Leslie Wexner’s role, for example, it becomes clear that Epstein was really just more of a manager of this type of operation, [and] that these activities continue.”

Webb said a main reason for avoiding discussion of the intelligence angle is that mention of state sponsorship would lead to calls for accountability and open inquiry into a history of sexual blackmail by intelligence agencies. “So if they had given even superficial treatment of those ties, it would have exposed threads that if anyone had bothered to pull on a little bit, would start to unravel a lot of things that obviously these powerful people and institutions don’t want exposed,” Webb said.

More than nine months since Epstein’s death, no alleged Epstein co-conspirator has been arrested or charged with a crime despite reports of an active criminal investigation of Maxwell (who has disappeared), and multiple failed attempts of alleged Epstein victims to serve her with civil suits.

“The criminal case against him, and all the evidence that was gathered against him as part of that, will never be made public unless someone else is charged,” said Webb. “So, the fact that they’re not charging anyone else is quite telling, and the fact that the mainstream media isn’t pushing back against that, I think is telling as well.”

The omissions of major aspects of the Epstein case by the media, specifically its links with the intelligence community, seems to be yet another example of a buffer between justice and those responsible for rendering Epstein untouchable.

Elizabeth Vos is a freelance reporter and co-host of CN Live. The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

Please follow and like us:

53 thoughts on “Elizabeth Vos, Epstein Case: Documentaries Won’t Touch Tales of Intel Ties”

  1. I am so damn disgusted by all this Jeffrey Epstein bullshit! What a piece of shit he was, and so “loved-up”, by our nation’s dignitaries!!! “We the People” must have the weakest FBI on this planet, for them to have let that dog-slip, or did former Prez Clinton, the fraudulently “Happily Married Man!” that he paraded himself to be in campaigning against U.S., just use Jeffrey and his girls, to entertain the secret service employees, who transported him there … when they all got horny?????????????!

    What “Fool’s Gold!” have “We the People” got, in the leadership of our nation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. Just to update a previous post about those 5G towers being secreted into Live oak, Fl….Where there were once 30 or so towers, there are now somewhere between 75-100 towers (with much more room for more in the area they are stored). Considering that Suwannee County of which Live Oak (population around 5000) is the capitol has a population of only 44,000 as of the 2020 census, that many towers (with more to come) tells us something.

    1. I haven’t seen the massive influx of 5G infrastructure that you’ve documented being delivered where you live. That is so scary. It’s like they count on the populace to feel powerless.

      Of course, 5G has already been rolled out in certain areas of Los Angeles already, though not where I live yet.

      This is one of the reasons I’m thinking of moving to Albuquerque. No 5G there at all yet. None in the state. No fluoride in the water. Liberal gun laws, in the old sense of the phrase. A city, but pretty small. Wilderness on all sides, right out of town. Film and television production in town and more is moving there, so there’s work without the LA levy. The cost of living is so much lower there. What a relief that would be.

  3. Jeffrey Epstein’s procuress, Ghislaine Maxwell has been arrested on the following charges:
    Count One: Enticement of a Minor To Travel To Engage In Illegal Sex Acts
    Count Two: Enticement of a Minor To Travel To Engage In Illegal Sex Acts
    Count Three: Transportation Of A Minor With Intent To Engage In Criminal Sexual Activity
    Count Four: Transportation Of A Minor With Intent To Engage In Criminal Sexual Activity
    Count Five: Perjury
    Count Six: Perjury

    Jonathan Turley says, as a defense attorney, he’s surprised she risked coming back to the US from Paris, so there must be more to the story.
    For Turley’s discussion of the arrest and charges:

    So, you all know that Epstein had that vast ranch in New Mexico, right? Well, some New Mexicans are sensitive to that fact and on Tuesday night the Antlion Entertainment “Art” Collective, undetected, installed a gold statue of Jeffrey Epstein at the Albuquerque City Hall, with the following plaque (see attached).
    I love how they put the quotes around “Art” in their own name. Albuquerque may be the town for me.


    1. Great info, Toni………..wish I saw you here more often.

      This is for you:


      Maybe I am mis-understanding, but why does a pervert deserve a gold statue……or is it something along the lines of a golden calf to be idealized by heathens?

      In any case, word is they have intentions of putting Ghislaine in the same prison where Epstein was ‘disappeared’. This could be very interesting. Will there be another magic act? No doubt Epstein had the goods on many of our “elite” and I would bet she does too.

      When is the last time we saw creatures of this nature get what they deserve? How about never.

      1. Wow, great recording. Hadn’t seen it before. One of my favorite songs ever. Thanks, Will, and thanks for the kind words. I’m sorry Bob cancelled his summer shows; I know you were looking forward to going. I’d sure like to hear him play those new songs.

        I don’t think the “Art” Collective was seriously putting up a golden statue to Epstein. I think it was kind of a burlesque. Like a send-up of a real memorial. The statue itself was generic and they painted it gold and called it Jeffrey. The plaque, too, seems tongue-in-cheek to me, the way they start his bio with “Jeffrey was an American Financier…” and end it with “He was also a rapist who died in prison.”

        Because they are mocking the party line, it’s funnier to say “who died in prison”, than to repeat the punchline that Epstein didn’t kill himself.

        Their main message appears to be the court cases brought, to little avail, against Epstein, as listed on the plaque. Though their humor may be incompletely formed and not as sharp as it could be, their method was bold and I admire it. They got nation-wide coverage and kept their identities secret.

        I attached a photo of the statue; you can see it doesn’t even look like Epstein.


      2. I had not seen that particular recording, either and Love Minus Zero No Limit is also one of my favorites. I’m sure you noticed who else was there….Ringo, Harrison and Leon Russell…..I’m pretty sure that was the concert for Bangladesh. I had traveled up from Florida to try to beg, buy or steal a ticket…none could be found. So, I waited out back to see if he came out….never did…he escaped somehow.

        So, in regard to Ghislaine…one wonders why now, eh….could be this is some sort of explanation. Is their evidence beyond what may be shortly destroyed…just outrageous they can get away with this….


        But then, we have this….(is another bunk bed debacle in the works?)


        In light of that, I give her zero chances she’ll make any courtroom appearance.

      3. Concert for Bangladesh, for sure. Cool story. What a scene that must have been. Too damn bad you didn’t get in. After the film came out, for like a decade I wore my jean jacket, just like Dylan wears in the movie. I was a goner!

        Dershowitz was rabid about getting those documents erased, and the judge went out of her way to accommodate him. What’s the story there? I suppose he would describe his legal defense as “zealous” and not the frantic squirming of a guilty man that it looks like to us.

        I think Prince Andrew will be the under-the-bus designee in this contrived scenario.

        The following must be what Dachsie was talking about when she mentioned the minors abused by Maxwell herself. From TruePundit, under the telling headline,
        Ghislaine Maxwell Indictment: A Well Orchestrated Sham to Cover for the Rich & Famous:

        “Fox News reported Friday morning that a ‘Jane Doe’ is willing to testify against Ghislaine Maxwell.

        An anonymous woman told Fox News that she was sexually assaulted dozens of times by Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein beginning in 1991 when she was just 14 years old.

        The Jane Doe said Maxwell not only facilitated the sexual abuse, she was in the room and took part in it as well.

        The anonymous woman said she became pregnant with Jeffrey Epstein’s baby when she was 16 years old and ultimately forced to have an abortion.

        “The fact that I had to kill my child really affected me and my family,” said the Jane Doe.

        The woman said Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell gang raped her as punishment for getting pregnant and having an abortion.

        She was dropped off naked on her grandparents front yard after she was gang raped and was told she would be killed.”


        If this is the witness against Epstein’s accomplice, as Dachsie asks, why isn’t Maxwell charged with these crimes? Maybe you are right, Will; there will be no trial.

      4. It was a madhouse. I remember offering 100 bucks for a ticket (big money in ’71) and no one was interested.

        I would love to be wrong about that witch making it to a courtroom, but too many elite are involved and they will take any risk to stop it even if it means getting caught. They would easily sacrifice one of their own to keep her mouth closed….forever.

        Stone just put this up (yeah…I know your attitude re Stone)….I doubt it’s real, but it is interesting:


      5. Now that looks like satire to me. I mean, without further research.

        I don’t have a big problem with Stone. I just wanted you to be aware of his peccable reputation.

    2. “procuress” I like. Your coining?

      I kept looking around for a synonym for procurer but no real luck.

      Thanks for providing a list of the charges. The FBI woman who gave the official announcement about this and her team of FBI team members also on the podium said at least two times that Maxwell was also a “participant” in the sexual abuse of minors, something I have understood to be the case many times in the media. I find it odd that she is not charged with sexual abuse of a minor or whatever the official charge is for that.

      When the FBI woman giving the presentation mentioned all the FBI employees who worked on this unsealing of this indictment, she named Maureen Comey, who is on the SDNY investigatory team. This is Jim Comey’s daughter and she was also on the team that was working on Jeffrey Epstein case from the beginning. I hope Ghislaine is allowed to live long enough to tell all the names of people using the services of the Epstein and Maxwell enterprise.

      Sorry but the timing of unsealing this indictment is just what Trump most needs politically right now because too much truth is coming out about the virus hoax, so I do not bodes hopeful for the rule of law.

      1. I don’t know if I coined ‘procuress’ as much as extrapolated it from ‘procurer’. I thought it sounded appropriate. I’m glad you like it.

        You make a good point: why isn’t she charged on direct sexual counts against minors, if they are implying that that is the case? And why did she come here to be arrested in the first place?

        I also did not know about Comey’s daughter. Thanks for that significant factor. The political implications are enormous and continue to grow. I wonder how Trump will use the indictment in the election. Turley seems to think it will be grave for Prince Andrew, too.

        Maxwell’s arrest feels like a momentous event, but as Will asked and answered, “When is the last time we saw creatures of this nature get what they deserve? How about never.”

        It could be that the object of a deal with Maxwell is to bury incriminating information from public scrutiny, not to expose it. Like you, I wouldn’t be surprised if her life is being threatened in exchange for what she knows never coming out.

      2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Wam5xYMyY&t=1s
        Charges announced against Jeffrey Epstein’s confidante Ghislaine Maxwell
        •Jul 2, 2020
        CBS News
        2.76M subscribers
        Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss announced charges Thursday against Ghislaine Maxwell for allegedly conspiring in the abuse of underage girls by Jeffrey Epstein. Watch the press conference here.

        16:20 video runtime


        “In some cases Maxwell participated in the abuse herself.”

        “These sexualized massages developed into sexual encounters for which Maxwell in some instances was present and participated.”

        Audrey Strauss is the the new acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, replacing recently fired Geoffrey Berman.

        Let’s all watch nothing happen .

      3. Yep…unfortunately I feel the same way.

        Although, she may be used, imprisoned and wind up in Tahiti somewhere…like Epstein, she knows too much.

        And then there are ‘kill’ switches this type set up. You can bet Eppy had one, which is likely why he is still alive on an island or in Israel. Why would we think Ghislaine does not have one?

      4. There are so many questions that come up with this story. We are supposed to be wow’d by this “bombshell” news but we are not to ask logical questions about this as logical discussion is a reaction that reaction is not allowed.

        I know this has some close connection to the recent firing of Geoffrey Berman and this new acting U S attorney for this most corrupt southern district of New York.

        There is not one person seeking truth and justice.

        Won’t follow this story.



      “so I do not bodes hopeful for the rule of law.”


      “so I do not believe this bodes hopeful for the rule of law.”

  4. There was a time i had great respect for that gentleman, Jason who I believe runs 153news.net But, since he has banned me for telling what i see as the truth, his idea of freedom of speech seems to be quite hollow. As you can see, in the following short video in which some WHITES (quite strange, considering the context) have set up some area somewhere in which ONLY BLACKS were allowed….yet, my comment was that I saw very few blacks, if any. And the fellow doing the video backed down like a wimp. Is that REAL journalism? Not in my book….Anyway, Jbossman (I think that is Jason who runs the site) called me a lowlife loser for calling them out. Maybe I missed something, but I don’t think what I said required such a harsh response. But if it did, so be it….but to BAN someone on a supposedly free speech platform is unacceptable to me. Seems to me if you do not want uncensored feedback, remove the comment section. If Jason wants total agreement with all he posts, I would suggest a different line of work or a thicker skin.


      1. Yeah, I noticed that within minutes of posting it. But, of course, there’s no deleting here.

      2. Stone finally took that image with the quote of Harris down. Did not admit anything, but did take it down.
        Some folks will never admit they are wrong. We’ll see. But, that concerns me.

      3. A site called Politfact says it’s false…., they also said this re Biden…

        On CNBC, Biden said, “I’m prepared to say that I have a record of over 40 years and that I’m going to be Joe Biden. Look at my record.” The words “be” and “beat” sound similar. But CNBC’s transcript says Biden said “be.” In the context of the quote, “be” makes more sense.

        ME….I did go to this video and slowed it down starting at about 10 minutes. It DOES seem he said “BE” and not beat by watching his lips at half speed. I must confess, I have seen that many times and failed to verify it.


        …..So, if untrue, I certainly stand corrected….I am always open to being corrected and attempting to be more careful,…..there is much dis-info coming in from all sides. I’ll be curious to see if Jim Stone corrects that on his site.

        …………hey…live and learn.

        Gee, Dr….I hope you don’t ban me also!

      4. Some satire nowadays is meant only to fool people. It’s not even funny to me.
        This is a better example of satire…

        REVIEW: ‘Hot Cup of Joe,’ The Sexy Biden Coloring Book

        “After years of sharing him with Barack, now you can have handsome and dependable Joe Biden all to yourself.”

        So proclaims the back cover of Hot Cup of Joe: A Piping Hot Coloring Book with America’s Sexiest Moderate, Joe Biden, a thirsty ode to the former vice president of the United States and presumptive Democratic nominee for president, health permitting.

        You’ve probably read a tweet or two agonizing about whether it’s possible to portray “sexiness” without reinforcing the problematic sexism that pervades our patriarchal culture. Even if the answer is yes, illustrator Jason Millet’s contribution to this important debate goes out of its way to legitimize toxic and outdated stereotypes of masculinity.



      1. That will have been myself, Don…thanks for the warning, but I have never had trouble pasting from Proton. I only do it when it’s a particularly long comment and I do not wish to lose it.

  5. I thought the Filthy Rich film was pretty good. It showed the two tier “just-us” system in spades. One for the rich and connected and the other one for us poor schleps. I recently experienced a renewal in what little faith I had in the Just-Us system when I sued a swindling landlord i call Granny Grifter. I credit Eustace Mullin’s lectures for giving me the confidence to act as my own attorney and prevail in a place known for the two tier system, the Vail Valley. The difference between the working class and the ultra rich is quite distinct. In between the classes is our brand of the Feudal System. The rent charged for run down shacks – ski bum housing is often 75% of what you take home from the average job here. It’s an insane equation while 1,000 opulent mansions are vacant 92% of the year. We make tremendous sacrifices to live in an incredible place.

    I ran into a new wrinkle of scam where the landlord took nearly all my money to move in and then constructively evicted me with bizarre and mentally unbalanced behavior before she finds something minor to verbally evict you for and promises to return all your money if you leave of your own accord. You are so troubled by the situation, you agree to go even though there is less than zero alternatives. Then Granny grifter refuses to answer the door and decides to keep all your money. Your only choice is to sue. I found evidence she has been doing the same thing for years to other people with impunity. She ran into a buzz saw this time.

    I was thrilled beyond belief when the Judge dug hard for the truth in small claims court. I highly recommend it because as the Plaintiff, you have the upper hand when no lawyer can represent the Defendant. You get to go first and last and the Judge asks you and the defendant direct questions. I destroyed Granny Grifter on cross examination as the she perjured herself over and over. I had the proof in her own emails. After I showed the Judge the goods the first time, she declined to see them a second, third and fourth time. When the Judge said she was awarding triple damages, I almost cried. Granny Grifter could not believe her professed high social status amounted to zero against a Serf like me.

    I had to put a lien on her house and garnashee her bank account to collect. She had no clue who she was dealing with, but she will get a taste when $3,500 disappears from her account.

      1. Thanks Will. It’s hard to express the gratitude I feel for this Judge. I really thought she had turned against me in the first hearing. And I did not think I would get a fair process with Granny Grifter appearing by phone because when I cross examined her I wanted to watch her lie and catch her in person. It actually worked to my advantage because she didn’t get to play the feeble, broken down old lady card in person. What’s more is I am helping her next victim who is a disadvantaged Mexican will poor English skills. Check this out, the Mexican paid the Eagle County Sheriff to process serve the Grifter 4 times and they failed. Each failure cost the Mexican girl $45. It’s outrageous and I am going to try and recover it for her along with getting triple damages. I read the Deputy’s report. The last time the attempt was made, Granny Grifter ran into her house to avoid the service. Then had the gaul to write the same Judge I had… that she had never been served ! And that she didn’t see why the case was still on the docket. Now I have my GF on the process server job. Imagine a world where the Sheriff has collected $180 for abject failure, then is too afraid of Covid to do anymore attempts of process server for anyone!

        Then I looked up property liens for Granny Grifter. Right next to mine is one from an attorney. I called him and he said the lady is pure evil. He represented the Grifter in an eviction case and he won it… to evict a previous scam victim! Then the Grifter stiffs the lawyer on his winning case.I asked why he did not try to garnishee her account to collect. He said he had no desire to because in his contract he gets 18% interest ! The average schlep only gets 8% for unpaid judgements. He considers the lien part of his retirement plan ! Wow I never thought of it that way.

    1. dK…Do you speak of the Filthy rich film re Epstein or the other one apparently about some elite in NZ?

      Here’s my favorite review of JE…Filthy Rich:

      ( ( https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/05/28/nolte-netflixs-jeffrey-epstein-filthy-rich-is-a-dull-cowardly-clinton-whitewash/ ))

      The Netflix four-part documentary series, Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, is not just a whitewash, it’s boring.

      Filthy Rich is nothing more than the Wikipedia version of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal spread out over four ungodly long, interminable hours dedicated to protecting Democrats (especially Bill Clinton) as it uses innuendo to smear Donald Trump, who appears to be the only guy in Palm Beach who seriously cut ties with Epstein in disgust.

      For those of you who don’t know, Jeffrey Epstein made a ton of money on Wall Street in the eighties and used that “new money” to buy his way into “polite society,” primarily in Manhattan and Palm Beach.

      In 2008, after a three-year local (Florida) and federal investigation, Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution, soliciting a minor for prostitution, and was sentenced to 18 months in prison, most of which was spent on “work release.” For 12 hours a day, six days a week, Epstein “worked” at home. He was released after 13 months, put on house arrest, and still allowed to travel.

      In July of 2019, thanks in large part to the rise of the now-discredited #MeToo movement, the state of New York arrested Epstein on charges of sex trafficking. After he was denied bail and almost certainly faced a humiliating trial followed by a life sentence, the 66-year-old apparently hanged himself in his prison cell using a bed sheet.

      The recent political fallout over Epstein’s so-called 2008 “sweetheart deal” was aimed directly at the Trump administration, specifically then-Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, who worked out the deal at the time as the U.S. attorney for Southern District of Florida.

      If you’ve read the above four paragraphs, there’s no need to waste four hours of your life sitting through Filthy Rich, which adds absolutely nothing new to the story.

      The most ironic part of the four hours come from the closing line: “Other monsters are still out there,” one of Epstein’s victims warns, “Why they’ve not been named or shamed is beyond me.”

      Why, yes — yes there are other monsters out there! But isn’t it the job of this documentary to do just that, to dig into Epstein’s address book and blackmail file, to expose his endless political, business, and social connections? To name names? To do more than hurl the safe chum of those who have already been named?

      Sure, we’re told Harvey Weinstein, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Chris Tucker, Trump, and Kevin Spacey associated with Epstein, but we already knew this. Those are the safest names you can name. But like I said, this is not an investigative documentary. Rather it’s a Wikipedia entry with pictures and a political agenda (more on this below).

      We do hear from a handful of Epstein’s victims, who were almost all under 18 at the time, some as young as 14. But the filmmakers somehow manage to make their harrowing stories dull and repetitive. Over and over, we hear the same story from different people, about how they were solicited — either by a high school friend or Epstein’s partner-in-crime Ghislaine Maxwell (who denies all wrongdoing) to give a rich guy a massage. It was an easy $200, but always turned into something sordid: everything from Epstein pleasuring himself to a full-blown rape.

      While I respect and understand that we’ve entered an era where the victims must be heard and allowed to tell their stories, it is up to the filmmaker to accomplish this in a way that doesn’t feel like a broken record.

      It’s worth noting, though, that a handful of these women, after being lured by that $200 offer and claiming to be traumatized by what ended up happening to them, then turned around and earned $200 a pop to procure their own unsuspecting female friends to give this rich guy a massage. Some of these girls lured dozens of other innocent girls into Epstein’s trap. One woman even dragged her unsuspecting little sister into Epstein’s web. She claims she had no idea Epstein would do to her sister what he did to her. Frankly, that’s a little hard to swallow.

      Naturally, the documentary still wants us to sympathize with the girls responsible for luring countless underage victims into an innocence-shattering situation. We’re told that their doing this is just part of their cycle of abuse. We’re not talking about 12-year-olds here. So that’s also a little hard to swallow.

      Bill Clinton is exonerated.

      Donald Trump is smeared.

      This is hilarious because by all accounts, Trump never traveled anywhere with Epstein and did cut ties with him. The only photos of Epstein and Trump appear to be at Trump’s own Mar-a-Lago resort or some third party event where they both attended. Nevertheless, when the story is told of how one girl was trafficked by Ghislaine, a girl who worked at Mar-a-Lago, we see a photo of Trump and Ghislaine, which is meant to insinuate Trump was somehow a part of all this.

      On the other hand, Bill Clinton travelled with Epstein, he did so extensively, including to “Lolita Island,” Epstein’s privately-owned Caribbean island where we’re told all kinds of terrible things happened. Despite this, and despite the fact Clinton is almost certainly lying with his denials about his travels with Epstein, the documentary goes out of its way to assure us Clinton did nothing wrong. One girl even says something like, “I don’t know why he lies about it. He never did anything wrong.”

      As though she would know.

      Where Filthy Rich truly fails, and does so deliberately as a means to protect Democrats, is in explaining the connections that allowed Epstein to get away with so much for so long.

      Incredibly, something that goes unmentioned is the $25,000 Epstein gave to the Bill and Hillary Foundation in 2006; the $22,000 he’s donated over the years to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY); the $50,000 he donated in 2006 to then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-NY); the $10,000 he donated to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. While Epstein did send a few token donations to a handful of Republicans, almost all of it went to Democrats — $140,000 compared to $18,000.

      How in the name of all that’s holy does a serious documentary base its primary theme on political corruption without ever once revealing Epstein’s massive political donations? Well, I’ll tell you how — when that information will make a number of powerful Democrats look bad.

      Hilariously, one of “heroes” of Filthy Rich is Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) — you know, because he asked Alex Acosta some tough questions. But what the documentary does not want us to know is that Kaine was just fine running as Hillary Clinton’s 2016 vice presidential pick, a woman who took $25,000 from Epstein, whose husband was seen at Lolita Island and is obviously lying about it.

      So eager to whitewash for the Clintons, the documentary ignores the painting of Bill Clinton that was discovered in Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse.

      So eager to whitewash for the left, the documentary ignores Epstein’s deep ties to Harvard University. Gee, Netflix, you think the $10 million he gave Harvard might have greased some wheels? Did you know Harvard gave him his own office?

      Alan Dershowitz appears in Filthy Rich and is unapologetic about his role in defending Epstein, which included working out the now-infamous 2011 plea deal. Dershowitz has nothing to apologize for. Defense attorneys are a vital part of the judicial system. His job is to defend his client, to advocate for him, and that’s what he did.

      However, Dershowitz has also been accused of partaking in Epstein’s sex crimes. Virginia Roberts Giuffre claims Epstein repeatedly abused her as a teen and that she was repeatedly trafficked to Dershowitz while underage.

      On camera, Dershowitz adamantly and categorically denies the charge and challenges Giuffre to look into the camera and tell the world the two of them had sex. It’s obvious he’s challenging her to open herself up to a lawsuit:

      I challenge Virginia Roberts to come on your show, look in the camera, and say the following words: ‘I accuse Alan Dershowitz of having sex with me on six or seven occasions.’ She has never been willing to accuse me in public, so please accuse me on this show. I challenge you.

      I let you decide if Roberts accepted the challenge:

      I was with Alan Dershowitz multiple times, at least six that I can remember. I was trafficked to Alan Dershowitz from Epstein … who essentially forced me to have sex with him. He’s denied being with me.

      It’s a real shame we live in such a fascist culture where anyone who had the courage to tell the truth about Epstein, who sought to explore Epstein’s political connections, especially with the Clintons, would be shouted down by our fake news media as a conspiracy theorist and liar. So what do we get instead? Four dull hours of “correct” documentary filmmaking that is the opposite of captivating, informative, or brave.

      At one point I did laugh… The point where #MeToo is heralded as a revolution that forever changed everything… Oh, you mean the same #MeToo movement the media and Democrats flew into a building the moment a credible sexual assault allegation hit Rapey Joe Biden? LOL.

      Everything the establishment media, academia, the government, and Hollywood touch is corrupt — including the sell-outs behind Filthy Rich. Shame on all of them, because all Filthy Rich does is further enable Jeffrey Epstein’s enablers.

      Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.


  6. I looked up sexual consent ages in the USA. The link is below.
    here is part of USA history in it:
    While the general ages of consent are now set between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, the age of consent has widely varied across the country in the past. In 1880, the ages of consent were set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.[105] The ages of consent were raised across the U.S. during the late 19th century and the early 20th century.[106][107] By 1920, 26 states had an age of consent at 16, 21 states had an age of consent at 18, and one state (Georgia) had an age of consent at 14.[108] Small adjustments to these laws occurred after 1920. The last 2 states to raise its age of general consent from under 16 to 16 or higher were Georgia, which raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 in 1995,[109] and Hawaii, which changed it from 14 to 16 in 2001.[110]

    1. That’s some crazy data Bill. Age of consent 7 in Joe Biden’s stare? He’s so old he probably thinks it’s still seven !

  7. Yes, indeed. Epstein, the lowest form of coward that took advantage of defenseless young girls (and probably boys, too) hung himself from a bunk bed while on suicide watch with the cameras miraculously not working. Of course, he had no connection with the Mossad and only intelligence agencies and certainly not Israel….God forbid israel’s pristine clean hands should be soiled. We would certainly not wish for Israel to yet again be a victim of such a pervert….I mean Hitler’s perversion via the Holocaust was surely enough for a century or two, eh?

    Strange how I always thought the Mossad WAS an intelligence agency…but I guess they’re just a social club….in no way similar to our CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (the CIA).

    And if you accept the NY’s chief medical examiners finding, I have about 5 acres in the Everglades guaranteed to be free of mosquitoes and gators for only 100 bucks down and 100 bucks a month for eternity. HELLuva deal, eh?

    Seems Epstein was just another lone patsy…doing what patsies do….killing themselves or being killed by some nightclub owner. It was just all happenstance and Epstein had nothing on anyone…just a lone perv doing his thingr his own enjoyment.

    We can always rely on Netflix to present the facts and nothing but the facts.

    I have yet to see either doctored-mentary, but I would almost guarantee there would be more truth in one of those illustrated so well graphic novels.

    Elizabeth….watch your back…you are treading on semitic ground.

    1. In some places the age of consent would be 14 years old? I just looked it up it varies. I was always led to believe it was very young in India, but I remember a show or something that the bride is “promised” young and called married in that sense, but not actually married until later? Anyhow the matter is dependent on the country and in the USA etc , it would be illegal. The thing is it was used for “blackmail” that is why it had to be illegal.Was Trump involved,I thought originally he was implicated, maybe that is why is so friendly with Israel?
      I was always led to believe if you were older than 18 the 16 yo rule did not apply apply, maybe the rules have changed, like now in Victoria Australia it is just 16, no rule if over 18, at all. But someone on the radio or something, I guy was dating and “entering” a girl he promised to marry, they were both between 16&18. Then he turned 18 and didn’t want to marry anymore. The mother of the girl had him convicted of underage sex, he was training to be a teacher a it wrecked that. Now , I don’t know if the laws changed , but under current law that would not happen, I thought it it was unfair.
      Once I heard on the radio. This is what the woman said, so don’t blame me. She said that Muslims are allowed to lie if it benefits their religion? There was controversy over Mohamed having a 12 yo bride in the media that day. Now personally I thought so what they do that eg. in India etc, it might have been the custom, especially if lifespans were short. Any how the lady said they altered the Koran to make her look that young to appear a virgin, and that she was really older. She said they wanted to make Mohamed’s wife a virgin because the others were not virgins. Maybe she was lying, because I don’t think they are allowed to alter the Koran. If it is true, it did say much about chastity.
      Which reminds me of the joke, King Arthur leaves for the Crusades. He gives the chastity belt for his wife to Sir Lancelot. He heads away on his travel. Suddenly Lancelot races up and says “you gave me the wrong key!”.
      Another story is that on the radio an aboriginal lady rang in. She said it is still legal under aboriginal men to kill their wives.


      1. Now if that guy was 17 and the girl was 15 it is legal, but once he turned 18 it was not legal, maybe that was the law.
        Age of consent
        The law in Victoria sets clear age limits for when you can legally have sex. This is called the age of consent.

        A person can be charged with a sexual offence if they perform a sexual act that breaks these age limits, even if the younger person agrees to it.

        The age of consent for same-sex relationships is the same as it is for heterosexual relationships.

        Under 12 years old
        If you are under 12, a person can’t have sex with you or touch you sexually or perform a sexual act in front of you, even if you agree.

        Twelve to 15 years old
        If you are 12 to 15, a person can’t have sex with you, touch you sexually or perform a sexual or indecent act with you or in front of you if they are more than two years older than you, even if you agree.

        However, it is not an offence if the person honestly believed that you were 16 or if there was less than a two-year age difference between you. This is exactly two years. For example, if a person is 17 and has sex with someone who is 15, it is not a crime. But if the person was 18, it is a crime unless the person believed the person was 16 or older.

        Sixteen to 17 years old
        A person who is caring for you or supervising you, like a teacher, youth worker or foster carer, can’t have sex with you or sexually touch you or perform a sexual act or indecent act with you or in front of you, even if you agree, unless they are married to you. However, it is not an offence if the person honestly believed you were 18 or older.

        When one person does not agree to sex
        As well as age limits, the law says that two people can’t have sex unless they both freely agree (consent). If you don’t freely agree and someone threatens you to engage in a sexual act or touches you sexually or indecently they are breaking the law.

        If someone has sex with you or touches you sexually when you are asleep, unconscious or so affected by alcohol or drugs that you are not able to freely agree, it is still a sexual offence.

      2. BillAu.. The age of consent in the US and the US Virgin Islands is 18. Apparently, most of Epstein’s perversions (and his guests) occurred in the continental US or on his island. Here’s the code for the islands…

        Ages of Consent in North America – United States Virgin Islands (United States)

        United States Virgin Islands (United States)

        Paraphrasing Virgin Islands Code: V.I.C. § 1700-1709 Virgin Islands Code and appeals records Francis vs. VI NOTE: “mistake of fact as to the victim’s age is not a defense”. The age of consent is 18. There is however a close in age exemption that allows minors 16 and 17 years old to consent with someone no more than five years older than themselves and minors 13 to 15 years old to consent with one another, but not with anyone 16 or over.

        The code reads as follows:

        § 1700. Aggravated rape in the first degree

        (a) Whoever perpetrates an act of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person not the perpetrator’s spouse

        Who is under the age of thirteen, or…
        who is under sixteen years of age residing in the same household as the perpetrator, and force, intimidation, or the perpetrator’s position of authority over the victim is used to accomplish the sexual act; …
        § 1700a. Aggravated rape in the second degree

        (a) Whoever perpetrates an act of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person who is under eighteen years but thirteen years or older and not the perpetrator’s spouse, or by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator’s position of authority over the victim is used to accomplish the sexual act, is guilty of aggravated rape in the second degree and shall be imprisoned for life or for any term in years, but not less than 10 years. “Position of authority” shall include, but not be exclusive to the following: an employer, youth leader, scout leader, coach, teacher, counselor, school administrator, religious leader, doctor, nurse, psychologist, guardian ad litem, baby sitter, or substantially similar position, and a police officer or probation officer other than when the officer is exercising custodial control over a minor. …

        § 1702. Rape in the second degree

        (a) Any person over 18 years of age who perpetrates under circumstances not amounting to rape in the first degree, an act of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person not the perpetrator’s spouse who is at least 16 years but less than 18 years of age, and the perpetrator is 5 years or older than the victim, is guilty of rape in the second degree and shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years.

        § 1703. Rape in the third degree

        Any person under 18 years of age but over 16 years of age who perpetrates an act of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person not the perpetrator’s spouse who is under 16 years of age but over 13 years of age, under circumstances not amounting to rape in the first degree, is guilty of rape in the third degree and shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Family Division of the Superior Court

        § 1708. Unlawful sexual contact in the first degree

        A person who engages in sexual contact with a person not the perpetrator’s spouse— (1) when force or coercion is used to accomplish the sexual contact; (2) when the other person is under thirteen years of age; (3) when the other person is under sixteen years of age residing in the same household as the perpetrator, and force, intimidation or the perpetrator’s position of authority over the victim is used to accomplish the sexual contact;

        § 1709. Unlawful sexual contact in the second degree

        A person over eighteen years of age who engages in sexual contact with a person not the perpetrator’s spouse who is over thirteen but under sixteen years of age is guilty of unlawful sexual contact in the second degree and shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year.

        Read more about this topic: Ages Of Consent In North America

    1. Bit of a dated article, Seymour….but not without merit. Could be Biden is Hillary 2.0…..after all, who could possibly vote for someone so demented. We cannot deny those behind all this are far superior in intelligence. Let’s face it, we were fooled again. I hope to hell that’s not the case. Could be that Trojan horse is filled with 150,000 indictments and a boot in the arse to Israel’s control.

      Hey, i can dream! Considering the last few months, dreams are about all we have left.

      We’ll know soon enough….maybe TOO soon.

      1. From Skeptic16 at WinterWatch.net:

        My suspicion is that he was always a zionist Trojan horse. He undoubtedly owed favors to Jews as a result of his business dealings and failures. He is very likely compromised by some illicit sexual activities in his past. I would not be surprised if both the efforts to get his tax returns made public and the Steele dossier were deliberate designed to actually prevent further inquiry into these areas. No more is heard of releasing his tax returns and the Steele dossier was a red herring.

        The question is whether Trump is still useful to the zionists. They still want us to take out Iran. Biden is an acceptable alternative as he has voted for both Iraq wars, lavishly praised jewish influence in the US and, like Trump, has children married to jews.

  8. Wow, an entire comment just disappeared in front of my eyes. Gotta watch using that Israel word, eh?
    Think I’ll write it on Proton Mail from now and and copy and paste…as it’s obvious this site is being watched in real time. Amazing. Will try to re-contruct it and post later.


Leave a Reply