Palm Beach police report from 2005: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00022654.pdf
Palm Beach police report from 2006: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%204/EFTA00007157.pdf
Also see a letter from Epstein's attorneys questioning some of the statements in the police report. https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00208923.pdf
Was Epstein ever accused of having sex with Virginia Guiuffre when she was under 18?
Yes — Virginia Giuffre (formerly Roberts) did publicly accuse Jeffrey Epstein of sexually abusing her while she was under 18 and of trafficking her for sex with others when she was a minor, including in some of her accounts. However, the most widely reported lawsuits and accusations focus on her being 17 at the time of those alleged encounters, not younger than that.
Here’s the detailed picture:
Virginia Giuffre said she was recruited by Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell when she was a teenager working at Mar-a-Lago and then pressured into sexual activity while she was around 17 and 18 years old.
In legal filings and media interviews, she alleged that Epstein and Maxwell made her have sex with powerful men, including Prince Andrew, when she was 17.
Some lawsuits (e.g., her 2015/2016 filings) contained claims about her being sexually abused starting as a minor.
In many of the most documented allegations, Giuffre was 17 at the time of the sexual encounters she described. This is below 18 and therefore a minor under U.S. law (though age of consent varies by state and country).
Court filings about her age have been contested and debated. Some defense filings pointed to documentary evidence suggesting she may have been older than she initially claimed at certain points, but she herself maintained that she was trafficked and abused as a teenager.
Epstein himself faced federal and state charges for sex trafficking of minors, including accusations that he solicited minors for sex acts. Separately, Giuffre’s allegations about being trafficked as a minor were part of broader public and legal controversy.
However, Epstein was never criminally convicted specifically for having sex with Giuffre herself, because many of her detailed allegations were made in civil suits, not in the criminal prosecutions that ended with Epstein’s death in 2019.
Yes, Giuffre accused Epstein (and Maxwell) of trafficking and sexually exploiting her when she was a minor (under 18), particularly at age 17. Many of her most public allegations—including those involving Prince Andrew—hinge on her being trafficked as a teenager, which is legally significant even if not all details are identical in every filing.
If you want, I can explain how the legal outcomes differed between Epstein’s criminal cases and the civil lawsuits Giuffre filed.
=================================================
Short answer: no — Virginia Giuffre never obtained a civil court judgment against Jeffrey Epstein himself for sexual abuse, sex trafficking, or related claims.
Here’s the clean breakdown, because this stuff gets muddled a lot:
Epstein was never found civilly liable to Giuffre by a court.
There was no trial verdict and no judicial finding against Epstein in her favor.
Epstein died in 2019 before any civil case against him could reach that stage.
Giuffre did sue Ghislaine Maxwell for defamation in federal court.
That case settled in 2017 for an undisclosed amount.
As part of that settlement, Maxwell did not admit wrongdoing.
This was not a judgment and not against Epstein.
Giuffre publicly accused Epstein of sexually abusing and trafficking her.
Those accusations appeared in:
sworn statements
civil pleadings
media interviews
But her claims against Epstein himself were never resolved by a court because:
some were not formally litigated to judgment, and
Epstein died before they could be.
After Epstein died, his estate created a victims’ compensation fund (administered by Kenneth Feinberg).
Giuffre did receive compensation from this program.
Important legal point:
This was voluntary compensation from the estate
Not a lawsuit
Not an admission of liability
Not a court ruling
A lot of headlines blur these distinctions, but in strict legal terms:
Accused ≠ sued to judgment
Settlement ≠ court finding
Compensation fund ≠ liability determination
So while Giuffre’s allegations were serious, public, and influential, Epstein was never “successfully sued” by her in civil court in the sense lawyers use that phrase.
======================================
In conclusion: Epstein was never criminally convicted of sexually abusing or trafficking Virginia Giuffre. He was also never sued by her.
I was looking information about Maria Farmer and came across these links:
https://epsteinweb.org/wp-content/uploads/epstein_evidence/images/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_018027.jpg
(Page 2 of 4 of Affidavit). Maria Farmer says she was a receptionist ("manning the front door and keeping records") in 1996 at the NY Epstein mansion and questioned why young girls were coming over. Maxwell said that they were interviewing for modeling positions. Farmer saw Dershowitz go upstairs at a time when there young girls under 18 present.
(The affidavit was apparently signed in 2019 as part of the Virginia Giuffre v. Alan Dershowitz case, which was later dismissed).
https://epsteinweb.org/wp-content/uploads/epstein_evidence/images/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017949.jpg
(Page 15 of 28, paragraph 58). Basically the same.
https://epsteinweb.org/wp-content/uploads/epstein_evidence/images/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017954.jpg
(Page 20 of 28, subparagraph (b)). Dershowitz's claim that he had not "stayed" at Epstein's house was "proven false" by the statement of Maria Farmer (that she had seen Dershowitz go upstairs). Subparagraph (f). Dershowitz's claim that he had never "been in the presence of young females" was "proven false" by, among other witnesses, the statement of Maria Farmer.
I am not really interested at this point in claims against Dershowitz. I am interested in accusations from Maria Farmer and am not seeing anything yet.
=================
Dershowitz answered a lawsuit stating in part: "To the extent a response is required, the allegations Ms. Farmer makes concerning Dershowitz are false, and they are denied. Upon information and belief, Ms. Farmer never saw Dershowitz in Epstein’s New York residence because her employment with Epstein ended months before Dershowitz ever set foot in Epstein’s New York residence.". https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Dershowtiz-Counterclaim.pdf , page 9.
Dershowitz also called Virginia Giuffre a liar, which she apparently was. "Committed to her lie, and using Dershowitz’s public invitation to sue as cover, Giuffre has now sued Dershowitz for defamation for calling her a liar. But Giuffre is a liar. She has told numerous provable lies about her age, who she has met, whether she had emails concerning Dershowitz, and other fabrications, in addition to her false accusations about sex with Dershowitz. Her lies concerning Dershowitz have caused tremendous damage to his personal and professional reputation, his business, his health and caused him emotional and physical pain and suffering. " page 21.
==============================
My tentative conclusion is that Maria Farmer is not a credible witness. The FBI did not believe her in her 1996 complaint, which I can't find a link to. Later, she makes statements against Dershowitz which are proven false.
Please outline why earlier complaints against Epstein (before 2002) weren't prosecuted.
Here’s a clear outline of why credible complaints about Jeffrey Epstein before 2002 — especially in the late 1990s — were not prosecuted at the time, despite later revelations that they existed:
Newly released federal documents confirm that a complaint was made to the FBI in 1996 alleging Epstein had stolen explicit photographs of minors and might have been involved with child pornography and related sexual misconduct.
The complaint reportedly included alarming details — including threats — but the FBI did not open a formal investigation until about 2006.
Why this wasn’t prosecuted then:
At the time, neither the FBI nor local prosecutors appear to have pursued the matter. It’s not publicly clear why — records show no subsequent investigative steps were taken for nearly 10 years after the 1996 complaint.
Internal DOJ reviews later omitted any reference to this early complaint, suggesting it was not integrated into broader law enforcement efforts.
Other accounts suggest that Epstein faced minor local inquiries or informal reports (such as a 1997 police contact or early Palm Beach interest in 2001), but without confirmed evidence of statutory crimes at the time, these did not lead to prosecution.
Police comments in some local cases reflected skepticism about whether offenses had actually occurred, rather than immediate action on serious charges.
Reasons prosecutors often declined to pursue charges:
Lack of physical evidence or credible victim testimony at the time: This is a common challenge in sexual abuse cases, particularly those involving powerful individuals.
“He said / she said” litigation concerns: Prosecutors in the 1990s often hesitated to pursue cases where evidence beyond testimony was limited, especially against wealthy or well-connected defendants.
Institutional inertia or low prioritization of sex crimes then: Prior to the modern evolution of child-abuse prosecution approaches, some agencies did not aggressively investigate or coordinate on such matters.
A combination of factors appears to have contributed to why credible early complaints were not prosecuted:
The FBI did not engage fully with the 1996 report until years later, and there’s no indication early leads were pursued at the time.
Early reports to local police were sometimes deflected to federal authorities, and communication between the FBI and local law enforcement was reportedly inconsistent in the 1990s.
Prosecutors historically hesitated to bring complicated sex-abuse cases that they felt might be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without corroborating physical evidence.
The law enforcement and prosecutorial environment of the 1990s sometimes treated allegations of this nature differently than later decades, when more specialized units and awareness of trafficking emerged.
Credible complaints — including one in 1996 alleging child pornography and threats — were made to law enforcement about Epstein well before 2002.
But none of those early reports resulted in criminal charges at the time, largely because:
Authorities did not open a meaningful investigation when the first federal complaint was made;
Local police and prosecutors often did not see overwhelming evidence or statutory violations they felt could be successfully prosecuted;
There were failures in communication and follow-through among law enforcement agencies.
These gaps have since been the subject of public scrutiny and legal claims against the government for neglecting early warnings.
Did Jeffrey Epstein engage in any conduct after 2005 which was criminal in nature? Please exclude any conduct he engaged in before 2006 for which he was later accused or charged.
Short answer:
Based on credible public records and prosecutions, there is no documented criminal conduct by Jeffrey Epstein after 2005 that was ever charged or formally pursued by prosecutors as a standalone offense separate from earlier conduct. The major federal indictment in 2019 was based on alleged sexual abuse and trafficking up to 2005, not after.
Here’s a breakdown to clarify that:
When Epstein was arrested and federally indicted in July 2019, the indictment charged him with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking involving dozens of underage girls. However:
The indictment specifically alleged conduct occurring from at least 2002 through at least 2005.
Prosecutors did not allege criminal conduct after 2005 in that indictment — even though the arrest occurred more than a decade later.
So although the case was brought in 2019, it was based on earlier criminal acts, not new offenses after 2005.
Despite extensive scrutiny of Epstein’s activities after he was released from jail in 2009 and later years:
No new criminal charges or indictments were brought alleging that Epstein committed crimes after 2005.
Even after the massive release of documentation under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the U.S. Justice Department has stated that the materials do not establish grounds for new criminal charges related to Epstein’s conduct following the earlier period.
This means that — based on current public records and official statements — prosecutors did not find (or at least did not assert in court) credible evidence of distinct criminal acts by Epstein after 2005 that resulted in charges.
There have been civil lawsuits and allegations suggesting Epstein’s network and behavior may have continued in various forms after his 2008 conviction and 2009 release. For example:
Some civil suits (not criminal prosecutions) have alleged continued exploitation or trafficking harms extending into the 2010s, including claims involving visits to his Virgin Islands properties.
However:
Civil suits are not the same as criminal convictions or indictments.
Claims in civil litigation do not mean that prosecutors found sufficient credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to pursue charges.
Many such civil allegations remain unproven and are not part of the official criminal record.
Epstein’s criminal conduct that was prosecuted or formally charged all relates to activities up through 2005 — including the 2008 plea and the 2019 federal indictment.
There were no documented criminal charges brought for conduct occurring after 2005.
Although civil lawsuits and publicly released evidence raise questions about broader patterns of behavior, these have not resulted in additional criminal accusations of post-2005 wrongdoing that were prosecuted
This was sent to me via WhatsApp and I don't know the source. There is Michael Jackson holding a machine gun and Jeffrey on the right. I don't know the other people in the photo. It is obviously AI generated and it looks very realistic.
Go to: https://www.justice.gov/epstein . This has about 3 million pages. I am interesting in the layout of the island, which is a very cool super-villain lair. Some random stuff:
Proposed design of Cabana (14 pages): https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01078535.pdf
Pictures, drawings and maps of Little Saint James (100 pages): https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00259204.pdf
More drawings of the island (65 pages): https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00259304.pdf
Here is the civil complaint filed by the Virgin Islands against the Epstein estate: https://vicourts.hosted.civiclive.com/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=16364025
Also see: epsteinsimages.com for pictures of interiors. I don't know which house these come from and they aren't labeled.
It was just over $70 on 12/31/25. It looks like it will keep going higher, maybe up to $150 in a few months.
==============
Update (1/30/25): The price is now $86.61. It was briefly at $121.93 yesterday (1/29), and it dropped as low as $76.85 earlier today.
This isn't on YouTube and it will probably disappear quickly. My transcript:
England brought civilisation to the world, and the world still needs civilised England. English people are being overrun with migrant third-world layabouts and militant muslims. Englishmen I have known you for your stiff upper lip as you enjoy your replacement and the ruin of your country. What I need from you instead is to stiffen your spine, stand up and stop it from happening.
For further research. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Xueqin.
He has a BA from Yale in 1999. He doesn't have a PhD. He teaches Western Philosophy to high school students in Beijing, China.
Youtube page: https://www.youtube.com/@PredictiveHistory He has about 100 videos posted.
He is extremely smart. I may go through and summarize with the help of AI what he is saying.
I just read some remarks that the communists just took over Virginia and are close to taking over other states. What happened and is this an exaggeration? Let my ask my friend ChatGPT.
======================================
Yes — what you’re referring to in Virginia really is a kind of “quiet revolution” in its politics and government, and it’s several related developments happening at once rather than just one headline-grabbing law:
• Abigail Spanberger (D) was sworn in on January 17, 2026 as Virginia’s first woman governor after winning the 2025 election. Her inauguration was historic not just for her gender but also because Democrats also placed Ghazala F. Hashmi as lieutenant governor and Jay Jones as attorney general — both historic firsts in their own right.
• Democrats also expanded their majorities in both chambers of the Virginia legislature (House of Delegates and Senate), giving them a trifecta (control of the governor’s office and both legislative chambers).
This shift in control is widely seen as a big political change because for much of the last decade Virginia was considered a swing state with tightly contested government.
With the trifecta, Virginia Democrats are now in a much stronger position to pass their priorities — and that’s part of what people mean by a “quiet revolution.” Under unified control:
The legislature moved forward on constitutional amendments that voters will decide in 2026 — including a Rights to Reproductive Freedom Amendment and other measures related to voting rights and same-sex marriage.
Another proposed amendment would give Virginia’s legislature the power to redraw congressional districts mid-decade, a departure from the independent commission process.
While not all have taken effect yet, the legislature has taken steps toward other major shifts:
• A proposed voting rights restoration amendment — to automatically restore voting rights to formerly incarcerated people upon release — passed the session and is moving toward the ballot.
• Work continues on other election law changes, including studies on things like ranked-choice voting and election scheduling.
There hasn’t been an immediate dramatic overhaul of gun laws — but this is a major point of contention:
• In the recent past, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed many gun-control measures passed by the Democrat-controlled legislature.
• Now with Democrats in unified control, there is expectation among advocates on both sides that new gun legislation may be put forward once the legislative session fully gets underway under Gov. Spanberger (with some online political commentary predicting potentially significant changes).
It’s not one single law. It’s a shift in the political balance of power in Virginia with:
A new governor — Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat and first woman in the role.
Democrats now controlling both legislative chambers and the governor’s office — enabling policy changes that were previously blocked or vetoed.
Major constitutional amendments being advanced on ballot questions on reproductive rights, voting rights, and redistricting.
Ongoing policy shifts and debates on elections, civil rights, guns, and more.
So the “quiet revolution” phrase you saw likely refers to this broad transformation in how political power and priorities are shaping policy in Virginia, especially compared to the state’s recent history of more divided government.
==============================
Conclusion: So the Democrats are now firmly in control in Virginia, the same as in 17 other states. And 23 states have Republicans firmly in control. So it seems like the headline is an exaggeration. But I will update this if I see something else.
The “technological singularity” is the hypothetical future point when superintelligent AI surpasses all human intelligence through a human-machine merger that irreversibly transforms civilization by transcending biological limits via neural implants, nanobots and cloud intelligence. This is fundamentally guided by a Transhumanism philosophy.
-- https://www.theburningplatform.com/2026/01/16/dream-on-elon-ai-will-not-bring-utopia/
I asked ChatGPT when the singularity will occur?
what is the "technological singularity"? do you think this will occur and if so, approximately which year do you think it will happen?
The technological singularity is a hypothetical point in the future when technological progress—especially in artificial intelligence—becomes self-accelerating and effectively uncontrollable, leading to changes so profound that human life afterward would be fundamentally different and hard to predict.
... (Skip some paragraphs)
Estimates vary wildly, but here’s a grounded range based on current trends:
AGI (human-level general intelligence): plausibly 2030–2045
Runaway self-improving superintelligence: uncertain, possibly 2040–2070, if at all
A practical “singularity-like” world (where AI reshapes most industries and institutions): likely by the 2030s–2040s
If forced to give a single year for a meaningful singularity-style transition—not a sci-fi instant but a point of no return—I’d put it around 2040 ± 10 years.
==============================
So, the robots will take over by 2040? Get ready.
Read this excellent article: https://investor.fm/the-church-of-climate-and-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/
As an investor, my role is simple—my clients hire me to protect and grow their wealth. In other words, they hire me to make them money. The ESG movement, the vilification of oil companies, and the political incorrectness of investing in them have created opportunities; energy stocks were left for dead a few years ago. We took advantage of it. More importantly for this discussion, I am hired to make economic, not social decisions.
I do not apply my personal social filter when making investment decisions; I let my clients do that. We have a large, diverse client base with varying views on the world. The beauty of managing separate accounts is that we can customize portfolios to fit those views. Some clients tell us not to own tobacco, some have a beef with social media and tell us to never own Facebook (Meta), others have strong views on Elon Musk and ask us not to buy any Musk-related companies. Others ask us not to own oil companies. We even have clients who, due to their faith, don’t want us to own banks and liquor stocks. We don’t judge; we just don’t buy.
We are not allergic to investing in green energy stocks; they just have to make economic and financial sense—in other words, they have to be good investments (excluding subsidies, which are subject to political football). In the meantime, I focus on the reality of supply and demand, not the “religion” of the moment. The reality is that the world still runs on energy.
The website is called The Intellectual Investor by Vitaliy Katsenelson.
See https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/gdp3q25-ini.pdf, page 9, line 1, where the number is 31,095.1 billion. This is up from 30,485.7 at the end of Q2 2025.
They don't make it easy to find. Instead the summary reads: Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 4.3 percent in the third quarter of 2025 (July, August, and September). To me, it looks like GDP increased by 2% during the quarter (31,095 / 30,486), so I don't know how they calculate their numbers, or how they separate "real" GDP from "current-dollar" GDP. Anyways, the increase is good.
So what is the ratio of debt to GDP? Total national debt was $37.6 trillion as of 9/30/25, for a ratio of 121%. This is down from 122% a year ago, so that is good.
For debt to the public, it was $30.3 trillion, for a ratio of 97.5%, up from 96.9% a year ago.
Read: https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/candace-owens-and-the-decay-of-the-american-brain
The author, someone named Nathan J Robinson, really hates Candace Owens and wants you to hate her too. I think he has too much time on his hands. Candace Owens has some interesting ideas and I like listening to her and watching her sometimes. Some of her ideas may be crazy. But the fact that some British snob doesn't like her may be a badge of honor.
The federal government incurred a deficit of $155 billion in November 2025, CBO estimates— $212 billion less than the deficit recorded last November. The federal budget deficit totaled $439 billion in October and November 2025, the first two months of fiscal year 2026, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. That amount is $185 billion less than the deficit recorded during the same period last fiscal year. Outlays were $73 billion (or 6 percent) lower, and revenues were $112 billion (or 18 percent) higher.
The Net Interest on the Public Debt was $185 billion fiscal year to date. For some reason, they don't tell you what it was just for November. Since October was $91 billion, November was $94 billion.
Source: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-12/61308-MBR.pdf
The Federal Reserve actually had a small surplus of about $400 million in November, so it looks like its days of losing massive amounts of money are over. Their cumulative deficit as of 11/26/25 was $243.2 billion. They need to get this back to zero, which will take many years to do.
The receipts in October were $404 billion, and the outlays were $689 billion. The outlays were higher than any month in FY 2025 except August when they were also $689 billion.
If you think October is bad, just wait until November, which usually has the highest monthly deficit. Last year the November 2024 deficit was $367 billion and in November 2023 it was $317 billion.
Medicare spending was $151 billion in October, up from $77 billion in October 2024 and $24 billion in October 2023. What is up with that?
1 Jakarta Indonesia 41914 2 Dhaka Bangladesh 36585 3 Tokyo Japan 33413 4 New Delhi India 30222 5 Shanghai China 29559 6 Guangzhou China 27563 7 Cairo Egypt 25566 8 Manila Philippines 24735 9 Kolkata India 23768 10 Seoul, South Korea 22490 11 Karachi Pakistan 21423 12 Mumbai India 20203 13 São Paulo Brazil 18950 14 Bangkok Thailand 18180 15 Ciudad de México, Mexico 17734 16 Beijing China 17013 17 Lahore Pakistan 15156 18 Istanbul Turkey 15015 19 Moscow, Russia 14525 20 Ho Chi Minh City Viet Nam 14053 21 Buenos Aires Argentina 14018 22 New York City, US 13920 23 Shenzhen China 13878 24 Bengaluru India 13187 25 Osaka Japan 12964 26 Lagos Nigeria 12792 27 Los Angeles, US 12740 28 Luanda Angola 11370 29 Chennai India 11153 30 Kinshasa, DR Congo 10944 31 Bogotá Colombia 10624 32 Lima Peru 10580 33 London UK 10416 34 Hajipur India 9942 35 Rio de Janeiro Brazil 9500 36 Paris France 9382 37 Hyderabad India 9191 38 Tehran, Iran 9175 39 Taipei, Taiwan 9137 40 Bandung Indonesia 8909 41 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 8444 42 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 7795 43 Suzhou China 7731 44 Ahmedabad India 7632 45 Hangzhou China 7500 46 Wuhan China 7364 47 Tianjin China 7285 48 Alexandria Egypt 7267 49 Nagoya Japan 7146 50 Johannesburg South Africa 7077Source: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/undesa_pd_2025_wup2025_summary_of_results.pdf
