Epstein Survivors Take Their Case Against Former USVI Officials to Appeals Court (10/29/26)
The Epstein ChroniclesSummary
Six women have filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking to revive their lawsuit against former Virgin Islands officials over their alleged involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. The plaintiffs, referred to as Jane Does 1-6, argue that the lower court's dismissal of their case was based on jurisdictional issues that they believe should be reconsidered. They contend that the Virgin Islands government enabled Epstein's activities and benefited financially from his operations.
The lawsuit originally claimed that former governors, attorneys general, and other officials created a safe environment for Epstein's trafficking activities, allowing him to operate without interference. The plaintiffs assert that Epstein's financial contributions to these officials fostered a culture of complicity, which included significant loans and payments that facilitated his criminal enterprise. The appeal raises several legal arguments, including the assertion that the district court misapplied jurisdictional standards and failed to allow for necessary discovery to fully understand the defendants' involvement.
The plaintiffs also challenge the dismissal of claims against Cecile de Jong, arguing that her actions as First Lady of the Virgin Islands should not be shielded by a release related to her employment with Epstein. They maintain that her political position allowed her to influence legislation and that the court's interpretation of the release was flawed. The appeal aims to hold these officials accountable for their alleged roles in Epstein's trafficking network, emphasizing the need for transparency and justice in the case.
Show Notes
Six women who accuse former U.S. Virgin Islands government officials of helping facilitate Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to revive their dismissed federal lawsuit. The women, identified as Jane Does 1 through 6, filed a 51-page appellate brief on October 26, 2026, challenging a lower court ruling that dismissed their claims against the Virgin Islands government and several former high-ranking officials, including Governors John de Jongh Jr. and Kenneth Mapp, former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, former Attorney General Vincent Frazer, and former Senators Celestino White and Carlton Dowe. Originally filed in November 2023, the proposed class-action lawsuit alleges that these officials used their political influence and government authority to transform the Virgin Islands into a protected environment for Epstein's trafficking operation. The women accuse the defendants of interfering with law enforcement oversight, influencing customs and immigration procedures, facilitating financial arrangements, and allowing Epstein to transport vulnerable girls and young women into the territory without meaningful scrutiny. U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed the claims against most defendants largely because he concluded that the Manhattan federal court lacked personal jurisdiction over them, while also finding that settlement agreements with Epstein's estate barred certain claims against Cecile de Jongh. The women maintain that the dismissal improperly prevented them from pursuing evidence that could establish the full extent of the alleged collaboration between Epstein and territorial officials.
The appeal focuses heavily on Epstein's financial dealings with Virgin Islands officials and whether those transactions establish sufficient connections to New York to permit the lawsuit to proceed. The women allege that Epstein used his New York bank accounts to funnel money and benefits to politically influential individuals, including approximately $625,000 in tuition payments for the de Jongh family's children, campaign contributions, charitable donations, and a purported $50 million loan to the Virgin Islands government. They contend that these financial arrangements purchased political loyalty, government access, favorable treatment concerning sex-offender registration requirements, and influence over legislation that could have affected Epstein's activities. Their attorneys argue that the lower court misapplied New York jurisdictional law by failing to properly consider the alleged conspiracy and Epstein's role as a financial intermediary operating from New York. They also challenge the conclusion that Cecile de Jongh was protected by releases signed during earlier settlements, arguing that the claims against her concern alleged abuses of her political position as first lady rather than her employment by Epstein. The plaintiffs further maintain that the court prematurely dismissed the case without allowing jurisdictional discovery that could reveal additional communications, financial transactions and evidence of coordination among the defendants. They are asking the appeals court to reverse the dismissal and reinstate their amended complaint, potentially reopening litigation that could subject former Virgin Islands officials to extensive discovery concerning their relationships with Epstein. The defendants have not yet filed their responses to the appeal.
to contact me:
source:
Jane Does ask appeals court to revive Epstein-linked suit against VI government and former officials
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
More from The Epstein Chronicles
JPMorgan’s internal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, known as “Project Jeep,” did not begin until 2019, after Epstein had been arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges and the bank’s long relationship with him was becoming a major public liability. Court filings showed that senior JPMorgan officials ordered an expanded review of Epstein, his related parties, his relationship with former executive Jes Staley, and connections involving Highbridge Capital and Bear Stearns. By October 2019, the bank had assembled a 22-page review of electronic communications involving Epstein, Staley, Mary Erdoes and other JPMorgan personnel, including emails dating back to 2008. The problem for JPMorgan was that the review was uncovering evidence inside its own systems showing just how deeply Epstein had interacted with senior people at the bank. Rather than revealing an obscure client who had slipped unnoticed through compliance, Project Jeep documented years of communications, internal concerns and relationships that had existed while Epstein remained a profitable JPMorgan customer.
Jes Staley was not simply Jeffrey Epstein’s senior contact inside JPMorgan; bank records show that he was also closely tied to Ghislaine Maxwell’s relationship with the institution. Staley became the most senior JPMorgan executive responsible for Epstein’s relationship with the private bank, with former executives describing Epstein as effectively “Jes Staley’s client.” Internal records concerning Maxwell likewise placed Staley directly in her banking history: a 2013 reputation-risk document stated that Maxwell had originally been referred to the private bank by Staley, while other due-diligence records described her as an Epstein referral who had met with Staley around 2003. By 2005, records show Staley was involved in bringing Maxwell into the private-bank operation, meaning the same senior executive who cultivated Epstein’s enormously valuable relationship with JPMorgan was also connected to the banking relationship of the woman who would later be convicted of helping Epstein sexually exploit minors.
Allegations that JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has not been fully truthful about what he knew regarding Jeffrey Epstein center largely on a direct contradiction between Dimon’s sworn testimony and that of former JPMorgan executive Jes Staley. During his 2023 deposition in litigation over the bank’s relationship with Epstein, Dimon said he did not recall discussing Epstein with Staley and maintained that he had essentially no knowledge of Epstein or his accounts while Epstein was a client. Staley, however, testified that he spoke with Dimon about Epstein after Epstein’s 2006 arrest, again after his 2008 guilty plea, and at other points concerning whether the bank should continue doing business with him. Court filings highlighted that conflict directly, leaving two senior figures giving sharply different sworn accounts about whether Epstein had reached the attention of JPMorgan’s chief executive years before the bank finally terminated the relationship in 2013.
Alan Dershowitz said he was still “anxious” to testify before the House Oversight Committee about Jeffrey Epstein, but his eagerness looked considerably less convincing after his scheduled appearance abruptly collapsed. Dershowitz had publicly volunteered for months to testify under oath and on video, portraying himself as someone ready to confront the record and explain what he knew about Epstein, the 2007–2008 non-prosecution agreement, and the people surrounding him. Yet when the committee actually put him on the calendar, his attorneys pulled the plug shortly before the interview, citing unspecified legal concerns that were never clearly explained. For someone who had repeatedly insisted that he wanted the opportunity to speak, the sudden retreat naturally raised questions about why those concerns apparently became insurmountable only when sworn congressional testimony was imminent.
A federal magistrate judge recommended allowing a lawsuit brought by more than 30 Jeffrey Epstein survivors against the FBI to move forward, at least for now, rejecting the government’s attempt to immediately throw the case out on statute-of-limitations and jurisdictional grounds. The women alleged that FBI agents in New York, Florida and elsewhere repeatedly received credible information about Epstein’s abuse and trafficking operation but failed to adequately investigate or intervene. Their allegations stretched back to 1996, when Maria Farmer said she reported Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to authorities, and continued through the years before the FBI formally opened an investigation in 2006. The survivors also accused federal authorities of disregarding reports involving suspicious financial activity, payments to underage girls, trafficking and possible child sexual-abuse material. U.S. Magistrate Judge Ryon McCabe concluded that, taking the allegations as true at this stage, the plaintiffs had plausibly argued that federal agents may have created a foreseeable risk to future victims through their actions and failures during the investigation