by Brian Shilhavy, Health Impact News:
While the nation was obsessed with the movie Sound of Freedom this past week, which claims to expose the child sex trafficking industry (although it actually does not), the biggest news story of the week regarding child sex trafficking, a story that actually names names, went largely unnoticed.
After searching through the Corporate News and Alternative News feeds for the past week, as far as I can tell, Pam Martens of Wall Street on Parade was the only one who covered this story, and it is extremely significant for anyone who wants to see justice served in the child sex trafficking industry.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Most of the Corporate News reported that there had been a settlement reached for $290 million between JPMorgan Chase Bank and the victims who are suing Chase Bank for funding Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex trafficking network.
Martens, who is a former Wall Street insider and is also a true investigative reporter, did not just regurgitate the Corporate News reports about this proposed settlement, but actually went out and got a copy of a “petition to appeal” to the settlement that Chase Bank’s attorneys have filed.
Not only are Chase Bank’s attorneys challenging the settlement, they are proposing language in their appeal that would potentially prevent anyone else from ever suing Jeffrey Epstein’s associates, including potentially preventing government officials such as State Attorney Generals and their right to sue Epstein associates for crimes committed in their State.
This would be a huge blow to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex trafficking atrocities in their ability to sue any of Epstein’s former associates who may have potentially participated in this child sex trafficking crime syndicate, which includes most of the leaders in the U.S. today who are running the country, including former U.S. Presidents and current U.S. Presidential candidates.
At this point, I think it is fair to ask the question: Is there anybody in a position of power in the U.S. today who has NOT been part of Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex trafficking network?
Like being a member of Freemasonry, is it a requirement to participate in child sex trafficking to become a billionaire or hold a national political office in the U.S. today?
JPMorgan Chase Files a Notice of Appeal in Jeffrey Epstein Victim Case It “Settled” for $290 Million
by Pam Martens and Russ Martens
Wall Street On Parade
Unless you have been living off the grid for the past month, chances are you have seen a barrage of headlines blaring that the largest bank in the United States, JPMorgan Chase, agreed to settle a class action lawsuit for $290 million that was filed by sexual assault victims of Jeffrey Epstein, some when they were as young as 14 years old.
The bank’s involvement stemmed from it providing the hard cash to Epstein from his accounts at the bank to pay off his victims and accomplices (in violation of money laundering rules) while he reciprocated by referring clients and profitable deals to the bank.
It now turns out that the case is not actually “settled.” JPMorgan Chase and its 1,000-attorney law firm that is representing it in the matter, WilmerHale, have quietly filed a petition to appeal the decision rendered by the District Court Judge, Jed Rakoff, to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The bank and its lawyers don’t like the fact that Judge Rakoff took the claims of the one plaintiff, Jane Doe 1, and certified them into a class action lawsuit on behalf of a large group of Epstein victims.
The bank’s petition to appeal calls this decision by Judge Rakoff “rife with error.”
But, very cunningly, if Rakoff grants final approval to the terms of the settlement fashioned by the Machiavellian legal brains at JPMorgan and WilmerHale, then JPMorgan Chase will just overlook the District Court’s “rife with error” decision and go along with the settlement. The petition to appeal states:
“While JPMC agrees to a settlement class, the litigation class certified below violates Rule 23. JPMC will withdraw the Petition if the district court approves the proposed settlement, but this Petition should be granted if this case proceeds to trial….”
One might be forgiven for thinking that the biggest bank in the U.S., armed with one of the biggest law firms, has put a gun to the head of a sitting federal judge to approve their settlement.
Another Machiavellian aspect of this legal maneuver is that JPMorgan Chase and WilmerHale wanted this petition to appeal to be held under seal and in abeyance until the court granted final approval to the settlement.
But the Fairness Hearing that must be held before any final settlement is granted by the Judge is not scheduled until November 9, 2023. That would mean that the Appeals Court would be holding this appeal in abeyance for more than three months.
The Second Circuit said it would only allow the petition to appeal to be held in abeyance for 45 days.
That 45 days, however, could pose a problem for Epstein’s victims. They have just 30 days from receiving a notice about the terms of the settlement to opt out.
That notice was supposed to go out within 7 days of Judge Rakoff granting preliminary approval to the settlement on June 26. If victims don’t opt out, the settlement mandates that they will forever be bound by its terms and that Machiavellian release, even if they can prove that they didn’t receive the notice advising of the deadline for opting out.
But that is far from the only Machiavellian aspect of the settlement terms. Epstein’s victims have to file a release of all of their claims before they learn if they are to get an award. There is no minimum or maximum amount they can get, so they could release all their claims and end up with no monetary award, according to the terms of the settlement.
Also, there is a secret side agreement buried in the settlement.
The victims will be bound by the terms of a Paragraph 10 of a “Confidential Term Sheet,” which was crafted during mediation negotiations, but we could find no such document in the court records.
We contacted the three key attorneys for the Epstein victims, seeking this document, as well as the entire Management Committee of WilmerHale, consisting of 18 attorneys, and no one was forthcoming with an answer as to how it is legal to have a secret side agreement in a class action involving potentially more than 100 victims of Epstein – many of whom have been waiting for decades for the justice system in the United States to stop cutting deals with Epstein and his accomplices and enablers.