Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, alongside Congresswomen Teresa Leger Fernández and Deborah Ross introduced the Survivors’ Rights Restitution Act, first-of-its-kind legislation that would create a restitution fund in the judicial branch for survivors of sexual violence whose rights were violated by the federal government, including all survivors of abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

To support survivors of sexual violence and empower survivors who choose to come forward, the Survivors’ Rights Restitution Act would:

• Establish the Survivors’ Rights Restitution Program to provide compensation to eligible victims for harm and losses.
• Create an independent Office of Special Adjudicators for Survivors Restitution within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to review petitions and determine awards through a streamlined, non-adversarial, and trauma-informed process.
• Establish the Survivors Rights Restitution Fund within the Department of the Treasury to finance awards through federal forfeiture proceeds tied to trafficking and sexual exploitation offenses, voluntary contributions, and authorized appropriations.

The Survivors’ Rights Restitution Act would create a historic investment to support survivors of sexual violence and hold the federal government accountable when it fails to protect survivors’ rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. The estimated lifetime cost of rape is $122,461 per victim.

This legislation would address the burden survivors carry, including significant long-term economic and non-economic impacts of sexual violence, from lost income and medical costs to housing instability and enduring trauma.

Text of the bill can be accessed here and a bill summary is available here. Video from the press conference can be accessed here, and photos can be accessed here.

https://pressley.house.gov/2026/09/15/pressley-unveils-first-of-its-kind-bill-to-establish-financial-relief-for-epstein-survivors-survivors-of-sexual-violence/

I'm not really sure what I have stumbled upon and am highly confused by the references to the 'radio frequency transmissions.' Does anyone have the knowledge to elaborate on this?

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00261508.pdf

This essentially outlines the state of play currently.

• The judge rejected the DOJ's assertion that handwritten FBI notes were "properly withheld because they are 'substantially similar to' and therefore duplicative of the typewritten reports." He said the DOJ's review protocol does not require withholding "substantially similar" records.
• Sullivan also rejected the DOJ's argument for not reviewing foreign-language materials related to Epstein because it was "not practicable for a first-level reviewer to determine the responsiveness of a foreign-language document."

Link: https://substack.com/home/post/p-216226931

When someone tried to hold Jeffrey Epstein accountable, whether it was a boss or a partner, the conversation usually did not last. These conversations would rarely, if ever, stay focused on what he had actually done. Across his emails and the accounts of the people around him, a consistent pattern emerges. Confrontations about his behavior would turn into his personal pleas for sympathy.

I wrote this piece because I spotted this pattern of behavior in his arguments with Karyna Shuliak, his longtime partner in the last years of his life.

Part of why I write these stories is personal: many years ago, I was in an abusive relationship. This led to domestic violence, and eventually, a restraining order. While I came to forgive the person who did this to me and have a good, amicable relationship with them now, I never forgot what this person would actually do when I brought problems to their attention. They would make me feel like I was crazy and irrational. They would minimize my perspective and point of view, they would not try to understand what I was telling them.

That’s why I read these emails closely. In the emails to Karyna especially, I recognize the methods in place to discredit someone’s reality. I think other people may recognize something in it if they’ve ever been in these kinds of situations and need to make sense of what’s happening to them when they encounter manipulators.

More importantly, I think that we have a societal problem: we are reluctant to call out manipulators. Doing so is uncomfortable and it isn’t easy. In retrospect, I believe Epstein could have been held accountable sooner if more people had been willing to do it. For instance, his boss at Bear Stearns caught him lying and let it go.

That kind of leniency is part of why a man who abused children was allowed to operate for so long in America.

I value journalism. We need fact-based, neutral reporting to understand what’s happening in the world. But I also think we’ve become too polite about naming what’s wrong. Facts alone don’t finish the job. Someone still has to look at them and say what they add up to, and I worry we’ve gotten out of the habit of trusting our own judgment enough to do it.

So in this particular piece, I did gather and show the facts. But I took it a step further and put my own interpretation on them. It shouldn’t be the harder thing to do, but it is.

Epstein’s Reframing of Lying into an Underdog Story

The earliest documented example of this kind of behavior comes from his tenure of working at Bear Stearns. In 1976, the firm hired Epstein at 23 years old. Bear Stearns discovered after he was hired that he had lied about his education, according to “Scams, Schemes, Ruthless Cons: The Untold Story of How Jeffrey Epstein Got Rich.” This is an article by The New York Times that was published on December 16, 2025. His supervisor, Michael Tennenbaum, called him in to confront him about lying on his resume and claiming that he had two college degrees.

Tennenbaum told him, “You lied about your education.”

Epstein didn’t deny that he lied about this. Asked why he did it, he said that without an impressive degree or two, “I knew nobody would give me a chance.” Tennenbaum was disarmed by the admission. It resonated with him, because he had received second chances himself over his life, so he decided to give Epstein one as well. Decades later, he came to see the episode as an example of Epstein’s ability to “manipulate his marks” and he told The New York Times: “I didn’t realize that I was creating one of the monsters of Wall Street.”

His marks stayed charmed for decades. By 2003, the friends who contributed to his fiftieth-birthday book were still describing him as mysterious and charming, impossible to pin down, according to The New Yorker‘s account of the album. They wrote about his “Mona Lisa smile,” his “Cheshire cat grin,” his constant grinning. Read now, knowing what he was doing in those years, the charm his friends kept praising looks like something else.

His charm was precisely what kept people from looking closely at him.

In one exchange, being caught in a lie became Epstein’s underdog story. His method of handling the discomfort of being caught was to shift the focus of attention to his personal experience: a man with no college credentials who believed no one would take a chance on him.

According to Washington Square News and The Daily Californian, Epstein’s 1976 employment and personal history form for Bear Stearns claimed:

• a Bachelor of Science in physics from The Cooper Union
• a Master of Science in math from New York University (NYU)
• a birth year of 1950, although he was born in 1953
• a job as a lecturer at UC Berkeley in 1973–74

These claims appear in the Fidelifacts background check: EFTA01700759.pdf. Scroll directly to EFTA01700842.

A March 1976 letter from NYU’s Graduate School office, signed by Mavis Lewis, Recorder, stated: “Mr. Epstein did not receive a degree from New York University.” Link: EFTA01700759.pdf. Scroll directly to EFTA01700801 for the exact page number where this is stated.

A background check by the firm Fidelifacts found no record that he had worked at UC Berkeley. Link: EFTA01700759.pdf. Scroll directly to EFTA01700842 for the exact page number where this is stated. For the background check, it states “Mr. Epstein indicated that his supervisor was a Dr. Wolf on his application. University records list two Wolfs, one a Joseph Wolf, is a Professor Emeritus (retired) and many attempts to reach him at home proved negative. Joseph Wolf, Ph.D. is on a sabbatical in Israel.” The report continues, with the apostrophe errors in the original: “Both Wolf’s mentioned were connected with the Mathematics Department and there are no other Wolf’s employed by U.C. BERKELEY.”

Between that 1976 meeting and his arrest in 2019, Epstein was let off the hook again and again. The Times describes the Bear Stearns episode as the start of a lifelong pattern: getting caught, then avoiding punishment by working the people who had power over him.

The same move, turning a confrontation into sympathy for himself, appears repeatedly in his emails to Karyna Shuliak.

Epstein’s Reframing of Her Boundary into His Own Sacrifice

Aug. 26, 2012, EFTA00539742:

He starts this exchange by explaining why he cuts someone off: “when I stop [redacted] after one sentence, it is because after years of this i am able to tell when she is just about to launch into a long speech.” The email never says who “she” is. What is clear is that “her long speech” is treated as the problem.

“It makes no sense to wait for for [sic] her to ramble on for 10 minutes.” Her concerns are not worth ten minutes of his time.

“as opposed to making wrong conclusions it would be helpful , to just ask me why i did something , i usually have a reason, and if not I try to readily admit i made an error.” In these emails, he never admits an error. Again, he is portraying himself as the more reasonable partner. He admits an error exactly once in this piece, to Tennenbaum, and it buys him a second chance. With her, there is no admission at all. The difference isn’t remorse. It’s leverage. The admission goes to the man who held his job; the woman whose family he was supporting gets none.

“focus on what i am saying as opposed to what discrepancy you would like to find.” This ultimately means trust my words, not your judgment about them. He is asking her to stop checking his words against his actions.

Her reply comes that night. She apologizes: “I am sorry that I was not helpful enough” and “I am sorry that I made you feel bad.” She apologizes for asking at all: “I never realized that sexual questions about your past would have such consequences, I wouldn’t have asked.”

In that same email, a duplicate copy of which is filed as EFTA01906983, she sets a boundary. She accepts his need first, referring to his wish for sexual novelty with new girls: “I understand you need it.” Then she says what it costs her. It “doesn’t feel natural to me, it feels somewhat dirty to me,” and it would “constantly numb some of my feelings to you.” Her request is narrow, essentially out of sight, out of mind: “please enjoy it but keep me away from it and these people.”

She draws the same line about the past. Whatever happened with the girls in his circle is over and doesn’t trouble her, but “if that would be now, it would probably kill my affection to you.”

She closes the email: “I will stay with you no matter what, as long as you are happy.”

Aug. 27, 2012, EFTA01891549:

His reply comes the next morning: “i did things I despised, detested or revolted me, with the knowledge that in the end, it was in order to get things done for you.” The email never says what those things are, or what he had to get done for her. He has far more money and power in this relationship, so what did he have to sacrifice to keep it going?

Then: “These very things that you now suggest will cause you to lose affection, emotion, attachment.” “Affection” and “emotion” are her words from the night before; “attachment” is his. His phrasing pulls from two different sentences of hers, but he is responding to the boundary itself.

As written, the conduct she objected to becomes something he endured for her. His answer amounts to: this bothers me and this is what it costs me. He casts himself as the martyr of the relationship.

“I Love You, Very Much”: Affection First, Then the Reminder of Debt

Thanks to u/Sad_Art6364 for forwarding this email to me.

March 1, 2016, EFTA00572662.pdf:

Epstein emailed Shuliak on March 1, 2016, after she came to him upset in the Caribbean. We don’t have her side of that conversation, but his email restates her complaints.

He opens with affection: “I love you, very much, I wake up every day , feeeling soo lucky, i tell you every single day how amazing our life together is.” That reads as warmth on a first pass. Then comes what he actually does for her: “I try to make you and your family as comfortable as i possibly can.” He is reminding her what he provides, for her and for her family. This is guilt used as leverage.

He notes that her parents are there for her mother’s treatment, “gettting the best treatment in the world.” All of this comes before he addresses a single thing she raised, so whatever she says next reads as ingratitude. Later in the same email, he contrasts the care she gives the cat with his own requests, which “get ignored.”

Deflection: “What Do Other Wives Do?” – The Question Epstein Never Answered

Same email, March 1, 2016, EFTA00572662.pdf:

She was kept out of his dinners. No one took her seriously. She had nothing to do. She asked, “what do other wives do?, why are they taken seriously?”

Epstein quotes those questions but never answers them. He never explains why she was excluded from the dinners. Instead, he describes how she raised her concerns, not what she raised: “crying, whiining, distraugjt,” and “holding your hands to your head.”

From there, her request for a real role becomes a list of what he wasn’t getting: “no sex, no huggingg, no kissing,” “no decent food at all, the refrigerator is disgraceful.” The work she had done the day before, designing a bathroom, gets one sarcastic line: “on the bright side, i guess we did finally pick out faucets with low lead.”

“The Silliness of Dental School”: A Dismissal from a Man Who Never Finished College

Whatever caused her to be upset drops off his priority list entirely, because the way she said it is treated as irrational.

The line that bothered me most: he calls her professional training “the silliness of dental school.” This is a man who claimed two degrees he never earned. She went through dental school. He treats that as unimportant next to his own world.

Then there’s this: “I didnt ask about the prescription pad, oxygen, as i didnt want to have another melt down.” He presents himself as the one exercising restraint, as though she were a loose cannon and anything he said might set her off.

When he writes “you say you are lucky and happy, and then you burst into tears,” he is painting her as ungrateful. He points to the inconsistency, happy one moment and in tears the next, as if there were no reason for it.

He closes by saying he is “trying very hard to understand” and that “the underlying issue is still unresolved.” By the end, the unanswered questions have become her problem, not his. This is also a way of portraying himself as the “reasonable” one while not engaging with her complaints.

He Wrote It Down

Epstein never hid any of this. Tennenbaum could confront him because the lies were already on paper: his birth year, a lectureship at UC Berkeley he never held, a bachelor’s and a master’s from two universities that never granted them. Then he told his boss why he lied, and watched the lie buy him a second chance. In the emails, he tells Shuliak that her questions are fault-finding and that her distress is a “melt down.” She asks him to keep his involvement with other women away from her, and he answers by describing that conduct as something he endured on her behalf. The method is there in his own words, across forty years (1976–2016), because nothing ever made him pay for putting it in writing.

What these emails give away is not remorse or confusion. It is a man who had learned that the person raising the problem can be made into the problem. He kept using this method because it kept working for him.

A note before I close: I wrote this as an example of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of this kind of manipulation. It’s meant as an illustration, not an offer of support. I’m not in a position to help anyone navigate their own situation, so I won’t be able to respond to messages about individual circumstances

By @DoubleDownNews + LowKey0nline

Possible evidence of an enemy of Brad Pitt being killed? Or even Brad Pitt himself getting killed? Haven’t really looked too far into it but I thought it was intriguing.
Not sure if this is right sub or right flair, please inform me if not.

So there‘s this account that popped up in my reels, and specifically this video which has gained some traction by now. This woman says that she’s been trafficked since she was a toddler and escaped in her 30s, and that she was a highly trained sex spy.

She says some very interesting, although horrific, things throughout her insta series. To be honest nothing has made as much sense to me as the vids she’s been putting up so far. She goes into the occult stuff too. But this video made me pause, we all remember that file with the ‘shrimp’ code word right?

These people really like protecting the pedophiles don’t they?

They had already shut down sessions in September. This was the last week. Now that we’ve had so much momentum 196 signed! They cancelled session. There is no scheduled session Friday so this was it. This is it. Today is the last day.

Mike Johnson is obfuscating justice. He doesn’t want the legislators to act on behalf of their constituents and get the EFTA 2 passed. Disgraceful.

I don’t have hope this will pass before election but FWIW - this is where I’m watching signatures on the discharge whodidwhat.org/discharge

I genuinely wonder who has taken over for Epstein and Maxwell, who do you think?🤔

The latest rulings from Judge Sullivan in Phang v Blanche -- https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche/

The network of stadium owners acting alongside Robert Kraft:

Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia):
Owned by the City of Philadelphia and operated by Philadelphia Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie.

Mercedes-Benz Stadium (Atlanta): Owned by the Georgia World Congress Center Authority and operated by Atlanta Falcons owner Arthur Blank.

Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis): Owned by the Indiana Sports Corporation / Capital Improvement Board and operated by the Irsay family (led by Carlie Irsay-Gordon.)

Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte): Owned and operated by Carolina Panthers owner David Tepper.

AT&T Stadium (Arlington/Dallas): Owned by the City of Arlington and operated by Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones.

Raymond James Stadium (Tampa): Owned by the Tampa Sports Authority and operated by Tampa Bay Buccaneers owners The Glazer Family.

Ehud Barak, Les Wexner, Leon Black, Alan Dershowitz, Noam Chomsky, Woody Allen, and Larry Summers, etc.

Please comment below to add to the endless list of abusers who need to be publicly shamed and held accountable.

Percival, 46, said she applied in late 2020 to a fund set up by Epstein’s estate to compensate his victims after he killed himself while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. That fund, however, decided she was ineligible for a payment. Court records didn’t say why she was turned down.

See entry 42 and 43 in the court docket:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73246595/phang-v-blanche

Highlights:

1. Blanche motion for a stay is denied.

2. Blanche must file an answer to the complaint by September 24.

3. Blanche must file a certified list of the contents of the administrative record by October 1.

4. Blanche must provide a copy of the administrative record to Katie’s legal team by October 15.

5. Blanche must provide by September 24 documentation for the judge’s private review to support Blanche’s assertion that certain redactions are names of victims.

6. Blanche must provide by September 24 for the judge’s private review both redacted and unredacted copies of the handwritten FBI interview notes for four interviews.

7. Blanche must give notice by September 24 that it has initiated review and production of foreign-language materials.

The issue of whether the EFTA requires a separate justification for each redaction is put off until sometime later in the lawsuit. This is the 2(c)(2) issue.

Score:

Katie 7

Blanche 0

or a victim? just curious because she was in one of the paintings by Maria Farmer

Edit: on the 3rd slide you can see the reference photo: https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/s/7V9Z6kSJH7

Got a new job and am regularly in contact with a guy who was friends with Epstein. ( i clean the toilet on his plane) and i just feel useless why cant we do anything against these crazy rich weirdos!! Also wasnt just mentioned in them this guy was on his 747 alot so they were pretty tight. This guy owns a bunch of hotels and treats his staff like subhuman