This market will resolve to "Yes" if the Trump Administration (including any federal court) publicly releases any files pertaining to the illegal activities of Jeffrey Epstein, which weren’t previously public between August 25 and December 31, 2025, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No". Only files which were created prior to the start of the Trump Administration (January 20, 2025, 12:00 PM ET) will qualify. Announcements of declassifications or releases that are not implemented within this market's timeframe will not qualify. The primary resolution source for this market will be official information from the government of the United States, however a consensus of credible reporting will also be used.
many other examples
Hey plz shut up and let him fill my order
eh this is one of the less attractive aspects of this site lol
besides I was here first and I'm the proposer lol
thanks
[link removed]
The exhibits include detailed internal JPMorgan records that weren't available in the public domain prior to unsealing (pp. 34-35, 56-59, 45, 47-51)
for example, exhibit 9 is organized around “Jeffrey Epstein Directed A Sex Trafficking Venture,” “JPMorgan’s Due Diligence Indicates Epstein Was Involved In Sex Trafficking,” and “Jeffrey Epstein’s JPMorgan Accounts Show Signs Of Human Trafficking”
If you have doubt about this, I'm happy to direct you to the copious novel materials pertaining to Epstein's illegal activity
Just withdraw 750 USDC-e (not USDC) to a regular Ethereum wallet from here, and withdraw about 1 Polygon as well. Then push the dispute. No text needed.
everyone can dispute if has 750 USDC-e and a littl polygon in ETH wallet
you should do it, I will happily take your 750 bond :)
There are no announced or expected plans to release any new Epstein-related files before December, and current indicators suggest none will be released in that timeframe. Those unsealed do not have any illegal activities
Those bank transactions are not illegal. They’ve been known about for a long time, and there are no known criminal cases related to them. This is simply a public release of previously known (unsealed) transactions - nothing new or illegal here.
Omg THIS MARKET WILL RESOLVE TO "NO" but Idk how to remove my limit yes order
outcome is yes currently, no ?
its no, yes?
Wenderholm is right!!!!
The unsealed JPMorgan exhibits do not introduce any new evidence of Epstein’s illegal activity. They simply re-surface compliance documents, SAR mentions, and banking records that were already described in press reports and litigation materials from prior years.
Why this does not qualify under - releases any files pertaining to the illegal activities of Jeffrey Epstein, which were not previously public Reason: The unsealed JPMorgan exhibits do not introduce new, previously-unseen evidence of Epstein's illegal activity. They primarily re-expose compliance reports, SAR references, and banking records already publicly reported in prior years. Point-by-point rule violation Market requirement. Why this release fails Previously unreleased files. These materials were already publicly reported (NYT, WSJ, 2023) - this is not new evidence. Files must pertain to illegal activity!! SARs = suspicions and banking compliance memos, not new proof of crimes. Content must be newly revealed. The substance (Epstein banking alerts, suspicious transfers, known associates) was already public. Actual files must be released. Unsealed are procedural, redacted litigation exhibits, not investigative/illegal-activity documents. Must reveal new criminal facts!! No new criminal evidence, names, or acts - only reconfirmation of known patterns
There is no requirement for new criminal facts.
Oh I missed it you're right
Those bank transactions are not illegal. They’ve been known about for a long time, and there are no known criminal cases related to them. These are simply previously known (unsealed) transactions - nothing new or illegal here.
rules: releases any files pertaining to the illegal activities of Jeffrey Epstein, which weren’t previously public between . P4 Too Early
Oh I missed it you're right omg my money gone
31 December?
The public release happened by and through a federal court. The judge first unsealed the exhibits and ordered that they be placed on the court’s public docket by set deadlines; he also said the court itself would file ten exhibits after reviewing redactions. Even if JPMorgan (or USVI) did the mechanical ECF upload for many exhibits, that was compelled by the court and occurred on the federal court’s docket; and the court directly docketed a subset itself.
To the bizarre argument that the court didn't "release the documents itself, please see order for the release: [link removed]
Hey bro remove the comment
it states: "the Court will itself file those ten exhibits … on the public docket, by no later than the close of business on October 31, 2025."
why flipping ?!
The rules require the court to "release" the documents itself. If the rules had wanted to make the yes condition that the court can either release the documents itself or else order some other entity to release some documents, then the rules would have say that. They don't say that.
IMO it's a huge violation of people's privacy to release the files but Kash Patel is a r3tard so he'll probably do it anyway
The files don’t pertain to the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein
Or, Jeff, as I fondly called him
Chase vs USVI involved the allegation that the bank knowingly faciliated and concealed Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation ...
Yes but irrelevant
Agreed, plus the bigger issue is yes requires the court itself to release the files and this court didn't do that. I mean, it still might in the future, I suppose, because the Judge mentions that he does have the files, but so far the court hasn't released those files.