Friday, February 20, 2026

Journalist Julie Brown, who brought the Epstein case back to life, says Prince Andrew's arrest shows justice is taken seriously when you go 'across the pond' to UK

Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre


It likely is a safe bet that hardly anyone on the planet knows more about the Jeffrey Epstein case than Miami Herald journalist Julie K. Brown. And yet, even Brown -- who is credited with sparking a second round of criminal charges against the notorious sex trafficker -- was caught off guard by yesterday's news that the former Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom had been arrested on suspicion of misconduct related to his well-documented ties to Epstein.

The title of Brown's Substack page, "The Epstein Files," is indicative of her expertise on the subject. Here is the headline from yesterday's post: "Prince Andrew's Arrest: Across the pond in Britain, justice and accountability is a serious matter." I suspect that is a not-so-subtle dig at the U.S. justice system, which Brown seems to see as not terribly serious about matters such as accountability, fairness, and the rule of law. I wholeheartedly share Brown's assessment of our putrid court system, and as longtime readers of our Legal Schnauzer blog know, I received a graduate-level education while living in Alabama on how our courts (both state and federal) tend to spew forth rulings that have little or nothing to do with the facts as presented and the law as written. 

What kind of wreckage can crooked courts inflict on the lives of everyday Americans? My wife Carol and I (we know her in the blogosphere as "Mrs. Schnauzer") are Exhibit A regarding the ruination that can befall those who are forced to participate in a system where protecting the interests of the legal tribe is No. 1 on the agenda and the dispensing of justice is not even in the top 100. 

What was our court experience like? It launched when a criminally inclined neighbor named Mike McGarity and an integrity-challenged lawyer named Bill Swatek (who the Alabama State Bar has disciplined multiple times, including a suspension of his license) joined forces to file a lawsuit against me in Shelby County that had zero basis in fact or law. But defending myself against a groundless lawsuit set off a series of events that included me being cheated out of my job of 25 years as an editor at the university of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), and Carol losing several jobs (one at Southern Medical Association, one at Infinity Insurance, plus three or four sales positions). Every time we seemed to get close to landing new jobs, the offer or the interest disappeared. Somebody, perhaps angry about my reporting on court corruption at this blog, seemed to be undermining our job-search efforts -- essentially robbing us of the ability to support ourselves. That can cause a solid financial situation to turn shaky in a hurry.

That wasn't the only "robbery" we experienced. After almost 25 years of making house payments on time and in full every month, we lost our home to what appeared to be a wrongful foreclosure and got screwed on the disbursement of funds from the foreclosure sale by our mortgage company, JPMorgan Chase. After I had written unflattering stories about certain powerful, conservative political figures in Alabama -- including former state attorney general and current U.S. judge for the 11th Circuit Bill Pryor, plus Homewood lawyer and GOP political operative Rob Riley (son of former governor Bob Riley) -- someone apparently took offense and sicced Shelby County Sheriff's deputy Chris Blevins -- who gave the appearance of being intimately familiar with steroids -- on me. Blevins almost drove his cop car into the side of our house and then walked into our garage (which was underneath the main portion of our house), and without showing a warrant or stating his purpose for being there, proceeded to beat me up in my own home, knocking me to a concrete floor three times, and then spraying me in the face with pepper spray. A second officer, Jason Valenti, who threatened to break my arm, helped Blevins remove me from the garage and applied handcuffs, placing me in the back seat of a cop car for the 35-minute ride to the Shelby County Jail in Columbiana. The main charge against me was for contempt of court, apparently for failing to appear at a hearing in a defamation lawsuit Rob Riley and his lobbyist friend Liberty Duke had filed against Carol and me. Oddly, we didn't appear because we were never lawfully served, and we had filed documents challenging service, with a ruling pending when Blevins showed up in our garage.  

A lawyer named David Gespass visited me twice in jail and wrote a letter, stating that he had seen the court file, which Riley had asked to be sealed, and it showed no summons had been issued, much less served. A preliminary injunction was issued against me on Sept. 30, but a summons was not issued in the case until Oct 16. That means Judge J. Claud Neilson granted a preliminary injunction against me when I had not been summoned and was not under his jurisdiction -- so there was no way I could be in contempt of court.

Still, I wound up spending five months in jail and was released only after I explained to Carol from a jail telephone how to enter the editing/publishing page of the blog and remove the posts Judge Neilson had deemed to be defamatory, a decision he made with no discovery, no jury trial, not even a legitimate hearing. In short, he did not follow the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, and there was no evidence to support his finding. Rob Riley did not even file an affidavit stating that my reporting was false.

I did get a touch of notoriety out of the whole dismal experience. The story received widespread national coverage -- with excellent reports from Lindsay Beyerstein at Raw Story and Scott Horton at Harper's, plus top-notch Q-and-A interviews from Joan Brunwasser at OpEd News.

Was my arrest significant? Yes, it was -- and not just to Carol and me. Here is how we summarized some of the historical and societal issues in play:

I was the only U.S. journalist to be incarcerated in 2013 (from Oct. 23, 2013, to March 26, 2014) -- the only journalist arrested in the western hemisphere that year. I'm the only U.S. journalist to be arrested since 2006 -- more than a decade -- and my incarceration is the third longest for a journalist in American history. Ranking ahead of me are San Francisco-based free-lance videographer Joshua Wolf (2006), and true-crime writer Vanessa Leggett (2001).

I am the only American journalist to be arrested in the 2000s for a case that had no criminal implications. Our research indicates I am the only journalist to be incarcerated because of an unlawful preliminary injunction, which has been an improper prior restraint under more than 200 years of First Amendment law. That means my case might represent the worst abuse of a journalist on American soil.

The case was important enough to attract the attention of The New York Times. Unfortunately, reporter Campbell Robertson butchered his interviews with Carol and me and produced a sloppy, inaccurate article.

One of the more interesting characters to cover the case was California lawyer Ken White, publisher of the Popehat blog. White unfairly bashed me at times and showed signs of right-wing bias. But I do think he knows First Amendment law and made some salient points about the case, especially if you could get past his snarky manner. White came to some nonsensical conclusions, but in general, I think he furthered public knowledge of the relevant issues. And I especially enjoyed it when he called an attorney from Rob Riley's law firm "blindingly ignorant" or "cynically dishonest."

Also, the case received coverage at several international news outlets, and my favorite was at a Russian news forum called RU Posters. It was interesting to read Russians commenting that my case proved the vaunted U.S. First Amendment maybe wasn't so great after all. In my view, the First Amendment is great, but the way crooked judges apply it can be awful.

I apologize for the detour into my own tale of legal woe, but a key theme of this post is that our justice system reeks, and it seemed an appropriate time to update readers with personal insights on just how bad our courts can be.

A couple of final personal points:

(1) There are quite a few similarities between what Carol and I experienced in Alabama and the brutality and dysfunction we now see from the Trump administration, especially in regards to detention of immigrants, often without due process of law. In essence, Alabama was ahead of the curve when it comes to crappy conservative governance.

(2) Alabama is not the only place where law-enforcement officials trample the law. After losing our house in Birmingham, we moved to Missouri where I grew up and wound up being subjected to an eviction from our apartment that was unlawful on at least 8-10 grounds. A sheriff named Jim Arnott orchestrated that fiasco, which ended with an apparent deputy (although we've never been able to find out his name and actual affiliation) assaulting Carol, slamming her to the ground and yanking on her arms so violently and awkwardly that it caused a comminuted fracture of her left arm. One medical professional termed it a dislocation of the elbow, and it required $80,000 of trauma surgery, over eight hours, for repair.

Sheriff Arnott, a devout Republican, has joined Donald Trump's ICE brigade to help rid the Midwest of immigrants. I've seen up close that Arnott cares not one whit about the law, so I wonder how many immigrants he has detained without due process, which is required by the U.S. Constitution. The issue of due process for detainees has been raised in published reports. So far, I've been unable to find a response from Arnott stating his agency is complying with due-process requirements. My guess is that the number of immigrants being detained in a constitutional manner would be close to zero.

Let's return to Julie Brown's take on the stunning arrest of the former Prince Andrew, which surely is the biggest worldwide legal story of the moment. Brown shows that the Andrew arrest has much deeper historical meaning than many Americans probably realize. She writes:

This is the most significant story involving British royalty since King Edward VIII abdicated his throne in 1936 — and the first arrest of a royal since King Charles I, who was detained in 1647 during the English Civil War. That’s four centuries ago.

Andrew, whose 66th birthday [was yesterday] was taken into custody about 8 a.m. local time, 3 a.m. EST.

As for his ties to Epstein, Andrew probably is best known for his alleged sexcapades with Epstein's sex-trafficking victims -- most notably with the late Virginia Giuffre. Andrew's arrest, however, seems to be based more on alleged financial wrongdoing than anything involving sex. Brown writes:

His arrest comes just four days after the Daily Mail reported that he passed on sensitive information about the taxpayer-owned Royal Bank of Scotland to Epstein when he was representing the UK as a trade envoy.

Documents released by the U.S. Department of Justice as part of the Epstein Files Transparency Act revealed that Andrew leaked details he learned from meeting with bank executives in the wake of a $45-billion bailout.

Andrew also allegedly passed on other sensitive information he learned to a banker friend, according to the Telegraph.

Andrew’s association with Epstein has captured the attention of the British media for years. But in recent weeks, the scandal evolved into possible financial wrongdoing, first involving Lord Mandelson, the British ambassador to the United States, who resigned. The backlash has also put pressure on UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. A member of the Scottish Labour party asked Starmer to resign over Mendelson’s appointment, but thus far, he appears to have survived the scandal.

Interestingly, Andrew’s arrest is not concerning the 2011 sexual assault allegations that were brought against him by Virginia Giuffre — but it was recent stories in the British media about him passing on financial information to what the British press called “his pedo mate.” (Epstein, who also appears to be Donald Trump's "pedo mate.")

It’s astonishing how much accountability seems to be possible once you cross the Atlantic.

Meanwhile, neither the U.S. Justice Department nor the Treasury Department seems to have made an effort to “follow the money” involving some of Epstein’s friends and associates.

Remember, Sen. Ron Wyden — who has been investigating Epstein’s finances for years — has hit a wall because President Trump’s Treasury Department hasn’t cooperated with his probe.

GOP leaders also seem to have their heads in the sand.

In the wake of Andrew's arrest, Brown says, it is time for a serious investigation of obvious red flags that largely have been ignored:

Why didn’t the DOJ investigate Epstein and his associates’ suspected money laundering? Isn’t it clear that banks were ignoring all the flags that pointed to him?

This story is bigger than politics; it is a global scandal with implications beyond the 21-page PowerPoint presentation the FBI put together on the case in July.

And now, we have the arrest of a former member of the Royal family.

While Andrew has repeatedly denied wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, their  relationship has dogged the Royal family for a decade, since Giuffre first went public with allegations that she was trafficked to the Prince when she was 17.

Giuffre is a central figure in the Andrew-Epstein story because her allegations opened the door for other victims to come forward. Sadly, Giuffre will not be here if any form of justice ever is meted out. She died by suicide in April 2025. Writes Brown: 

Giuffre, who died in April, first told her story to Daily Mail reporter Sharon Churcher in 2011.

Ms Giuffre wrote in her recent memoir, Nobody’s Girl, that on the day she met Andrew in 2001, Epstein’s partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, told her “just like Cinderella, I was going to meet a handsome prince.”

A photograph that was taken at the time — of Giuffre and the prince — one that Andrew claimed might have been doctored — has come to symbolize the scandal in Britain.

Andrew had been friends with Epstein since 1999 and continued even after Epstein was charged with solicitation of a minor in 2007. In 2010, he was photographed walking with Epstein in New York.

In 2019, Andrew gave a widely criticized interview with the BBC’s Newsnight, denying Giuffre’s allegations.

Giuffre later sued Andrew, and the case was settled with a payment, said to be about $10 million. Andrew did not admit liability as part of the settlement.

As details of the Epstein story slowly surfaced, Andrew saw the trappings of fame and favor slide away:

As more revelations came to light over the past few years, Andrew was stripped of his military titles, then last year, his royal titles were officially removed by King Charles.

Prosecutors for the Southern District of New York wanted to interview Andrew about Epstein in 2020 as part of their broader probe into Epstein’s associates, but he declined to cooperate. 

Late last year, members of the House Oversight Committee wrote to Andrew (whose name was changed to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor) requesting a transcript of an interview about Epstein. However, the lawmakers had no power to force him to comply.

Andrew is the third person linked to Epstein to be arrested. One of his co-conspirators, French modeling scout Jean-Luc Brunel, was arrested in December 2020 on charges of rape of minors and sex trafficking. He died by suicide in a Paris jail while awaiting trial. Maxwell was convicted of sex trafficking in 2021. 

Last week, Norway’s former Prime Minister, Thorbjorn Jagland, was arrested on corruption charges in connection with information Norwegian authorities found in the Epstein files pertaining to his relationship with the disgraced financier and sex trafficker.

Never in a million years did I think when I resurrected the Epstein story in 2018 it would lead to this.

Thursday, February 19, 2026

United Nations declares the Epstein files might include allegations that amount to 'crimes against humanity,' raising questions about holding U.S. elites accountable

International Criminal Court at The Hague (CNN)


Experts associated with the United Nations say allegations contained in the Epstein files could point to crimes against humanity. How might such a finding play out, and what tribunal likely would be at the heart of an investigation and prosecution? 

Our research indicates the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, Netherlands, probably would play a central role, but the ICC might face serious hurdles in seeking to prosecute citizens of the United States. How could that be? To address that question, we first look at the four types of criminal cases that can come before the ICC

(1)  Genocide -- The specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means;

(2) Crimes Against Humanity -- serious violations committed as part of a large-scale attack against any civilian population. The 15 forms of crimes against humanity listed in the Rome Statute include offences such as murder, rape, imprisonment, enforced disappearances, enslavement – particularly of women and children, sexual slavery, torture, apartheid and deportation;

(3) War Crimes -- Grave breaches of the Geneva conventions in the context of armed conflict and include, for instance, the use of child soldiers; the killing or torture of persons such as civilians or prisoners of war; intentionally directing attacks against hospitals, historic monuments, or buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes;

(4) The Crime of Aggression -- The use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, integrity or independence of another State. This is the central issue in Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Crimes associated with the Epstein files would fall under No. 2, Crimes Against Humanity. There is little doubt the ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute such cases. But there is considerable doubt about the ICC's ability to prosecute U.S. citizens. That's because the United States is not a member of the ICC, primarily due to concerns about national sovereignty and the potential for politically motivated prosecutions of its military and political leaders. Also, the U.S. adopted the American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) in 2002, and it gives the president power to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court".

Does this mean Donald Trump could escape ICC accountability if the court found probable cause to believe he committed crimes against humanity as part of his ties to the Jeffrey Epstein matter? Given that the Epstein files tie Trump to allegations of murder and rape, it's a reasonable question. We don't have a clear-cut answer at the moment, but I'm going to continue to research it. My guess is that Trump and his governmental allies would stand a better than 50-50 chance of skating. As for business leaders and other private citizens, they might be on shakier ground, but the ASPA certainly throws a wrench into the wheels of justice regarding U.S. citizens.

How did the subject of the UN and the Epstein files arise? For that, we turn to a report from The Hill, under the headline "Epstein files allegations may amount to 'crimes against humanity': UN experts." Sophie Brams writes:

A panel of United Nations experts suggested that allegations detailed in the millions of documents released by the Justice Department (DOJ) connected to its probe of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein could amount to some of the most serious crimes under international law.

The group of experts, appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, said in a statement released Monday that the files signal “the existence of a global criminal enterprise” that engaged in the “systematic and large-scale sexual abuse, trafficking and exploitation” of women and girls.

“These crimes were committed against a backdrop of supremacist beliefs, racism, corruption, extreme misogyny and the commodification and [dehumanization] of women and girls from different parts of the world," they said.

What are the legal requirements for a finding of crimes against humanity, and how might the content of the Epstein files meet them? The Hill report addresses both questions:

The U.N. panel warned that some accusations contained in the documents released by the DOJ may meet that threshold.

“All the allegations contained in the ‘Epstein Files’ are egregious in nature and require independent, thorough, and impartial investigation, as well as inquiries to determine how such crimes could have taken place for so long,” they said.

“So grave is the scale, nature, systematic character, and transnational reach of these atrocities against women and girls, that a number of them may reasonably meet the legal threshold of crimes against humanity,” the panel added:

To understand how Epstein-related crimes might be prosecuted, and under what standard, it helps to examine some basic definitions: 

Crimes against humanity are defined under international law as when certain acts are committed “as part of widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.” These acts — which include rape, sexual slavery, and murder, among other offenses — differ from war crimes in that they do not require armed conflict and can occur in peaceful times, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The U.N. panel warned that some accusations contained in the documents released by the DOJ may meet that threshold.

The panel also addressed concerns that the Trump administration handled the files in a slipshod fashion, raising questions about transparency and unlawful redactions. Here is more from The Hill:

The Trump administration has been criticized for its handling of the investigation into Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, with critics arguing it has not been transparent in the batches of documents released.

Lawmakers who reviewed the unredacted Epstein files at a DOJ office over the past week reported heavy, “unnecessary” redactions in what they saw. Trump officials have maintained the redactions are meant to ensure victims’ identities are kept private.

The U.N. panel echoed concerns about “botched redactions” that exposed victims’ information in previous disclosures — a blunder the Trump administration blamed on “technical or human error” when it announced it had taken down the documents and images.

“The grave errors in the release process underscore the urgent need for victim-centered standard operating procedures for disclosure and redaction, so that no victim suffers further harm,” they wrote.

If the UN panel reaches a finding of crimes against humanity, how might that play out? For insight on that question, we turn to a report at UN.com focusing on the global human-rights issues the Epstein files present:

In a statement on Monday, the independent experts – who serve in their individual capacities under mandates from the UN Human Rights Council and are not UN staff – warned that the alleged acts documented in the files could amount to some of the gravest crimes under international law.

The reported conduct could amount to sexual slavery, reproductive violence, enforced disappearance, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, and femicide, according to the experts.

Under international criminal law, crimes against humanity occur when acts such as rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, trafficking, persecution, torture or murder are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.

The experts said the patterns reported in the files may meet this threshold and must be prosecuted in all competent national and international courts.

This suggests an array of tribunals, prosecutors and judges will handle the cases, based on jurisdictional principles outlined under international law. The UN report notes that Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell has been convicted of sex trafficking and other offenses and sentenced to a 20-year prison sentence. But the report also states, "Questions persist regarding the potential involvement of additional individuals, financial structures and possible transnational dimensions of the alleged criminal enterprise."

In other words, the UN intends to pursue issues that largely have been covered up by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under Donald Trump. 

Trump and his allies have essentially been begging the American public to "move on" from the Epstein files. But the UN appears to have no intention of following suit. From the report:

The experts hailed the courage and resilience of victims in seeking accountability at significant personal cost, stressing that under international human rights law, States are obligated to prevent, investigate and punish violence against women and girls, including acts committed by private actors. . . . 

“The failure to safeguard [victims'] privacy puts them at risk of retaliation and stigma,” the experts warned.

They further underscored that “resignations of implicated individuals alone are not an adequate substitute for criminal accountability,” welcoming steps by some governments to probe current and former officials and private individuals named in the files. They called on other States to do the same.

“Any suggestion that it is time to move on from the ‘Epstein files’ is unacceptable. It represents a failure of responsibility towards victims,” they said.

“It is imperative that governments act decisively to hold perpetrators accountable,” the experts said. “No one is too wealthy or too powerful to be above the law.”

Wednesday, February 18, 2026

Is Trump showing signs of mental shakiness after claiming he had "nothing to do" with Jeffrey Epstein and had been "totally exonerated" in the whole matter?


Trump addresses reporters on Air Force One (Reuters)

If you are among the many Americans who have been wondering about Donald Trump's mental health, you now have additional reasons to suspect the president has more than a few misfiring synapses inside his 79-year-old brain. As Trump flew back to Washington on Monday night after spending a holiday weekend at Mar-a-Lago, he stood before assembled reporters on Air Force One and proclaimed that he had "nothing to do" with the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and that he had been "totally exonerated" in the matter.

Assuming journalists consume the news while also creating it, those gathered before Trump likely knew he was lying on the first point. As for Trump's second point, about "exoneration" . . . well, those who gather the news often have experience covering court proceedings. That means Trump's words must have left them thinking, "The president of the United States has no idea what 'exoneration' means." 

Here is a primer on a word that often is used as a legal term, one with a specific meaning. This is from the website for the Capitol City Group of the Twin Cities in Minnesota:

The legal definition of exoneration is the official clearing of a person’s name from guilt or blame. It typically applies when a person has been convicted of a crime and later proven to be innocent. When a court sets aside a conviction, vacates a judgment, or dismisses all charges based on new evidence, that person is said to have been exonerated.

The Epstein files represent an ever-growing mountain of evidence that eventually could be used to charge Trump with some of the most heinous crimes imaginable -- the rape and murder of children, perhaps the financing or furtherance of Epstein's human-trafficking scheme. But at this point, Trump does not appear close to being charged. And with his own Department of Justice (DOJ) seemingly engaged in a cover-up -- as Hillary Clinton eloquently alleged on Tuesday -- the odds look slim that anyone in authority ever will have the stones to hold Trump accountable. 

Speaking of Mrs. Clinton, her words seemed to get under Trump's tissue-thin skin when relayed to him by reporters. A jointly published article by Mediaite and Yahoo! sets the scene under the headline "Trump Tells Reporters He Had 'Nothing To Do With Jeffrey Epstein' Amid New Accusations in Epstein Files; 'Totally Exonerated!' Tommy Christopher writes:

President Donald Trump claimed he “had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein” and is “totally exonerated” despite 38,000 mentions and new accusations in the Epstein Files.

Media and public attention has intensified since the latest release of Epstein files documents at the end of January. Among the 3 million pages were more than 5,300 documents mentioning Trump, including multiple claims of sexual misconduct against Trump in FBI documents.

One document contained an allegation that Trump and Jeffrey Epstein raped a girl together, from a witness who said he heard Trump brag about the crime. 

How did Trump go off the rails on the word "exoneration"? It happened mainly because a reporter pushed him on the issue, as Christopher sets out:

One reporter asked Trump about comments that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made in an interview with the BBC in which she said she and former President Bill Clinton were “pulled in” to divert attention from Trump.

The president responded by claiming the files “totally exonerated” him:

REPORTER: So Hillary Clinton said in an interview today that she and her husband are getting pulled into the Epstein matter to divert attention from you! And that your administration has something to hide. What’s your response?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I have nothing to hide! I’ve been exonerated! I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein.

They went in hoping that they’d find it and found just the opposite. I’ve been totally exonerated.

And in fact, Jeffrey Epstein was fighting that I don’t get elected with some author, a sleazebag, by the way. 

And I’ve been totally exonerated.

No, no, they’re getting pulled in. And that’s their problem. I don’t know. They’re gonna have to see what happens. But I watched her in Munich, and she seriously has Trump derangement syndrome.

REPORTER: You think that she should publicly testify? 

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You know, I’ve been totally exonerated on Epstein. And it’s really interesting because they’ve been pulled in.

Think of it. They’ve been pulled in. Clinton and many other Democrats have been pulled in.