Red-light cameras in Ontario have been catching civilians for years, but some police officers who rush to emergencies say they’re unfairly being penalized by the same technology.

Under Ontario's Highway Traffic Act, police are allowed to go through a red light, with lights and sirens activated, after coming to a stop and when it’s safe to do so.

There have been instances in other parts of Canada when first responders were found to be responsible for causing a crash while going through a red light.

For instance, in 2024, a Winnipeg police officer pleaded guilty after causing a two-vehicle crash at an intersection when responding to an emergency.

Rice said there are forms of accountability that officers face when that happens — including internal reviews, and scrutiny by Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit and the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.

“That’s the goal of it. The officer has to come up [to the intersection] — they use discretion and judgment,” said Rice.

emails released by the US Justice Department as part of its Epstein Files disclosures reveal that Jeffrey Epstein emailed Gavin Andresen two days prior to Andresen visiting the CIA headquarters to discuss Bitcoin in June 2011.

Andresen was the successor to Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin. Nakamoto personally chose Andresen to be the lead maintainer of Bitcoin development and gave him Commit key access.

The newly disclosed sequence of events is remarkably coincidental.

Nakamoto retired on April 26, 2011, one day before Andresen announced that he was going to speak about Bitcoin at the CIA headquarters in June.

Although Nakamoto never blamed Andresen’s decision for prompting his retirement, there’s widespread speculation that he was unhappy about Andresen attracting government attention to Bitcoin development.

Despite Nakamoto’s resignation, Andresen followed-through on his controversial April promise, speaking at the CIA headquarters on June 14, 2011 to discuss Bitcoin.

The week before, on June 6, tech reporter and socialite Jason Calacanis responded to an email from Epstein, promising to send along Andresen’s contact information.

“I would like to get in touch with the Bitcoin guys,” Epstein emailed Calacanis eight days before Andresen’s CIA meeting.

cross-posted from: sh.itjust.works/post/54622575

emails released by the US Justice Department as part of its Epstein Files disclosures reveal that Jeffrey Epstein emailed Gavin Andresen two days prior to Andresen visiting the CIA headquarters to discuss Bitcoin in June 2011.

Andresen was the successor to Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin. Nakamoto personally chose Andresen to be the lead maintainer of Bitcoin development and gave him Commit key access.

The newly disclosed sequence of events is remarkably coincidental.

Nakamoto retired on April 26, 2011, one day before Andresen announced that he was going to speak about Bitcoin at the CIA headquarters in June.

Although Nakamoto never blamed Andresen’s decision for prompting his retirement, there’s widespread speculation that he was unhappy about Andresen attracting government attention to Bitcoin development.

Despite Nakamoto’s resignation, Andresen followed-through on his controversial April promise, speaking at the CIA headquarters on June 14, 2011 to discuss Bitcoin.

The week before, on June 6, tech reporter and socialite Jason Calacanis responded to an email from Epstein, promising to send along Andresen’s contact information.

“I would like to get in touch with the Bitcoin guys,” Epstein emailed Calacanis eight days before Andresen’s CIA meeting.

Basic Glitch

2026-02-03 03:46:12

New Epstein files reveal contact with Bitcoin dev Andresen before CIA briefing

emails released by the US Justice Department as part of its Epstein Files disclosures reveal that Jeffrey Epstein emailed Gavin Andresen two days prior to Andresen visiting the CIA headquarters to discuss Bitcoin in June 2011.

Andresen was the successor to Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin. Nakamoto personally chose Andresen to be the lead maintainer of Bitcoin development and gave him Commit key access.

The newly disclosed sequence of events is remarkably coincidental.

Nakamoto retired on April 26, 2011, one day before Andresen announced that he was going to speak about Bitcoin at the CIA headquarters in June.

Although Nakamoto never blamed Andresen’s decision for prompting his retirement, there’s widespread speculation that he was unhappy about Andresen attracting government attention to Bitcoin development.

Despite Nakamoto’s resignation, Andresen followed-through on his controversial April promise, speaking at the CIA headquarters on June 14, 2011 to discuss Bitcoin.

The week before, on June 6, tech reporter and socialite Jason Calacanis responded to an email from Epstein, promising to send along Andresen’s contact information.

“I would like to get in touch with the Bitcoin guys,” Epstein emailed Calacanis eight days before Andresen’s CIA meeting.

New Epstein files reveal contact with Bitcoin dev Andresen before CIA briefing

Two days before Gavin Andresen’s controversial decision to discuss Bitcoin at the CIA, Jeffrey Epstein wanted to call him.

^{Aaron Wise (Protos)}

Between 2022 and 2023,” Professor Schwarz reported, U.S. federal contracts for military AI “nearly tripled, with a potential increase in the value of these contracts by 1,200 percent.”

According to J.P. Morgan, VC investment in military and aerospace companies amounted to $48 billion in 2024, and “Through the first half of 2025, venture investments into U.S.-based defense tech startups totaledroughly $38 billion and could very well exceed the 2021 peak ($55 billion) should the pace of investing remain constant through the end of the year.”

Profiting From Israel’s Genocide
Many of the largest VCs that are funding cutting edge AI weapons development for the Pentagon — such as Founders Fund, Andreessen Horowitz, Lux Capital, General Catalyst, Hercules Capital, Shield Capital, and Sequoia Capital — are also investing in Israeli high-tech firms, thus profiting from Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

These investments are being made in spite of pleas by Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, that all governments and corporations “completely abstain from, or end, their relationship with this [Israeli] economy of the occupation, especially as it has transformed into an economy of genocide.”

The latest release of documents connected to Jeffrey Epstein has reignited a familiar media ritual. Names circulate, while royals and celebrities dominate headlines. Moral outrage flows freely, and safely in directions that neatly avoid the structures of power.

Epstein – the unasked question

But beneath the spectacle lies a question that mainstream commentary continues to avoid, despite its growing inevitability:

Was Epstein operating as part of an intelligence-linked blackmail operation? And if so, for whom?

This is not a conspiracy theory, but a legitimate question that the files themselves provoke.

Epstein’s death in 2019, officially ruled a suicide but shrouded in conspiracy, left a trail of unanswered questions. The financier’s rise from humble Brooklyn teacher to billionaire was always suspicious.

How did a man with no clear business acumen amass such wealth? Epstein’s partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of media tycoon Robert Maxwell, a confirmed Mossad asset who died under mysterious circumstances in 1991, provides the smoking gun. Multiple Israeli prime ministers attended Robert Maxwell’s funeral, with Shimon Peres delivering the eulogy.

‘Honeytrap’

Former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe has alleged Epstein and Maxwell ran a “honeytrap” operation for Mossad, luring elites into compromising situations to extract favours or silence. This is no conspiracy theory; it is echoed by Steven Hoffberg, Epstein’s former business partner, who alleged Epstein frequently flaunted his Mossad connections.

Survivor Maria Farmer described the network as a “Jewish supremacist” blackmail ring linked to the Mega group, a cabal of pro-Israel billionaires including Les Wexner, who gifted Epstein his Manhattan mansion.

Epstein held multiple passports (a spy’s toolkit) and reportedly fled to Israel after his first charges in 2008 before securing an extraordinary non-prosecution agreement that allowed him to continue operating freely.

It is also worth noting that Israel has long been a legal and jurisdictional refuge for sexual predators, particularly where extradition would expose intelligence, financial or diplomatic sensitivities.

Israel’s intelligence services, including Mossad, operate globally and extrajudicially by design. Like all major intelligence services, they cultivate leverage, assets and influence networks beyond formal diplomatic channels. Sexual blackmail has been widely documented as one such method across intelligence history, from the Cold War to present.

What distinguishes the Epstein case is not the abstract possibility of intelligence involvement, but the patterned convergence of factors: unexplained wealth, elite access, transnational mobility, institutional protection and repeated investigative shutdowns. These are not the characteristics of a ‘lone wolf’, but of a pernicious foreign influence over celebrities, politicians, bankers and media moguls.

Recent revelations

The most recently released files only amplify these suspicions. An FBI report from a confidential source claims “Trump has been compromised by Israel,” citing leverage through Jared Kushner and Alan Dershowitz. Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre accused Dershowitz, a staunch defender of Israel, of involvement, though she later retracted her statement amid legal pressure.

The scale of Epstein’s reach is difficult to dismiss as coincidence. Across politics, finance, media and celebrity culture, the same names, or at least the same circles, recur with unsettling regularity.

In politics, the record is already public. Former US president Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s private jet numerous times, a fact acknowledged but persistently minimised. Donald Trump, for his part, publicly described Epstein as a “terrific guy” who enjoyed the company of “beautiful women… on the younger side”. While these statements are not crimes on their own, they are indicators of proximity.

Media power was no less entangled. Senior figures from major broadcasting and publishing empires, from former CBS chief Les Moonves to media baron Rupert Murdoch, surface repeatedly in the documents and testimonies, either through social proximity, shared intermediaries, or financial overlap.

Epstein did not merely socialise with media elites; he embedded himself within institutions capable of shaping coverage, suppressing stories, and disciplining dissent. When journalists attempted to pursue the story aggressively, they encountered legal pressure, editorial resistance, or sudden loss of access.

Hiding in plain sight

Celebrity culture played a complementary role. High-profile figures moved through Epstein’s orbit not necessarily as conspirators, but as legitimising assets. Fame provided cover, glamour, and normalisation.

The presence of globally recognisable names diluted suspicion, transforming what should have been alarming access into social banality. Ironically, it was over-exposure that provided the perfect cover for Epstein’s crimes, rather than secrecy.

Flight logs and visitor records name Hollywood stars like Leonardo DiCaprio, Naomi Campbell, and Kevin Spacey, alongside tech titans such as Bill Gates. While some deny involvement in illicit activities, their proximity to Epstein’s web implies potential leverage over public influencers who mould cultural discourse.

Similarly, major institutions including JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank continued to service Epstein long after everyone knew his criminal record. Internal compliance failures have since been acknowledged, but the broader question remains unanswered: how did a convicted sex offender retain access to the global banking system at the highest level? Who judged the risk acceptable – and why?

Geopolitical leverage

Further evidence of Mossad’s fingerprints emerges in Epstein’s dealings with international crises. Emails from July 2011, just a month before Muammar Gaddafi’s fall, show Epstein and associate Greg Brown plotting to recover up to $80bn in frozen Libyan funds, assets deemed sovereign, stolen, or misappropriated by Western powers.

Brown believed the true amount could be four times higher, reaching $320bn. Their scheme involved leveraging MI6 and Mossad agents to extort concessions from postwar Libya, still assumed under Gaddafi’s control, in exchange for returning the funds for “reconstruction”.

This wasn’t mere opportunism; it points to Epstein’s role in geopolitical manoeuvring, using intelligence networks for financial and strategic gains aligned with Israeli interests.

The real Epstein scandal

The conclusion, then, is not a lurid morality tale about “bad people doing bad things,” nor the tired revelation that royals, celebrities, or billionaires behave with impunity. That much is already obvious. Child abusers exist across every class and every society. What does not exist everywhere is a system that records, archives, weaponises, and protects that abuse for strategic ends.

The Epstein case points not to isolated depravity, but to structured leverage: an architecture of blackmail in which sexual crimes become instruments of power rather than grounds for prosecution. That is why the fixation on individual scandal – princes, parties, and gossip – functions as misdirection.

The real scandal is the evidence of an intelligence-linked operation in which Mossad repeatedly appears as a point of reference, protection, and utility; an operation that embedded itself across politics, finance, media, and celebrity culture.

Not all abusers are documented and not all are shielded. And not all become untouchable.

Epstein did because he was useful. Until this is discussed in those terms, as a question of foreign influence, the story will remain trapped in spectacle, and the system it exposes will remain intact.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rares Cocilnau

From Canary via This RSS Feed.

But beneath the spectacle lies a question that mainstream commentary continues to avoid, despite its growing inevitability: Was Epstein operating as part of an intelligence-linked blackmail operation? And if so, for whom? This is not a conspiracy theory, but a legitimate question that the files themselves provoke.

Crosspost from news.abolish.capital/post/2475…

rss

2026-02-03 01:22:13

Epstein, Mossad, and the question we are not allowed to ask but must do

The latest release of documents connected to Jeffrey Epstein has reignited a familiar media ritual. Names circulate, while royals and celebrities dominate headlines. Moral outrage flows freely, and safely in directions that neatly avoid the structures of power.

Epstein – the unasked question

But beneath the spectacle lies a question that mainstream commentary continues to avoid, despite its growing inevitability:

Was Epstein operating as part of an intelligence-linked blackmail operation? And if so, for whom?

This is not a conspiracy theory, but a legitimate question that the files themselves provoke.

Epstein’s death in 2019, officially ruled a suicide but shrouded in conspiracy, left a trail of unanswered questions. The financier’s rise from humble Brooklyn teacher to billionaire was always suspicious.

How did a man with no clear business acumen amass such wealth? Epstein’s partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of media tycoon Robert Maxwell, a confirmed Mossad asset who died under mysterious circumstances in 1991, provides the smoking gun. Multiple Israeli prime ministers attended Robert Maxwell’s funeral, with Shimon Peres delivering the eulogy.

‘Honeytrap’

Former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe has alleged Epstein and Maxwell ran a “honeytrap” operation for Mossad, luring elites into compromising situations to extract favours or silence. This is no conspiracy theory; it is echoed by Steven Hoffberg, Epstein’s former business partner, who alleged Epstein frequently flaunted his Mossad connections.

Survivor Maria Farmer described the network as a “Jewish supremacist” blackmail ring linked to the Mega group, a cabal of pro-Israel billionaires including Les Wexner, who gifted Epstein his Manhattan mansion.

Epstein held multiple passports (a spy’s toolkit) and reportedly fled to Israel after his first charges in 2008 before securing an extraordinary non-prosecution agreement that allowed him to continue operating freely.

It is also worth noting that Israel has long been a legal and jurisdictional refuge for sexual predators, particularly where extradition would expose intelligence, financial or diplomatic sensitivities.

Israel’s intelligence services, including Mossad, operate globally and extrajudicially by design. Like all major intelligence services, they cultivate leverage, assets and influence networks beyond formal diplomatic channels. Sexual blackmail has been widely documented as one such method across intelligence history, from the Cold War to present.

What distinguishes the Epstein case is not the abstract possibility of intelligence involvement, but the patterned convergence of factors: unexplained wealth, elite access, transnational mobility, institutional protection and repeated investigative shutdowns. These are not the characteristics of a ‘lone wolf’, but of a pernicious foreign influence over celebrities, politicians, bankers and media moguls.

Recent revelations

The most recently released files only amplify these suspicions. An FBI report from a confidential source claims “Trump has been compromised by Israel,” citing leverage through Jared Kushner and Alan Dershowitz. Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre accused Dershowitz, a staunch defender of Israel, of involvement, though she later retracted her statement amid legal pressure.

The scale of Epstein’s reach is difficult to dismiss as coincidence. Across politics, finance, media and celebrity culture, the same names, or at least the same circles, recur with unsettling regularity.

In politics, the record is already public. Former US president Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s private jet numerous times, a fact acknowledged but persistently minimised. Donald Trump, for his part, publicly described Epstein as a “terrific guy” who enjoyed the company of “beautiful women… on the younger side”. While these statements are not crimes on their own, they are indicators of proximity.

Media power was no less entangled. Senior figures from major broadcasting and publishing empires, from former CBS chief Les Moonves to media baron Rupert Murdoch, surface repeatedly in the documents and testimonies, either through social proximity, shared intermediaries, or financial overlap.

Epstein did not merely socialise with media elites; he embedded himself within institutions capable of shaping coverage, suppressing stories, and disciplining dissent. When journalists attempted to pursue the story aggressively, they encountered legal pressure, editorial resistance, or sudden loss of access.

Hiding in plain sight

Celebrity culture played a complementary role. High-profile figures moved through Epstein’s orbit not necessarily as conspirators, but as legitimising assets. Fame provided cover, glamour, and normalisation.

The presence of globally recognisable names diluted suspicion, transforming what should have been alarming access into social banality. Ironically, it was over-exposure that provided the perfect cover for Epstein’s crimes, rather than secrecy.

Flight logs and visitor records name Hollywood stars like Leonardo DiCaprio, Naomi Campbell, and Kevin Spacey, alongside tech titans such as Bill Gates. While some deny involvement in illicit activities, their proximity to Epstein’s web implies potential leverage over public influencers who mould cultural discourse.

Similarly, major institutions including JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank continued to service Epstein long after everyone knew his criminal record. Internal compliance failures have since been acknowledged, but the broader question remains unanswered: how did a convicted sex offender retain access to the global banking system at the highest level? Who judged the risk acceptable – and why?

Geopolitical leverage

Further evidence of Mossad’s fingerprints emerges in Epstein’s dealings with international crises. Emails from July 2011, just a month before Muammar Gaddafi’s fall, show Epstein and associate Greg Brown plotting to recover up to $80bn in frozen Libyan funds, assets deemed sovereign, stolen, or misappropriated by Western powers.

Brown believed the true amount could be four times higher, reaching $320bn. Their scheme involved leveraging MI6 and Mossad agents to extort concessions from postwar Libya, still assumed under Gaddafi’s control, in exchange for returning the funds for “reconstruction”.

This wasn’t mere opportunism; it points to Epstein’s role in geopolitical manoeuvring, using intelligence networks for financial and strategic gains aligned with Israeli interests.

The real Epstein scandal

The conclusion, then, is not a lurid morality tale about “bad people doing bad things,” nor the tired revelation that royals, celebrities, or billionaires behave with impunity. That much is already obvious. Child abusers exist across every class and every society. What does not exist everywhere is a system that records, archives, weaponises, and protects that abuse for strategic ends.

The Epstein case points not to isolated depravity, but to structured leverage: an architecture of blackmail in which sexual crimes become instruments of power rather than grounds for prosecution. That is why the fixation on individual scandal – princes, parties, and gossip – functions as misdirection.

The real scandal is the evidence of an intelligence-linked operation in which Mossad repeatedly appears as a point of reference, protection, and utility; an operation that embedded itself across politics, finance, media, and celebrity culture.

Not all abusers are documented and not all are shielded. And not all become untouchable.

Epstein did because he was useful. Until this is discussed in those terms, as a question of foreign influence, the story will remain trapped in spectacle, and the system it exposes will remain intact.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rares Cocilnau

---

From Canary via This RSS Feed.

Rares Cocilnau, Author at Canary

Articles by Rares Cocilnau for Canary

^{Rares Cocilnau (The Canary)}