Cassie Ventura Will Testify Against Diddy Using Her Real Name (4/8/25)

​Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegedly failing to comply with multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests concerning Jeffrey Epstein's associates and clients. The conservative watchdog group submitted four FOIA requests between February and March 2025 to various DOJ components, including the Office of Information Policy, the Criminal Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and the FBI. These requests sought records related to Epstein's activities and communications involving Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel regarding the handling and potential release of Epstein-related documents. Despite acknowledgments and assigned tracking numbers, Judicial Watch claims the DOJ has failed to provide the requested information or justify any withholdings, prompting the lawsuit filed on April 8, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.The lawsuit references a February 24, 2025, Fox News report in which Attorney General Bondi stated that Epstein's client list was "sitting on [her] desk." However, a subsequent DOJ document release on February 27, 2025, was criticized for lacking substantive revelations, as it primarily listed already known associates of Epstein. Judicial Watch argues that the DOJ's actions violate FOIA and hinder public transparency regarding Epstein's network. The organization seeks a court order compelling the DOJ to conduct thorough searches for responsive records, produce all non-exempt documents, and provide explanations for any withholdings. Additionally, Judicial Watch requests that the court enjoin the DOJ from further withholding non-exempt records and award attorney's fees and litigation costs incurred due to the DOJ's non-compliance.to contact me:[email protected]:DOJ allegedly violating FOIA over Jeffrey Epstein filesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In July 2020, 18-year-old Grant Solomon died under suspicious circumstances in Gallatin, Tennessee. According to his father, Aaron Solomon—a former Nashville news anchor—Grant was accidentally run over by his own truck in a parking lot. However, the official investigation was minimal, with no autopsy performed and no forensic analysis of the vehicle. Grant's mother, Angie, and sister, Gracie, have long alleged that Aaron was responsible for his death, citing inconsistencies in his account and a history of abuse. Gracie has publicly accused her father of sexual abuse, claims that were reportedly substantiated by child protective services. Despite these allegations, Aaron Solomon has not faced charges related to his son's death or the alleged abuse.I interviewed Angie Solomon in 2022, when she was still actively fighting for justice in the death of her son, Grant, and amplifying her daughter Gracie’s harrowing abuse allegations against Aaron Solomon. At the time, she struck me as a mother driven by heartbreak and righteous fury—a woman exhausted by a system she believed had abandoned her children. That’s why the recent news of her arrest in an alleged murder-for-hire plot is nothing short of shocking. These new revelations—claims that she tried to arrange Aaron’s killing to access a trust fund for Gracie—cast a jarring light on a story already drenched in tragedy. It's a stunning twist that complicates everything we thought we knew about the Solomon family’s painful and public fight for justice.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In July 2020, 18-year-old Grant Solomon died under suspicious circumstances in Gallatin, Tennessee. According to his father, Aaron Solomon—a former Nashville news anchor—Grant was accidentally run over by his own truck in a parking lot. However, the official investigation was minimal, with no autopsy performed and no forensic analysis of the vehicle. Grant's mother, Angie, and sister, Gracie, have long alleged that Aaron was responsible for his death, citing inconsistencies in his account and a history of abuse. Gracie has publicly accused her father of sexual abuse, claims that were reportedly substantiated by child protective services. Despite these allegations, Aaron Solomon has not faced charges related to his son's death or the alleged abuse.On April 11, 2025, Angie Solomon was arrested in Franklin, Tennessee, for allegedly attempting to hire a hitman to kill her ex-husband, Aaron. Authorities state that she met with an undercover officer posing as a hitman and provided vehicle registration as collateral, expressing that Aaron's death would grant their daughter access to a trust fund. Angie is currently held on a $500,000 bond. Supporters argue that this alleged act was driven by years of trauma and a perceived failure of the justice system to address the abuse and Grant's death. They emphasize that Angie's arrest should not overshadow the unresolved questions surrounding Grant's death and the allegations against Aaron Solomon.to contact me:[email protected]:TV anchor's ex-wife is arrested in murder-for-hire plot after hiring hitman to make him 'disappear' | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing, Sean Combs’s legal team reaffirms their argument to exclude evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b), which allow the introduction of prior sexual misconduct or other bad acts to show a defendant’s propensity or motive in certain cases. Combs’ attorneys argue that the plaintiff's attempt to introduce decades-old allegations and unrelated accusations from other individuals is highly prejudicial, lacks probative value, and would only serve to inflame the jury. They assert that these allegations are unsubstantiated, temporally remote, and bear no direct connection to the claims at issue in this specific case. They argue that the plaintiff is improperly attempting to create a pattern by stacking unrelated claims that would unfairly bias a jury.The reply also takes aim at the plaintiff’s justification for using Rule 404(b) evidence, stating that it’s being used to improperly suggest character conformity — the very use the rule is designed to prevent. Combs’ team emphasizes that allowing this evidence would undermine his right to a fair trial by distracting from the core facts of the case and creating a “trial within a trial” over the truthfulness of other claims. They argue the evidence should be excluded under Rule 403 as well, due to the overwhelming danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighing any alleged probative value. In conclusion, they urge the court to grant their motion and prevent the introduction of prior bad acts or sexual misconduct allegations under both Rule 413 and Rule 404(b).to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.216.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing, Sean Combs’s legal team reaffirms their argument to exclude evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b), which allow the introduction of prior sexual misconduct or other bad acts to show a defendant’s propensity or motive in certain cases. Combs’ attorneys argue that the plaintiff's attempt to introduce decades-old allegations and unrelated accusations from other individuals is highly prejudicial, lacks probative value, and would only serve to inflame the jury. They assert that these allegations are unsubstantiated, temporally remote, and bear no direct connection to the claims at issue in this specific case. They argue that the plaintiff is improperly attempting to create a pattern by stacking unrelated claims that would unfairly bias a jury.The reply also takes aim at the plaintiff’s justification for using Rule 404(b) evidence, stating that it’s being used to improperly suggest character conformity — the very use the rule is designed to prevent. Combs’ team emphasizes that allowing this evidence would undermine his right to a fair trial by distracting from the core facts of the case and creating a “trial within a trial” over the truthfulness of other claims. They argue the evidence should be excluded under Rule 403 as well, due to the overwhelming danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighing any alleged probative value. In conclusion, they urge the court to grant their motion and prevent the introduction of prior bad acts or sexual misconduct allegations under both Rule 413 and Rule 404(b).to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.216.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein’s victims as required by the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein’s high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government’s unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein’s lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein’s exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein’s abuse to continue for years.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein’s victims as required by the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein’s high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government’s unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein’s lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein’s exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein’s abuse to continue for years.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein’s victims as required by the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein’s high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government’s unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein’s lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein’s exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein’s abuse to continue for years.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein’s victims as required by the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein’s high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government’s unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein’s lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein’s exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein’s abuse to continue for years.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report examining the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida. The report found serious missteps and poor judgment by federal prosecutors, particularly then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, who ultimately approved the deal. The OIG concluded that while there was no evidence of criminal misconduct or corruption, prosecutors displayed a stunning lack of urgency, failed to properly notify Epstein’s victims as required by the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and sidelined a 53-page federal indictment in favor of a lenient plea deal that shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal prosecution. The report criticized the secretive nature of the NPA and found that Acosta gave “too much deference” to Epstein’s high-powered legal team.The report also exposed the government’s unusual willingness to cooperate with Epstein’s lawyers, including allowing them to essentially dictate the terms of the deal, such as minimizing public exposure and avoiding victim input. Despite mounting evidence of Epstein’s exploitation of dozens of underage girls, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prioritized avoiding litigation risks and potential political fallout over pursuing justice. Although the OIG did not recommend criminal charges against any of the involved officials, the findings fueled renewed calls for accountability and transparency in cases involving wealthy, well-connected defendants. The report paints a picture of a justice system that buckled under pressure from power and influence, enabling Epstein’s abuse to continue for years.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.