The Epstein Rewind: The Upper Echelons Of The Big Apple Are Rotten To Their Core

Jeffrey Epstein was surrounded by people that helped him keep the enterprise chugging along but hardly anyone was as trusted as Richard Kahn. He was so trusted that he was made an executor of his will and he was trusted to go to Epstein's townhouse after his death and remove items. The question is...what did he remove and why would the authorities allow it?(commercial at 21:37)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7498903/Executor-Epsteins-estate-removed-bag-pedophiles-mansion-day-killed-himself.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein epitomizes the term Sexual predator. His disgusting behavior was never going to change and the authorities who were in charge of holding him responsible for his crimes should be ashamed of themselves. However, you'd have to actually have some personal humility for that to occur, and we all know that is not the case.In today's episode, we talk about a Russian woman who claims that Jeffrey Epstein raped her mere months before his second arrest.(commercial at 8:26)to contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2021/10/14/jeffrey-epstein-raped-russian-woman-months-before-his-arrest-suit/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

We take a journey back to 2015 in todays episode.In 2015 the world had moved on from Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes.So much so in fact the upper crust of society continued to associate with him.Today we take a look at what the picture showed us back then and we continue to ask the same question over and over...How did Epstein commit his crimes so brazenly out in the open??(commercial at 8:22)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/2015/02/06/sex-offender-who-mixes-princes-and-premiers-302877.html%3fampBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

When looking at what happened over the decades in regard to Jeffrey Epstein, it's very apparent that many, many people looked the other way while he was abusing and harming women and girls. Unfortunately, some of these people were those who we entrusted with upholding the law. Yet, instead of protecting the most vulnerable in society and society as a whole from Jeffrey Epstein, they protected Jeffrey Epstein from the consequences.(commercial at 7:58)to contact me:[email protected]:https://coastalnetwork.com/jeffrey-epstein-and-corruption-in-the-fbi-and-us-court-system/show lessBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In March 2025, Jay-Z filed a lawsuit against attorney Tony Buzbee, his colleague David Fortney, and their client, referred to as Jane Doe, alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and defamation. This legal action stems from a previous lawsuit filed in October 2024, in which Doe accused Jay-Z and Sean "Diddy" Combs of raping her at an MTV Video Music Awards afterparty in 2000, when she was 13 years old. Jay-Z's current lawsuit asserts that these allegations were knowingly false and malicious, intended to inflict maximum harm on his reputation and personal well-being.Jay-Z claims that Doe admitted to his representatives that the assault did not occur and that Buzbee pressured her to pursue the false narrative for financial gain. He alleges that these unfounded accusations have caused substantial harm, including the loss of contracts exceeding $20 million and significant emotional distress. In response, Buzbee maintains that the new lawsuit mirrors previous meritless claims and denies any attempts at intimidation, asserting that his client stands by her original allegations.to contact me:[email protected]:Jay-Z files lawsuit against former sexual assault accuser, her legal team | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent announcement regarding the FBI's delivery of a "truckload" of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents raises several concerns. The timing of this disclosure, following public disappointment over the initial release of largely redundant information, suggests a reactive rather than proactive approach to transparency. Bondi's claim that these documents were previously withheld by the FBI's New York office without clear justification further undermines confidence in the thoroughness and integrity of the investigationThe lack of new revelations in the earlier releases, coupled with the sudden appearance of these additional files, raises questions about the efficacy of the Justice Department's efforts to uncover the full extent of Epstein's network and activities. This situation highlights potential systemic issues within federal agencies regarding the handling and disclosure of critical evidence in high-profile cases.to contact me:[email protected]:Pam Bondi says 'truckload' of Epstein files have arrived from FBI, she plans to release 'as fast as we can' | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In Case 1:24-cv-08054-MKV, the defendants have filed a Memorandum of Law opposing the plaintiff's amended motion for the pro hac vice admission of attorney Anthony Buzbee. Pro hac vice admission allows an out-of-state lawyer to participate in a specific case in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed to practice regularly. The defendants argue that Buzbee's admission should be denied due to concerns about his prior professional conduct, which they believe could negatively impact the proceedings. They emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of the court and ensuring that all participating attorneys adhere to the highest ethical standards.Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that Buzbee's involvement is necessary for their case, especially considering the availability of other qualified counsel who are already licensed in the jurisdiction. They assert that granting the motion could set a concerning precedent, potentially allowing attorneys with questionable conduct records to participate in cases without proper scrutiny. The memorandum concludes by urging the court to carefully consider these factors and deny the amended motion for Buzbee's pro hac vice admission to uphold the court's standards and ensure a fair trial.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In Case 1:24-cv-08054-MKV, the defendants have filed a Memorandum of Law opposing the plaintiff's amended motion for the pro hac vice admission of attorney Anthony Buzbee. Pro hac vice admission allows an out-of-state lawyer to participate in a specific case in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed to practice regularly. The defendants argue that Buzbee's admission should be denied due to concerns about his prior professional conduct, which they believe could negatively impact the proceedings. They emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of the court and ensuring that all participating attorneys adhere to the highest ethical standards.Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that Buzbee's involvement is necessary for their case, especially considering the availability of other qualified counsel who are already licensed in the jurisdiction. They assert that granting the motion could set a concerning precedent, potentially allowing attorneys with questionable conduct records to participate in cases without proper scrutiny. The memorandum concludes by urging the court to carefully consider these factors and deny the amended motion for Buzbee's pro hac vice admission to uphold the court's standards and ensure a fair trial.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In Case 1:24-cv-08054-MKV, the defendants have filed a Memorandum of Law opposing the plaintiff's amended motion for the pro hac vice admission of attorney Anthony Buzbee. Pro hac vice admission allows an out-of-state lawyer to participate in a specific case in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed to practice regularly. The defendants argue that Buzbee's admission should be denied due to concerns about his prior professional conduct, which they believe could negatively impact the proceedings. They emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of the court and ensuring that all participating attorneys adhere to the highest ethical standards.Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that Buzbee's involvement is necessary for their case, especially considering the availability of other qualified counsel who are already licensed in the jurisdiction. They assert that granting the motion could set a concerning precedent, potentially allowing attorneys with questionable conduct records to participate in cases without proper scrutiny. The memorandum concludes by urging the court to carefully consider these factors and deny the amended motion for Buzbee's pro hac vice admission to uphold the court's standards and ensure a fair trial.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In December 2021, Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Donald W. Hafele denied The Palm Beach Post's request to release the 2006 grand jury transcripts related to Jeffrey Epstein's case, citing legal constraints on disclosing such materials. This decision was met with criticism from those advocating for transparency, as the grand jury's proceedings had resulted in Epstein facing minimal charges despite substantial evidence of his involvement in sexual misconduct with minors.However, in May 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned Judge Hafele's ruling, stating that he possessed the authority to release the transcripts if it served the "furtherance of justice." The appellate court directed Judge Hafele to review the transcripts and determine which portions could be disclosed, emphasizing the public's interest in understanding the judicial processes that led to Epstein's lenient plea deal. This development underscored ongoing concerns about potential systemic failures and preferential treatment within the justice system regarding Epstein's case.The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) played a crucial role in exposing the injustices surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s sweetheart deal in 2008. Under federal law, the CVRA mandates that victims be informed of and allowed to participate in plea agreements, yet Epstein’s victims were deliberately kept in the dark when then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta brokered a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) granting Epstein immunity from federal charges. The secretive deal, which also shielded his co-conspirators, was exposed years later when victims sued under the CVRA, arguing that their rights had been violated. In 2019, a federal judge ruled that prosecutors had indeed violated the CVRA by failing to notify the victims, but no legal remedy was provided. This blatant disregard for victims’ rights reinforced public skepticism about how Epstein’s wealth and connections influenced the justice system, fueling demands for greater transparency and accountability in high-profile criminal cases.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.