Epstein Rewind: Why Did the Financial Sector Continue Doing Business With Jeffrey Epstein ?

In Jane Doe et al. v. Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands et al., 23-cv-10301, Cecile de Jongh's legal counsel has requested an informal conference to discuss staying depositions. This request is made pursuant to Local Rule 37.2 and Rule 5 of the Court's Individual Practices. The proposed stay would delay depositions until 30 days after the Court rules on the pending motions to dismiss. The argument emphasizes the importance of resolving these motions first to prevent unnecessary or premature discovery efforts.Ms. de Jongh's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 122) raises issues that mirror a previous case, Bensky v. Indyke, in which the Court granted a motion to dismiss. In that case, the Court ruled that certain claims lacked sufficient legal basis, and the defense argues this precedent strongly supports their position in the current matter. Given the similarity of legal questions and the Court’s prior ruling, the request highlights the prudence of staying depositions to ensure judicial efficiency and avoid unnecessary burdens on the parties involved.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Recent allegations have surfaced against Sean "Diddy" Combs, claiming he employed individuals to recruit young women for intimate encounters at his parties. At a 2004 White Party in the Hamptons, men allegedly approached female attendees, suggesting it was an honor to spend private time with Combs. One woman, identified as Lisa, recounted being propositioned but declined, perceiving the true nature of the request. Another attendee accepted and later regretted the experience.These claims align with statements from former employee Phillip Pines, who alleges he was responsible for organizing and cleaning up after Combs's "Wild King Nights" between 2019 and 2021. Pines asserts he was tasked with procuring supplies for these events and is currently suing Combs for sexual battery, harassment, and trafficking. Combs faces multiple legal challenges, including criminal charges of racketeering and sex trafficking, which he denies.In the case Doe v. Combs et al., No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, defendant Shawn Carter (professionally known as Jay-Z) filed a motion on December 9, 2024, seeking to expedite a hearing concerning the plaintiff's request to proceed anonymously. The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe, alleges that Carter and co-defendant Sean Combs sexually assaulted her in 2000 when she was 13 years old. Carter's motion argues that allowing the plaintiff to remain anonymous hampers his ability to mount an effective defense and that public interest favors disclosure of all parties' identities in legal proceedings.Carter's legal team contends that the allegations are baseless and part of a calculated attempt to tarnish his reputation. They emphasize the need for an expedited hearing to address the anonymity issue promptly, citing the significant media attention and potential harm to Carter's personal and professional life. The court has yet to rule on the motion to expedite or the underlying request concerning the plaintiff's anonymity.In our next segment...In a letter to the court dated December 30, 2024, Plaintiff Jane Doe's legal team responded to Defendant Shawn Carter's request to file a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (FAC) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Carter's request argues that the FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff's counsel maintains that the FAC sufficiently alleges detailed and substantiated claims of sexual assault and other misconduct, asserting that Carter's motion to dismiss is without merit and should not proceed.Jane Doe's legal team emphasizes that the FAC meets the required pleading standards and provides a robust factual basis to sustain the claims. They argue that the dismissal motion is an attempt to delay the proceedings and detract from the core allegations. The plaintiff's response underscores the importance of moving forward with the case to ensure that Jane Doe's claims are addressed promptly and fairly in court. The court will consider the parties' submissions in determining whether to grant Carter leave to file the motion.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Legal expert Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, has analyzed Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense strategy amid his serious legal challenges. Rahmani emphasizes that Combs' primary defense hinges on demonstrating that all sexual encounters were consensual. Given that the allegations involve adults, establishing consent is crucial to countering charges of sex trafficking and related offenses. Rahmani notes, "The only chance he has of winning this case is if witnesses testify and jurors believe that it was consensual."However, Rahmani acknowledges the significant obstacles Combs faces in this defense. The prosecution reportedly possesses substantial evidence, including video recordings of the alleged incidents, which could corroborate the accusers' claims and challenge the consent argument. Rahmani points out that such evidence is compelling, stating, "Witnesses can lie but a video never lies."This suggests that overcoming the prosecution's case will be challenging, as the available evidence may undermine the defense's assertions of consensual interactions.In this episode, we hear from Mr. Rahmani as we continue to navigate our way through the case against Diddy.  (commercial at 9:01)to contact me:[email protected]:Diddy claims feds took attorney-client privileged documents from jail | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Sinaloa Cartel has established a vast international presence, extending its operations far beyond its origins in Mexico. In the United States, the cartel has entrenched itself in numerous cities, utilizing sophisticated distribution networks to supply narcotics such as fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin. The cartel's influence is particularly pronounced in border states like California, Arizona, and Texas, but its reach extends nationwide, contributing significantly to the opioid crisis. Beyond the U.S., the Sinaloa Cartel has expanded into Canada, Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, Africa, and the Middle East, establishing a global footprint in the illicit drug trade.The cartel's international expansion is facilitated through strategic alliances with various criminal organizations worldwide. In Colombia, partnerships with paramilitary groups such as the Clan del Golfo enable the production and trafficking of cocaine. In Europe, collaborations with entities like the 'Ndrangheta in Italy and the Kinahan Organized Crime Group in Ireland have been reported. The cartel also engages with Chinese triads, including Sun Yee On and the 14K Triad, to procure precursor chemicals necessary for synthetic drug production, particularly fentanyl and methamphetamine. These global alliances have allowed the Sinaloa Cartel to diversify its operations and solidify its position as one of the world's most powerful and far-reaching drug trafficking organizations.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein and his relationship with Bill Gates is well documented by now and every new confirmed crumb that we get adds to the fact that Bill Gates has done nothing but tell fantastical stories when it comes to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. In this epsiode we dive into an article from Vice discussing Epstein and Gates and why Bill Gates still needs to answer questions.(commercial at 10:11)to contact me:[email protected]:What We Know—and Don't Know—About Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein (vice.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The moronity of Prince Andrew is the stuff of legend at this point, and he just continues to build on that foundation of stupidity by the day. When Prince Andrew was originally nailed for hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein, after the picture of the two emerged during a walk in central park, the Joe Exotic of the Windsor family told us that he was only there to do the honorable thing: Break up with his bff in person. At the time, we called it BS.Breaking news:It's still a load of manure. In this episode, we hear how Prince Andrew was trying to get Jeffrey Epstein involved in a 200 million dollar scheme to fund an energy company while he was supposed to be "breaking up" with Epstein.(commercial at 7:42)to contact me:[email protected]:Court documents reveal Prince Andrew asked Jeffrey Epstein for help over $200million oil deal | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

As the lawsuit filed by the USVI continues to grow, we are learning more and more about the allegations that they are making and those allegations are damning for JP Morgan if verified. According to new reports, executives at JP Morgan well fully aware of who and what Jeffrey Epstein was, and even made jokes in emails about him and Miley Cyrus (who was on Hannah Montana at the time.) This runs directly head on into the narrative that JP Morgan has been trying to pitch where they, instead have blamed Jes Staley. The trial is set to begin on October 23rd.(commercial at 7:14)to contact me:[email protected]:JP Morgan execs were familiar with Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of young girls, new lawsuit claims | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein, a financier and convicted sex offender who died in 2019, had a relationship with JP Morgan, one of the largest and most well-known financial institutions in the world. This relationship primarily revolved around Epstein's financial dealings, investments, and banking activities.Epstein had established connections with various individuals in the financial and business sectors, and he managed investments for wealthy clients. His association with JP Morgan reportedly involved managing funds for some of the bank's clients, as well as utilizing the bank's services for his own financial activities. Now, even from the grave, Jeffrey Epstein is haunting those who counted him as friend or associate. In this episode, we dive into the relationship between Sergey Bryn and Jeffrey Epstein and how that led to Bryn being onboarded as a client at JP Morgan.(commercial at 8:11)to contact me:[email protected]:JPMorgan catered to Epstein as Google account advisor: court docs (nypost.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Government has submitted a brief response to the defendant’s letter dated January 24, 2025 (Dkt. No. 135), which contains new and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. The defendant's claims are based on declarations filed by the Government and the Bureau of Prisons in response to the Court’s January 3, 2025 Order. These declarations, referenced as Dkt. No. 123, Dkt. No. 131-1 (“Pros. Team Decl.”), and Dkt. No. 131-2 (“Investigator-1 Decl.”), were submitted to address specific inquiries from the Court.In its response, the Government maintains that the defendant's allegations lack factual support and do not accurately reflect the content of the submitted declarations. The Government emphasizes that its filings were made in compliance with the Court’s directives and that the assertions of misconduct raised by the defense are without merit. The response seeks to clarify the record and ensure that the proceedings remain focused on the legal and evidentiary issues at hand.AlsoThe Government has submitted a response opposing the defendant’s motion to modify the terms of the Protective Order, which seeks to require the electronic production of specific videos referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the Indictment (Dkt. 129). The Government argues that the Court should deny this request, as the sensitive nature of these videos justifies their current designation under the Protective Order, which allows only for in-person inspection. The Government asserts that the existing restrictions are necessary to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the evidence.Additionally, the Government highlights the defendant’s alleged violation of the Protective Order by improperly disclosing details of the videos in his motion without the required redactions. This breach, according to the Government, further supports the need for strict safeguards regarding the handling of these materials. The response emphasizes that allowing electronic production would increase the risk of unauthorized disclosure, making it essential to uphold the current protective measures.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.138.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.136.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Government has submitted a brief response to the defendant’s letter dated January 24, 2025 (Dkt. No. 135), which contains new and unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. The defendant's claims are based on declarations filed by the Government and the Bureau of Prisons in response to the Court’s January 3, 2025 Order. These declarations, referenced as Dkt. No. 123, Dkt. No. 131-1 (“Pros. Team Decl.”), and Dkt. No. 131-2 (“Investigator-1 Decl.”), were submitted to address specific inquiries from the Court.In its response, the Government maintains that the defendant's allegations lack factual support and do not accurately reflect the content of the submitted declarations. The Government emphasizes that its filings were made in compliance with the Court’s directives and that the assertions of misconduct raised by the defense are without merit. The response seeks to clarify the record and ensure that the proceedings remain focused on the legal and evidentiary issues at hand.AlsoThe Government has submitted a response opposing the defendant’s motion to modify the terms of the Protective Order, which seeks to require the electronic production of specific videos referenced in Paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c) of the Indictment (Dkt. 129). The Government argues that the Court should deny this request, as the sensitive nature of these videos justifies their current designation under the Protective Order, which allows only for in-person inspection. The Government asserts that the existing restrictions are necessary to protect the integrity and confidentiality of the evidence.Additionally, the Government highlights the defendant’s alleged violation of the Protective Order by improperly disclosing details of the videos in his motion without the required redactions. This breach, according to the Government, further supports the need for strict safeguards regarding the handling of these materials. The response emphasizes that allowing electronic production would increase the risk of unauthorized disclosure, making it essential to uphold the current protective measures.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.138.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.136.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.