Secrets Of Little Saint James: John De Jongh And The Battle Over Jurisdiction (11/16/24)

Somehow the officials overseeing the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's first alleged attempted suicide decided that his cellmate, the man facing four homicides, had nothing to do with it and in fact is a hero for saving Epstein. As you can imagine, I have a few opinions on the matter.(commercial at 8:02)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/jeffrey-epstein-s-former-cellmate-cleared-wrongdoing-incident-preceded-his-n1043341Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case Does 1-6 vs. Gov. John de Jongh, Jr., et al., the defense counsel for Gov. John de Jongh, Jr. submitted a supplemental briefing in compliance with the court’s order to address topics discussed during a prior conference and highlight relevant cases or arguments raised by both parties. While primarily focusing on venue-related arguments, the defendant also joins and incorporates the arguments made by co-defendants in their respective submissions. The defense reiterates its position that the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) should be dismissed based on prior arguments made by the defendant and co-defendants.Should the SAC not be dismissed, including for reasons of improper venue, the defense asserts that the case should be transferred to the District of the Virgin Islands (D.V.I.), where it would be more appropriately handled. This submission underscores the defendant’s continued contention that venue and procedural grounds warrant dismissal or, alternatively, a transfer of the case.(commercial at 12:26)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.178.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case Richard v. Combs, et al., Case No. 24 Civ. 6848, the law firm representing defendants New Remote Productions Inc. and Remote Productions Inc. (collectively referred to as the “Remote Defendants”) has formally requested a pre-motion conference with Judge Failla. This conference is being sought in accordance with Section 4.A of the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, which outlines procedural requirements for such requests.The purpose of the conference is to address the Remote Defendants’ intent to file a motion to dismiss the complaint. By requesting this pre-motion conference, the Remote Defendants are signaling their position that the claims brought against them lack sufficient legal merit and should be dismissed prior to further proceedings.(commercial at 7:20)to contact me:[email protected]:Richard - Letter to Judge Failla requesting pre-motion conference for MTDBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Doe v. Combs (No. 1:24-cv-08054-MKV), the court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration regarding her request to proceed under a pseudonym. The plaintiff, alleging sexual assault by Sean Combs, initially sought to maintain anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the case. However, the court emphasized the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings and found that the plaintiff's concerns did not outweigh the public's right to open access.The court acknowledged the plaintiff's fears of potential harm but determined that these concerns were speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence. It noted that many plaintiffs in similar cases proceed under their real names without incident. Consequently, the court upheld its original decision, requiring the plaintiff to refile the complaint using her legal name to ensure fairness and uphold the principles of open justice.(commercial at 8:18)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.22.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Doe v. Combs (No. 1:24-cv-08054-MKV), the plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed a Memorandum of Law supporting her motion for reconsideration of the court's decision denying her request to proceed under a pseudonym. She also sought permission to file a supporting declaration under seal. The plaintiff argued that the court had overlooked critical factors, including the highly sensitive nature of the allegations and the potential for significant harm if her identity were disclosed. She emphasized that revealing her identity could lead to severe emotional distress and possible retaliation, given the prominence of the defendant, Sean Combs.Additionally, the plaintiff contended that allowing her to proceed anonymously would not prejudice the defendants and would serve the public interest by encouraging victims of sexual assault to come forward without fear of exposure. The request to file the declaration under seal was made to protect the confidentiality of detailed personal information pertinent to her motion.(commercial at 7:07)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.21.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (24-cr-542), Mr. Combs' defense team has filed a reply memorandum to bolster their request for an evidentiary hearing. They argue that government agents, particularly from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), have engaged in misconduct by leaking confidential grand jury materials and investigative information to the media. The defense contends that these leaks have led to prejudicial pre-trial publicity, undermining Mr. Combs' right to a fair trial. They cite specific instances, such as the public dissemination of a 2016 videotape from the Intercontinental Hotel in Los Angeles, which they allege was leaked by government agents to CNN.The defense requests the court to grant an evidentiary hearing to investigate these alleged leaks and to determine the extent of government misconduct. They also seek discovery of emails, documents, and records related to the leaks, a gag order to prevent further unauthorized disclosures, and suppression of any evidence obtained through these alleged violations. The defense emphasizes that without a hearing, the full scope of the abuse will remain unknown, and they urge the court to exercise its authority to prohibit such tactics that undermine a defendant's right to a fair trial.(comercial at 8:44)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628424.64.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (24-cr-542), Mr. Combs' defense team has filed a reply memorandum to bolster their request for an evidentiary hearing. They argue that government agents, particularly from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), have engaged in misconduct by leaking confidential grand jury materials and investigative information to the media. The defense contends that these leaks have led to prejudicial pre-trial publicity, undermining Mr. Combs' right to a fair trial. They cite specific instances, such as the public dissemination of a 2016 videotape from the Intercontinental Hotel in Los Angeles, which they allege was leaked by government agents to CNN.The defense requests the court to grant an evidentiary hearing to investigate these alleged leaks and to determine the extent of government misconduct. They also seek discovery of emails, documents, and records related to the leaks, a gag order to prevent further unauthorized disclosures, and suppression of any evidence obtained through these alleged violations. The defense emphasizes that without a hearing, the full scope of the abuse will remain unknown, and they urge the court to exercise its authority to prohibit such tactics that undermine a defendant's right to a fair trial.(comercial at 7:34)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628424.64.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

One of the most absurd parts about Jeffrey Epstein's alleged suicide in prison is the first alleged attempt. It is absolutely insane to think that all of the systems put in place to safeguard a high profile prisoner like Jeffrey Epstein all failed at the same time, but that is the narrative that we are expected to accept. Meanwhile, at the time of the alleged first suicide, Jeffrey Epstein was telling his lawayers and people close to him that he was assaulted by Tartaglione. Yet, without any video evidence or any evidence besides the word of Tartaglione, the facility cleared him of the assault. Now, years later, we still are not getting any information about the investigation as the federal government continues to stall. (commercial at 7:23)to contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2019/08/14/epstein-told-lawyers-that-cellmate-nicholas-tartaglione-roughed-him-up/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Today we dive back into the topic of Nicholas Tartaglione and the mystery surrounding why he was ever placed in a cell with Epstein in the first place.to contact me:[email protected](Commercial at 11:19)source:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.recordonline.com/news/20190924/prosecutors-detail-how-they-believe-tartaglione-killed-victims%3ftemplateBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein was a wealthy financier and convicted sex offender who became widely known for his alleged involvement in sex trafficking and sexual abuse of underage girls. The U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) played a significant role in the Epstein case due to Epstein's extensive connections and activities there.Here are some key points regarding Jeffrey Epstein and the USVI:Residence in the USVI: Epstein owned a private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands called Little Saint James, which he frequently visited and where some of his alleged criminal activities occurred. He also owned a larger neighboring island, Great Saint James.Alleged Crimes: Epstein was first investigated and charged in 2008 in Florida for operating a sex trafficking ring involving underage girls. He ultimately pleaded guilty to two state prostitution charges in a controversial plea deal that allowed him to serve just 13 months in jail and avoid federal charges. The leniency of this deal sparked outrage.Reopened Case in New York: In 2019, new charges were brought against Epstein in New York, alleging sex trafficking and conspiracy. Epstein was arrested in July 2019 and died by apparent suicide in his jail cell a month later while awaiting trial.USVI Lawsuits and Investigation: In January 2020, the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands filed a civil lawsuit against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. The suit alleged that Epstein had sexually abused and trafficked dozens of young women and girls on his private islands in the USVI for nearly two decades. This lawsuit aimed to seize Epstein's assets in the USVI to compensate victims.Compensation for Victims: The U.S. Virgin Islands established a fund to compensate victims of Epstein's alleged abuse who came forward in the USVI case. This was a separate effort from the compensation fund established in New York for Epstein's victims.Ongoing Investigations: While Epstein died before facing a federal trial, investigations into his alleged sex trafficking network and those who may have aided or abetted him continued. Several individuals associated with Epstein faced legal scrutiny.The case of Jeffrey Epstein and his connections to the U.S. Virgin Islands highlighted issues related to sex trafficking, the justice system, and the treatment of wealthy individuals accused of serious crimes. It also drew attention to the legal efforts to seek justice for Epstein's alleged victims and the complex legal proceedings surrounding his estate.After years of avoiding the spotlight, the USVI and it's politicians find themselves directly under it when it comes to their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and now calls are beginning to grow louder for a special counsel to be appointed in the USVI to get to the bottom of all of it. (commercial at 8:14)to contact me:[email protected]:Open Forum: Epstein Enablers in the USVI: Actions Speak So Much Louder than Words | St. Thomas Source (stthomassource.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.