The Epstein Rewind: Vicky Ward Hits Back At The New Yorker

On this edition of the Epstein Rewind, we continue our conversation about Vicky Ward and her now infamous 2003 Vanity Fair piece. The New Yorker had an article out that detailed the inaccuracies in Ward's reporting. Today, we take a look at her response to that article. (commercial at 26:09)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.thedailybeast.com/epstein-journalist-vicky-ward-hits-back-at-the-new-yorker-and-graydon-carterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:[email protected]:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docxBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Case No. 1:24-cv-07975-AT, Defendant Shawn Carter, professionally known as Jay-Z, has filed a Memorandum of Law supporting his motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Carter argues that the Plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary pleading standards required to proceed with the case. He contends that the complaint does not present concrete facts to substantiate the claims made against him, rendering the lawsuit legally deficient.Furthermore, Carter emphasizes that the Plaintiff's complaint is not only baseless but also frivolous, warranting dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. He asserts that the allegations are unfounded and appear to be an attempt to misuse the legal system, potentially causing unwarranted harm to his reputation. Carter's memorandum seeks both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions against the Plaintiff for filing a meritless lawsuit.to contact me:[email protected]:Microsoft Word - Motion to Dismiss FAC (SDNY) (15549242_8) (004).docxBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In July 2024, former adult entertainer Adria Sheri English filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging that between 2004 and 2009, he coerced her into engaging in sexual acts with guests at his exclusive parties, known as "Freak-Offs." English claims that Combs used his influence to force her into these non-consensual encounters, often compensating her with cash payments of up to $1,500. She also alleges that he employed intimidation tactics to ensure her compliance.English's lawsuit further accuses Combs of drugging party attendees and recording sexual activities for potential blackmail purposes. These allegations contribute to a series of legal challenges Combs is currently facing, including federal charges of sex trafficking and racketeering. Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges and denies any wrongdoing. If convicted, he could face life imprisonment.to contact me:[email protected]:Diddy 'forced me to have sex with multiple guests at Freak-Offs & paid me $1.5k in cash from his pocket,' ex-dancer says | The US SunBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In 2021, a $20 million sexual assault lawsuit was filed against both Trey Songz and Sean "Diddy" Combs by Jauhara Jeffries, who alleged that Songz assaulted her at a nightclub in 2018. While the primary focus was on Songz's actions, the inclusion of Diddy as a defendant hinted at a deeper, more systemic issue within the music industry. Jeffries claimed that Diddy, as the event's host, bore responsibility for the environment that enabled such misconduct. This case, though centered on Songz, subtly illuminated the pervasive culture of exploitation and the potential complicity of industry moguls like Diddy.At the time, the allegations against Diddy in the Jeffries lawsuit may have been overshadowed by the more direct accusations against Songz. However, in retrospect, this case foreshadowed the extensive legal troubles Diddy now faces. The lawsuit highlighted his alleged role in fostering environments where abuse could occur, a theme that has become central in the numerous charges currently levied against him, including sex trafficking and racketeering. The Jeffries case served as an early indicator of the allegations that Diddy's influence and parties were not just passive settings but active facilitators of misconduct, a narrative that has only gained traction with his subsequent legal challenges.to contact me:[email protected]:202010265.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In 2021, a $20 million sexual assault lawsuit was filed against both Trey Songz and Sean "Diddy" Combs by Jauhara Jeffries, who alleged that Songz assaulted her at a nightclub in 2018. While the primary focus was on Songz's actions, the inclusion of Diddy as a defendant hinted at a deeper, more systemic issue within the music industry. Jeffries claimed that Diddy, as the event's host, bore responsibility for the environment that enabled such misconduct. This case, though centered on Songz, subtly illuminated the pervasive culture of exploitation and the potential complicity of industry moguls like Diddy.At the time, the allegations against Diddy in the Jeffries lawsuit may have been overshadowed by the more direct accusations against Songz. However, in retrospect, this case foreshadowed the extensive legal troubles Diddy now faces. The lawsuit highlighted his alleged role in fostering environments where abuse could occur, a theme that has become central in the numerous charges currently levied against him, including sex trafficking and racketeering. The Jeffries case served as an early indicator of the allegations that Diddy's influence and parties were not just passive settings but active facilitators of misconduct, a narrative that has only gained traction with his subsequent legal challenges.to contact me:[email protected]:202010265.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell founded the TerraMar Project in 2012, presenting it as a nonprofit dedicated to ocean conservation. The organization gained prominence through Maxwell's speeches at venues like the United Nations and TEDx, and it showcased its commitment to advancing Sustainable Development Goals at the Clinton Global Initiative. However, despite its high-profile endorsements, TerraMar's financial records reveal minimal charitable activity; between 2012 and 2017, the organization distributed no grant money and incurred unusually high accounting and legal fees for its size. These discrepancies have led to scrutiny over the organization's true purpose and its connections to influential figures, including the Clintons.The revelation that Ghislaine Maxwell’s nephew, Alexander Djerassi, secured a job in Hillary Clinton’s State Department reeks of the very elitist nepotism and corruption that has allowed figures like Maxwell and Epstein to thrive unchecked for decades. That someone so closely tied to an international sex-trafficking ring was quietly placed in a sensitive government position dealing with Middle East policy is not just a coincidence—it’s a glaring indictment of the political class’s willingness to reward the well-connected, regardless of their associations. How does a family so deeply entangled in one of the most egregious abuse scandals of modern history produce a government insider under a top U.S. official without raising alarms? The Clintons have long been suspected of running in the same circles as Epstein and Maxwell, and this revelation only fuels further doubt about their claims of distance from the scandal.The fact that Djerassi was given a role of influence in foreign policy—where intelligence connections, backdoor dealings, and covert operations are routine—should be more than enough reason for serious scrutiny. Yet, predictably, there has been no mainstream media uproar, no demands for an investigation, and no accountability. If the roles were reversed, and this was a Trump administration official linked to such a disgraceful network, the media would be in full meltdown mode. Instead, those in power simply act as if these connections are meaningless, hoping the public either forgets or never notices. But people are noticing, and the question remains—how many other well-connected figures with ties to Epstein and Maxwell have quietly infiltrated key institutions, protected by their elite status and their ability to keep secrets?to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:[email protected]:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoLBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Defendant Shawn Carter's motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is both frivolous and procedurally improper. The Plaintiff contends that Carter's reliance on a single television interview to challenge the veracity of events that occurred twenty-four years ago, when the Plaintiff was thirteen, does not substantiate a claim for sanctions. They emphasize that discrepancies in recollection, especially concerning traumatic events from decades prior, are common and do not equate to bad faith or warrant sanctions. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlights that Carter's attempt to bypass the mandatory twenty-one-day safe harbor provision under Rule 11 lacks legal precedent and justification, rendering his request to expedite the filing deadline to one day as unfounded.The Plaintiff also underscores that expecting a sexual assault victim, particularly one who was a minor at the time and has disclosed being autistic, to have precise recall of all details is unreasonable. They reference New York courts' recognition that survivors of childhood sexual abuse may not remember exact dates or times, which does not invalidate their claims. The Plaintiff asserts that Carter's threats of immediate sanctions are intended to intimidate and silence the Plaintiff and other potential claimants, constituting an abuse of the judicial process. They conclude by urging the court to deny Carter's motion, stating that it lacks substantive merit and is procedurally defective.to contact me:[email protected]:Microsoft Word - NYC-#6394976-v8A-Draft_Rule_11_Opp__MoLBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

JP Morgan, in an effort to wiggle out of their own responsiblity for enabling Epstein, has begun a full court press against their former big shot employee, Jes Staley. JP Morgan is alleging that all of their problems and Epstein issues revolve around one relationship and that relationship was the one between Staley and Epstein and according to the bank, Staley should be on the hook for whatever settlement ends up being awarded to the USVI and the accusers. Staley, for his part, has challenged that assertion and has flatly denied that he was the sole reason why Epstein remained a client. The court is expected to go to trial in October if a deal is not reached. (commercial at 8:30)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.ft.com/content/82486f6d-a507-497b-a059-fe764965a7e5Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.