Diddy's Reply To Anna Kane's Amended Complaint (Part 1) (1/11/25)

In the case Doe v. Combs et al., No. 23-cv-10628 (JGLC), defendant Harve Pierre has filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying the allegations against him and asserting several affirmative defenses. Pierre contends that the claims are barred by statutes of limitations, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. He also argues that any actions taken were without malice or intent to harm, and that he did not engage in the alleged conduct. Pierre reserves the right to amend his defenses as the case progresses.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.81.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case Anna Kane v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:23-cv-10628-JGLC), the plaintiff, Anna Kane, alleges that Sean Combs, alongside other defendants, engaged in acts of sexual misconduct against her in 2003. Kane claims she was approached and coerced into traveling to New York, where she was allegedly drugged and assaulted by Combs and others at a recording studio owned by Bad Boy Entertainment. The complaint outlines claims of emotional trauma and seeks significant damages for the alleged acts, describing them as part of a broader pattern of misconduct within Combs' professional and personal sphere.In response, Combs has categorically denied the allegations in his formal answer to the amended complaint, maintaining that the claims are baseless and lack factual support. His legal team argues that the lawsuit is not only unfounded but also potentially time-barred under applicable statutes of limitations. The defense has filed motions to dismiss the case, asserting that the complaint fails to meet the required legal standards to proceed. Both parties continue to submit filings as the case advances, with Combs demanding a jury trial to resolve the matter.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.82.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case Anna Kane v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:23-cv-10628-JGLC), the plaintiff, Anna Kane, alleges that Sean Combs, alongside other defendants, engaged in acts of sexual misconduct against her in 2003. Kane claims she was approached and coerced into traveling to New York, where she was allegedly drugged and assaulted by Combs and others at a recording studio owned by Bad Boy Entertainment. The complaint outlines claims of emotional trauma and seeks significant damages for the alleged acts, describing them as part of a broader pattern of misconduct within Combs' professional and personal sphere.In response, Combs has categorically denied the allegations in his formal answer to the amended complaint, maintaining that the claims are baseless and lack factual support. His legal team argues that the lawsuit is not only unfounded but also potentially time-barred under applicable statutes of limitations. The defense has filed motions to dismiss the case, asserting that the complaint fails to meet the required legal standards to proceed. Both parties continue to submit filings as the case advances, with Combs demanding a jury trial to resolve the matter.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.82.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In December 2024, a woman identified as Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging that he sexually assaulted her during a charity basketball event at the City College of New York on December 28, 1991. According to the lawsuit, Doe and a friend attended the event, which was co-sponsored by Combs, then an emerging music producer. Upon arrival, they were escorted to a makeshift dressing room where Combs was present. Doe alleges that Combs offered her a drink, purportedly Coca-Cola, which caused her to feel disoriented after consumption. She claims that when she attempted to leave, Combs blocked her exit, proceeded to fondle her, and ultimately raped her. The assault allegedly ended when Combs was interrupted by a bodyguard informing him of a developing situation outside—a stampede that tragically resulted in nine fatalities.Combs' legal team has categorically denied the allegations, describing them as "facially ridiculous or demonstrably false." They assert that Combs has never engaged in sexual assault or sex trafficking and express confidence that the judicial process will exonerate him. This lawsuit adds to a series of legal challenges Combs has faced, including multiple allegations of sexual misconduct spanning several decades. As of December 2024, Combs is in federal custody, awaiting trial on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, to which he has pleaded not guilty.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.633975.1.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the defamation lawsuit Giuffre v. Maxwell (Case No. 1:15-cv-07433), Virginia Giuffre, formerly known as Virginia Roberts, submitted a Second Amended Supplemental Response and Objections to Ghislaine Maxwell's First Set of Discovery Requests. In this document, Giuffre addresses Maxwell's interrogatories and requests for production of documents, while raising several objections. She contends that many of Maxwell's discovery requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Giuffre also asserts that certain requests violate local civil rules and federal procedural rules, particularly regarding the permissible number of interrogatories and the scope of discovery.Additionally, Giuffre raises concerns about the invasion of her privacy and the potential harassment stemming from Maxwell's discovery demands. She emphasizes that some requests seek information protected by attorney-client privilege or other applicable privileges. Giuffre also notes that certain information sought by Maxwell is already in the defendant's possession or can be obtained through less burdensome means. Throughout her response, Giuffre maintains her objections while providing answers and producing documents where appropriate, aiming to balance compliance with discovery obligations against protecting her rights and interests as a victim of alleged sexual trafficking.to contact me: [email protected]  Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the defamation lawsuit Giuffre v. Maxwell (Case No. 1:15-cv-07433), Virginia Giuffre, formerly known as Virginia Roberts, submitted a Second Amended Supplemental Response and Objections to Ghislaine Maxwell's First Set of Discovery Requests. In this document, Giuffre addresses Maxwell's interrogatories and requests for production of documents, while raising several objections. She contends that many of Maxwell's discovery requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Giuffre also asserts that certain requests violate local civil rules and federal procedural rules, particularly regarding the permissible number of interrogatories and the scope of discovery.Additionally, Giuffre raises concerns about the invasion of her privacy and the potential harassment stemming from Maxwell's discovery demands. She emphasizes that some requests seek information protected by attorney-client privilege or other applicable privileges. Giuffre also notes that certain information sought by Maxwell is already in the defendant's possession or can be obtained through less burdensome means. Throughout her response, Giuffre maintains her objections while providing answers and producing documents where appropriate, aiming to balance compliance with discovery obligations against protecting her rights and interests as a victim of alleged sexual trafficking.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Cecile De Jongh has filed a motion in the court of the USVI attempting to get the lawsuit that has been brought against her by multiple survivors as part of the USVI lawsuit tossed out.   Her defense?  Well, the same old story, and it all begins and ends with secretive deals and payouts structured specifically keep things quiet.    In this episode, we take a look at what Cecile De Jongh had to say in her newest filing and where the survivors might go from here when it comes to a response.   (commercial 9:04)to contact me:[email protected]:Cecile de Jongh Files Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Suit Alleging Collusion with Epstein | St. Thomas Source (stthomassource.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Our climb into the sewers of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal enterprise continues in this episode as we are now taking a look at the unredacted motion made by Viriginia Roberts to compel Maxwell to answer deposition questions filed under seal.(commercial at 11:06)to contact me:[email protected]:epstein-documents-943-pages - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the weeks leading up to the attack on Larry Nassar at Coleman Correctional Facility in Florida, the public learned that another notorious pedophile had contacted him. That other notorious sicko? Jeffrey Epstein himself. Now, just a few weeks after the existence of that letter was revealed, Nassar is brutally attacked and stabbed mulitple times.In hindisight of that, the question most certainly now is, were Jeffrey Epstein and Larry Nassar friends? Or was the letter Epstein sent to him just one sick deviant reaching out to another?Let's dive in and check it out!(commercial at 9:56)to contact me:[email protected]:The mysterious connection between Larry Nassar and Jeffrey Epstein | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The United States Virgin Islands and their lawsuit against JP Morgan continues to make its way through the system and we continue to get tidbits of information as new court filings are filed and new hearings are held.In this episode, we hear about four of the people caught up in the JP Morgan lawsuit, Thomas Pritzker, Sergey Brin, Michael Ovitz and Mort Zuckerman and where things might go from here.(commercial at 8:17)to contact me:[email protected]:JP Morgan, Jeffrey Epstein: Google founder, former Disney exec to get subpoenas (cnbc.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.