Virginia Roberts And Her Second Supplemental Response To Maxwell's Discovery Request (Parts 1-2) (1/11/25)

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.

In this look back episode...Ken Starr is a name most remember from his time chasing down Bill Clinton during the former presidents Impeachment trial. Now, that name has popped up again in the Epstein case as the pieces all start to come together about what really happened with Epstein and the NPA.(Commercial at 10:03)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/13/ken-starr-jeffrey-epstein-bookBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of McKinney v. Combs (Case No. 1:24-cv-03931), the Combs defendants filed a reply memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. They argue that the plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary standards for a viable claim. Specifically, the defendants contend that the complaint does not provide adequate factual details to substantiate the claims made against them, rendering the lawsuit legally insufficient.Additionally, the defendants assert that certain claims may be barred by statutes of limitations or other legal doctrines, further undermining the plaintiff's case. They highlight that the amended complaint includes vague and conclusory statements without specific evidence linking the defendants to the alleged misconduct. Based on these points, the defendants request that the court dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety(commercial at 9:21)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.38.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of McKinney v. Combs (Case No. 1:24-cv-03931), the Combs defendants filed a reply memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. They argue that the plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient legal basis and fail to meet the necessary standards for a viable claim. Specifically, the defendants contend that the complaint does not provide adequate factual details to substantiate the claims made against them, rendering the lawsuit legally insufficient.Additionally, the defendants assert that certain claims may be barred by statutes of limitations or other legal doctrines, further undermining the plaintiff's case. They highlight that the amended complaint includes vague and conclusory statements without specific evidence linking the defendants to the alleged misconduct. Based on these points, the defendants request that the court dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety(commercial at 9:21)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.38.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Southern California is facing devastating wildfires, particularly in Los Angeles County, where several blazes have claimed lives and destroyed thousands of homes and structures. The fires, fueled by strong Santa Ana winds reaching up to 100 mph, have forced the evacuation of over 150,000 residents. Areas like Pacific Palisades, Malibu, and the Hollywood Hills are among the hardest hit, with no containment in sight for some of the largest fires. Firefighters are working around the clock to combat the infernos, but dry conditions and the high winds have complicated efforts, creating a dire situation for residents and first responders alike.The economic toll of the fires is expected to exceed $50 billion, potentially making this the most expensive wildfire season in California’s history. President Joe Biden has declared a major disaster in the state, enabling federal aid to support the affected communities. High-value areas and iconic landmarks are under threat, while families face the loss of homes and livelihoods. Though a slight decrease in wind intensity has provided some relief, experts warn that continued dry conditions and possible wind events could exacerbate the crisis in the coming days.to contact me:[email protected]:Fires in California leave at least 10 dead, decimate Los Angeles area: Live UpdatesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Defendant Shawn Carter, known as Jay-Z, has filed a motion for sanctions and dismissal of the complaint against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims lack legal merit and are unsupported by factual evidence. Carter asserts that the lawsuit is frivolous and intended to harass or burden him, violating Rule 11’s requirement that legal filings be grounded in a factual and legal basis. The memorandum outlines how the plaintiff’s complaint contains baseless allegations, lacks sufficient evidence, and misuses the judicial process. Carter’s legal team seeks not only dismissal of the case but also sanctions against the plaintiff and their counsel for filing the allegedly improper lawsuit.The memorandum further emphasizes that Rule 11 exists to prevent abuse of the court system and to deter frivolous litigation. Carter’s attorneys argue that the plaintiff's actions have wasted judicial resources and caused unnecessary legal expenses. They call for appropriate penalties, including financial sanctions, to discourage similar conduct in the future. Carter maintains that the court should swiftly dismiss the complaint to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and ensure accountability for those who misuse it.(commercial at 9:46)to contact me:[email protected]:Microsoft Word - Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions - FINAL(15510670.10).docxBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.