Gone But Not Forgotten Compilation: Lisanne Froon And Kris Kremers And Layla Santanello (1/20/25)

In the Memorandum of Law in Support of Macy’s Motion to Dismiss in case 1:24-cv-07774-JPO, Macy’s argues that the plaintiff’s claims lack legal merit and should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Macy’s contends that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, asserting that the allegations are either legally insufficient or unsupported by factual evidence. The memorandum emphasizes that the plaintiff has not met the necessary pleading standards to establish the essential elements of the claims, including specific instances of wrongdoing or a direct link between Macy’s actions and any alleged harm.Additionally, Macy’s argues that certain claims are barred by law, such as those preempted by federal statutes or time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. The memorandum also highlights procedural and jurisdictional issues, asserting that the case lacks the factual and legal foundation to proceed. Macy’s requests that the Court dismiss the complaint in its entirety, maintaining that the claims are overly broad, speculative, and fail to establish a plausible basis for relief under the law.to contact me:[email protected]:TO:Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the Memorandum of Law in Support of Macy’s Motion to Dismiss in case 1:24-cv-07774-JPO, Macy’s argues that the plaintiff’s claims lack legal merit and should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Macy’s contends that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, asserting that the allegations are either legally insufficient or unsupported by factual evidence. The memorandum emphasizes that the plaintiff has not met the necessary pleading standards to establish the essential elements of the claims, including specific instances of wrongdoing or a direct link between Macy’s actions and any alleged harm.Additionally, Macy’s argues that certain claims are barred by law, such as those preempted by federal statutes or time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. The memorandum also highlights procedural and jurisdictional issues, asserting that the case lacks the factual and legal foundation to proceed. Macy’s requests that the Court dismiss the complaint in its entirety, maintaining that the claims are overly broad, speculative, and fail to establish a plausible basis for relief under the law.to contact me:[email protected]:TO:Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sarah Ransome, a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring, authored an op-ed in The Washington Post detailing her harrowing experiences and the challenges she faced in seeking justice. She recounted the psychological manipulation and coercion employed by Epstein and his associates, emphasizing the long-lasting trauma inflicted on victims. Ransome criticized systemic failures within the legal system that allowed Epstein's predatory behavior to persist unchecked, highlighting the need for comprehensive reforms to support survivors and hold perpetrators accountable. She called for greater transparency, victim protection, and institutional accountability to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future.Sarah Ransome, a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring, filed a grievance against her former attorney, David Boies, and his law firm, alleging mistreatment during their representation of her case.  While specific details of the grievance are not extensively documented in the available sources, Ransome's complaint suggests dissatisfaction with the legal services provided by Boies and his firm. This action highlights potential issues within legal representation for survivors of sexual abuse, emphasizing the necessity for attorneys to handle such sensitive cases with utmost care and professionalism.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Kris Kremers and Lisanne Froon were two Dutch students who went missing in April 2014 while hiking near Boquete, Panama, on the Pianista Trail. After embarking on what was intended to be a short hike, they failed to return, prompting a massive search effort. Weeks later, their belongings, including a backpack containing phones, a camera, and personal items, were discovered in a remote area. The camera contained unsettling photos taken during their hike, including nighttime images of the dense jungle. Eventually, skeletal remains belonging to both women were found scattered in the region, with no definitive cause of death established. Their disappearance and the circumstances surrounding it remain a mystery, sparking widespread speculation ranging from accidental deaths due to injury or exposure to foul play.Layla Santanello, a 21-year-old from Kingsport, Tennessee, has been missing since June 27, 2023. She was last seen around 6:15 a.m. in a field adjacent to the Americourt Hotel at 1900 American Way in Kingsport. At the time of her disappearance, Layla was described as 4 feet 10 inches tall, weighing approximately 135 pounds, with blonde hair and brown eyes. She has several distinctive tattoos, including Roman numerals on her collarbone and her daughter’s name, "Nova Grace," on her left forearm.The Kingsport Police Department, in collaboration with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, has conducted extensive searches and issued multiple subpoenas in an effort to locate Layla. Despite these efforts, her whereabouts remain unknown. Layla's family continues to seek information and has organized community events to raise awareness about her disappearance. Anyone with information is urged to contact the Kingsport Police Department at (423) 343-9780 or the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation at 1-800-TBI-FIND.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO, is a United States federal law enacted in 1970. It was designed to combat organized crime by targeting the activities of criminal enterprises, also known as "racketeering" organizations. RICO provides law enforcement agencies with powerful tools to investigate, prosecute, and dismantle these organizations.Under RICO, individuals or groups engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity can be charged and held accountable for their actions. Racketeering activities include various crimes such as bribery, extortion, gambling, money laundering, murder, drug trafficking, and fraud.Key features of RICO include:Criminal and Civil Liability: RICO allows both criminal and civil charges to be brought against individuals or organizations involved in racketeering activities. Criminal penalties can include fines, imprisonment, and asset forfeiture, while civil actions can result in monetary damages.Predicate Acts: RICO requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, also known as "predicate acts," to establish a pattern of racketeering. These acts can be a combination of state or federal crimes, and they must be related to each other and the enterprise.Enterprise: RICO targets not only individuals involved in criminal activities but also the enterprises or organizations that engage in such activities. An enterprise can be any legal entity, including corporations, partnerships, associations, or even non-profit organizations.RICO Conspiracy: RICO allows for the prosecution of individuals involved in a conspiracy to engage in racketeering activities, even if they did not directly commit the predicate acts themselves. This provision enables law enforcement to go after the entire network of individuals involved in organized crime.Enhanced Penalties: RICO provides enhanced penalties for those convicted of racketeering offenses. For example, individuals convicted under RICO can face up to 20 years in prison for each racketeering count and up to life imprisonment if the underlying racketeering activity includes murder.Civil RICO Lawsuits: RICO also empowers private individuals or entities to file civil lawsuits against racketeering organizations. Successful plaintiffs can be awarded triple damages for their losses, attorney's fees, and other remedies.Overall, RICO is a powerful legal tool in the fight against organized crime. It allows law enforcement agencies to disrupt criminal enterprises, prosecute key individuals involved, and dismantle their operations. Its broad scope and severe penalties make RICO a significant weapon in combating complex criminal networks.(commercial at 12:55)to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The federal government has said that it was just a bunch of systemic failures that led up to Jeffrey Epstein's death. If that's the case, how come nobody has been held responsible for the poor performance of these facilities? How come nobody has been held responsible for destroying the video from Jeffrey Epstein's first alleged suicide attempt? In today's episode, we explore that question.(commercial at 8:23)to contact me:[email protected]:https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/lawyer-for-jeffrey-epsteins-former-cellmate-demands-to-know-who-destroyed-suicide-attempt-video/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein had extensive ties to the academic community. His reach spanned across the country when it came to donating to professors.From the deserts of Arizona to the Pacific Coast and everywhere in between, proffesors and universities accepted his patronage.None of these institutions had the relationship with Epstein that Harvard had however. Today we take a look at that relationship.To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8279193/Jeffrey-Epstein-OFFICE-Harvard-damning-report-reveals.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

According to Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn who are the executors for Epstein's estate, the allegations against him are thin and should be tossed from court.The Estate argues that the suit is unconstitutional and that the whole CVA law passed in New York is in itself unconstitutional.Meanwhile Indyke and Kahn are still under the microscope in the Virgin Islands as Denise George decides what she is going to do.Join me as I break it all down.(Commercial at 9:51)To contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2020/03/20/executors-of-jeffrey-epsteins-estate-say-victims-lawsuit-is-time-barred/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In January 2025, rapper Drake filed a defamation lawsuit against his record label, Universal Music Group (UMG), alleging that the company promoted Kendrick Lamar's diss track "Not Like Us," which falsely accuses Drake of pedophilia. Drake contends that UMG prioritized profit over his safety and reputation, as the song's release allegedly led to violent incidents, including a shooting at his Toronto residence. He also claims that UMG employed bots and engaged in payola schemes to artificially inflate the track's popularity.UMG has denied these allegations, describing them as "offensive and untrue," and asserting that they would not undermine an artist they have heavily invested in. Legal experts suggest that proving defamation in this context may be challenging due to First Amendment protections of artistic expression. Some speculate that Drake's lawsuit could be a strategic move in his contract negotiations with UMG. The case underscores the complex interplay between artistic freedom and personal reputation in the music industry.to contact me:[email protected]:Microsoft Word - 2025.01.15 New Operative Defamation Complaint(9377666.8)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In January 2025, rapper Drake filed a defamation lawsuit against his record label, Universal Music Group (UMG), alleging that the company promoted Kendrick Lamar's diss track "Not Like Us," which falsely accuses Drake of pedophilia. Drake contends that UMG prioritized profit over his safety and reputation, as the song's release allegedly led to violent incidents, including a shooting at his Toronto residence. He also claims that UMG employed bots and engaged in payola schemes to artificially inflate the track's popularity.UMG has denied these allegations, describing them as "offensive and untrue," and asserting that they would not undermine an artist they have heavily invested in. Legal experts suggest that proving defamation in this context may be challenging due to First Amendment protections of artistic expression. Some speculate that Drake's lawsuit could be a strategic move in his contract negotiations with UMG. The case underscores the complex interplay between artistic freedom and personal reputation in the music industry.to contact me:[email protected]:Microsoft Word - 2025.01.15 New Operative Defamation Complaint(9377666.8)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.