The Epstein Rewind: Epstein's Former NYC Town House Used To Be A School

​Sara Rivers, formerly known as Sara Stokes during her appearance on Sean "Diddy" Combs' MTV reality show "Making the Band 2," has filed a $60 million lawsuit against Combs and associated entities, including MTV, Viacom, and Bad Boy Entertainment. In her 148-page complaint, Rivers alleges that during her time on the show, she was subjected to sexual harassment, assault, and an abusive work environment. Specific accusations include an incident where Combs allegedly cornered her, made inappropriate physical contact by running his hand across her breasts, and controlled various aspects of her personal life, such as her eating and sleeping schedules. She also claims that Combs publicly humiliated her by mocking her struggles with bulimia and imposed unreasonable demands, exemplified by the infamous "cheesecake incident," where Rivers and her group members were forced to walk from Manhattan to Brooklyn to fetch a dessert for Combs.Beyond the allegations of personal misconduct, Rivers contends that Combs sabotaged her music career by disbanding Da Band abruptly and withholding financial compensation. She asserts that after the group's dissolution, Combs continued to interfere with her professional endeavors, effectively blackballing her in the industry. In response to these allegations, a representative for Combs has categorically denied any wrongdoing, labeling the claims as false and opportunistic. This lawsuit adds to a series of legal challenges currently facing Combs, who has been accused by multiple individuals of sexual misconduct, all of which he has denied.to contact me:[email protected]:Sean 'Diddy' Combs sued by male escort over alleged 2012 rapeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Recent reports indicate that Kendra Haffoney has filed a lawsuit against Combs, alleging that he sexually assaulted her in 2008 while she was a contestant on his VH1 reality show, "I Want to Work for Diddy." Haffoney claims that during an after-party in SoHo, she was given a drink that left her feeling disoriented, after which Combs allegedly coerced her into performing oral sex before she lost consciousness. She further alleges that upon regaining consciousness, she found herself in the show's cast house, feeling physically violated, and asserts that additional acts of sexual misconduct occurred during the show's filming in Los Angeles.In addition to Haffoney's allegations, three other individuals have recently filed lawsuits against Combs. Justin Gooch alleges that in 1999, at the age of 16, he was given ecstasy and alcohol by Combs at a Manhattan nightclub and was subsequently sexually assaulted in a bathroom. Leslie Cockrell claims that she was drugged and assaulted at a party hosted by Combs in the Hamptons in 1999. Aristalia Benitez alleges that she was drugged and assaulted at a New York restaurant by Combs or one of his associates. Combs' legal team has categorically denied these allegations, stating that he has never engaged in sexual assault or sex trafficking of any individual, regardless of gender or age.to contact me:[email protected]:Diddy drugged and raped reality star then turned her into his sex slave, lawsuit alleges | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent announcement of releasing additional files related to Jeffrey Epstein has been met with skepticism, particularly following the underwhelming "Phase 1" release. The initial batch, which Bondi had hyped as containing "sick" revelations, primarily consisted of previously available flight logs and heavily redacted documents, offering little new information. This anticlimactic disclosure led to disappointment among the public and conservative influencers, who had anticipated more substantial revelations. Critics argue that the fanfare surrounding the release was disproportionate to its actual content, raising questions about the transparency and intentions behind these actions.In response to the backlash, Bondi has assured the public that more comprehensive documents will be forthcoming, blaming the initial shortcomings on the FBI's alleged withholding of thousands of pages. She has demanded that these documents be delivered to her office promptly, emphasizing a commitment to full transparency. However, given the previous overpromising and underdelivering, many remain skeptical about the authenticity and potential impact of the upcoming releases.to contact me:[email protected]:Attorney General Pam Bondi insists more Jeffrey Epstein files are being released – despite disastrous ‘phase 1’ | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​Jes Staley, the former CEO of Barclays, is currently challenging a ban imposed by the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) that prohibits him from holding senior positions in the financial sector. The FCA alleges that Staley misled regulators about the nature and extent of his relationship with the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Central to the FCA's case is a 2019 letter from Barclays to the FCA, which stated that Staley did not have a close relationship with Epstein and that their last contact occurred well before Staley joined Barclays in 2015. However, evidence presented by the FCA, including approximately 1,200 emails exchanged between Staley and Epstein from 2008 to 2012, suggests a closer relationship. In these emails, Staley referred to Epstein as "family" and "one of our deepest friends," contradicting the claims made in the 2019 letter.Staley's defense argues that Barclays was fully aware of his longstanding professional relationship with Epstein, asserting that the bank's board had been briefed on the matter. They contend that the 2019 letter to the FCA was intended solely to confirm that neither Staley nor Barclays had any knowledge of or involvement in Epstein's unlawful conduct, rather than to define the closeness of their relationship. The hearing, which commenced on March 3, 2025, at the Upper Tribunal in London, is expected to last two weeks. It will feature testimonies from prominent figures in the financial sector, including Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey and Barclays Chair Nigel Higgins. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for Staley's career and the broader financial industry, as it brings to light the responsibilities of senior executives in disclosing associations with controversial figures.to contact me:[email protected]:Jeffrey Epstein: This ex-CEO is risking all to clear his name over the paedophileBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein’s fixation with transhumanism—a pseudo-scientific movement focused on using technology to enhance human evolution—was as disturbing as it was delusional. Epstein, a man with no scientific credentials yet an inflated sense of his own intellectual prowess, sought to ingratiate himself with top scientists by funding their research, often in ethically dubious fields. Among his most unsettling ambitions was his reported desire to "seed the human race" with his own DNA by impregnating as many women as possible. Epstein frequently held discussions at his New Mexico ranch, where he allegedly planned to establish a breeding program in which select women would bear his children, thus ensuring his genetic legacy. He saw himself as a modern-day eugenicist, obsessed with propagating what he believed to be his superior intellect. His interest in transhumanism wasn’t just about advancing science—it was about his own twisted narcissism and desire for control over life itself.Beyond his breeding fantasies, Epstein’s transhumanist obsessions extended to cryonics and longevity research, where he entertained grotesque ideas about preserving his head and penis after death in the hopes of being resurrected in the future. He surrounded himself with influential scientists, including those from Harvard and MIT, some of whom were all too willing to entertain his bizarre visions in exchange for financial support. His funding of research into artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and even mind-uploading suggests he wanted to defy mortality itself, likely driven by a pathological fear of death. The fact that he was able to insert himself into legitimate scientific circles and push these ideas without serious public scrutiny speaks to the unsettling power and influence he wielded. Epstein’s transhumanist ambitions weren’t about human progress—they were a chilling reflection of his megalomania, a grotesque attempt to play god while indulging in a level of control over human life that mirrored his predatory behavior in every other aspect of his existence.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the days leading up to his death, Jeffrey Epstein exhibited a complex and seemingly contradictory state of mind. Despite facing serious charges and the prospect of a prolonged prison sentence, Epstein reportedly denied having suicidal thoughts and appeared confident about his situation. He described his life as "wonderful" and expressed no intention of self-harm, even while under suicide watch.   So, how did he end up dead?Following Jeffrey Epstein’s highly suspicious death in August 2019, Attorney General William Barr became the subject of intense scrutiny, with many alleging he played a role in a cover-up to protect powerful individuals linked to Epstein. As the head of the Justice Department, Barr oversaw the Bureau of Prisons, which was responsible for Epstein’s detention at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC). Critics questioned how such a high-profile inmate, who had reportedly been on suicide watch just days prior, was able to die under such dubious circumstances, including the alleged malfunctioning of security cameras and the guards' failure to conduct routine checks. The rapid declaration of suicide as the official cause of death, despite forensic inconsistencies such as Epstein’s hyoid bone fracture—a common indicator of strangulation—led to widespread skepticism. Given Barr’s history, including his father’s connection to Epstein through hiring him at the Dalton School, and his prior role in minimizing scrutiny over elite figures, suspicions grew that his Justice Department deliberately mishandled the investigation to suppress damaging revelations.In response to these allegations, Barr publicly condemned the failures at MCC, calling them a “perfect storm of screw-ups” rather than an orchestrated cover-up. He ordered internal investigations by the FBI and the Justice Department’s Inspector General, which ultimately upheld the suicide ruling. However, many found Barr’s explanation unconvincing, particularly given his previous role in facilitating leniency for powerful figures in legal matters. His insistence that Epstein’s death was a result of incompetence rather than conspiracy did little to quell speculation, especially as key evidence, such as security footage, was either missing or unusable. Some critics pointed to the swift dismissal of the guards involved as a means to close the case without deeper scrutiny. Barr’s handling of the case remains a subject of controversy, with many believing that his role was not just oversight but active damage control to protect Epstein’s powerful associates from exposure.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case 24 CV 07774 (JPO)(BJM), Macy's has filed a Reply Memorandum of Law to bolster its Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. In this reply, Macy's reiterates its position that the plaintiff's allegations are legally insufficient, failing to meet the necessary pleading standards. The company contends that the complaint does not establish a plausible claim for relief, lacks specific factual support, and relies on conclusory statements. Macy's argues that even if the alleged facts are accepted as true, they do not constitute a violation of applicable laws. The memorandum emphasizes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated a direct causal link between Macy's actions and any purported harm suffered. Consequently, Macy's urges the court to grant its motion and dismiss the complaint in its entirety, asserting that allowing the case to proceed would be unwarranted based on the presented arguments.to contact me:[email protected]:TO:Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In todays update we hear from some of the Alumi who attended Birch Wathen a school that used to be located in what is now Epstein's New York Townhouse.It is a bit disconcerting that the house of horrors was once a place where teenagers spent their best days and was filled with laughter and joy...only to turn into a place of pain and suffering.What will the eventual fate of the building be?Join me as I break it all down.(commercial at 7:57)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.heraldsun.com/latest-news/article238269028.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

As we continue to go through Ghislaine Maxwell's first interview since her conviction, we are getting story after story from Maxwell about what her current life is like since her fall from grace was completed. In this episode, we hear about how a fellow inmate wanted to kill her and how her current living situation differs from the one at MDC.(commercial at 17:58)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.the-sun.com/news/6452171/ghislaine-maxwell-prison-murder-plot/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Darren Indyke and Jeffrey Epstein were a team for over 25 years, yet somehow Indyke has yet to really face any scrutiny by law enforcement, at least publicly. His signature litters business deals and he was also an important part of setting up charities and other institutions that are alleged to have been used in schemes like money laundering and tax evasion. It could be argued that nobody holds more answers when it comes to Epstein, not even Maxwell. The question is...will he ever be compelled to spill the beans? (commercial at 10:14)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeffrey-epsteins-little-known-lawyer-lands-in-spotlight-11567071001Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.