The Mega Edition: Ashley Parham Accuses Diddy Of Assault Buzbee Has Plans For Enablers (2/2/25)

In early October 2024, attorneys Ariel Mitchell-Kidd and Steven A. Metcalf filed a motion to withdraw as legal counsel for their client, Adria English, who had accused Sean "Diddy" Combs of sexual assault and trafficking. The attorneys cited a "breakdown in the attorney-client relationship" and "irreconcilable differences" as reasons for their withdrawal. They highlighted fundamental disagreements with English regarding various aspects of the litigation, including settlement demands and the causes of action in the pleadings. Additionally, they expressed concerns over English's alleged "undermining behavior and questionable antics," which they believed hindered effective representationThe motion also referenced a separate agreement made on September 24, 2024, intended to address issues related to English's tone, lack of respect, and self-destructive activities. The attorneys claimed that English breached this agreement shortly after its establishment, leading them to conclude that continued representation was untenable. They noted that English had been in contact with another law firm for potential representation, indicating her awareness of the withdrawal. Subsequently, a federal judge granted the motion, staying the case until November 11, 2024, to allow English time to secure new legal counsel. If she fails to do so by that date, the case will proceed with her representing herself.Adria Sheri English, a former go-go dancer, has made serious allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs, claiming that she was forced to participate in sexual activities at his infamous "freak-off" parties. English, who has filed a lawsuit against Diddy, also revealed a list of high-profile celebrities she saw at these gatherings. Among the notable figures she claims were present are Donald Trump, Diana Ross (with her underage son Evan), Paris Hilton, Ja Rule, Busta Rhymes, and Reverend Al Sharpton. English expressed surprise at seeing some of these individuals, particularly Reverend Al Sharpton, at such controversial events.English alleges that while these celebrities attended the main parties, the "freak-offs" took place in secluded rooms away from the main events, suggesting that many of the partygoers may not have been aware of the more sinister activities happening behind closed doors. English also claimed that Diddy secretly recorded these encounters for potential blackmail purposes, further complicating the accusations against him.to contact me:[email protected]:Ex-porn star accusing Diddy of coercing her into 'freak offs' recalls seeing Rev. Al Sharpton, Diana Ross at rap mogul's parties: report (nypost.com)source:English memo law wdrawBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ashley Parham's lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs contains shocking accusations of sexual assault and physical violence. Parham claims that in 2018, after making a comment accusing Diddy of being involved in Tupac Shakur's murder, she became a target of his retaliation. According to the lawsuit, Diddy threatened her and eventually lured her to a private residence, where he allegedly assaulted her physically and sexually. Parham states that he held a knife to her face, threatened her with a "Glasgow smile," and humiliated her in front of others.Further details in the lawsuit describe how Diddy, along with his associates, sexually assaulted Parham using various objects, all while threatening her life. She recounts waking up from the ordeal, grabbing a knife, and confronting Diddy in a desperate attempt to escape. Parham alleges that Diddy begged for his life during the confrontation and that she narrowly escaped after grazing him with the knife. Despite reporting the assault to local police, Parham claims that no investigation was opened, intensifying her allegations against Diddy and his associates.Attorney Tony Buzbee, who represents over 120 accusers of Sean "Diddy" Combs, has been outspoken about his intention to expose not just Diddy, but also the enablers who supported or facilitated the alleged misconduct. During a press conference, Buzbee emphasized that these accomplices and bystanders played critical roles in allowing Diddy's abusive behavior to continue over decades. He stated that the names of these individuals would "shock" the public once revealed. Buzbee is meticulously gathering evidence and has warned those involved to come forward before their names are publicly exposed in court.Buzbee’s firm is currently preparing to file lawsuits in multiple states, with allegations ranging from sexual abuse to the use of drugs to facilitate these crimes. He has vowed to hold both individuals and corporate entities accountable, claiming that some businesses profited from or enabled Diddy's activities. Buzbee's approach is to thoroughly vet each case, ensuring that all evidence—such as photos, videos, and witness testimonies—is in place before taking action​.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On November 4, 2024, Sean "Diddy" Combs celebrated his 55th birthday at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center. His day began with a standard prison breakfast at 6 a.m., featuring biscuits and gravy, oven-browned potatoes, bread, and oatmeal. Lunch at 11 a.m. included options such as cheese pizza, Italian pasta salad, and green beans. For dinner, served after the 4 p.m. headcount, the menu offered choices like chicken or tofu fried rice accompanied by black beans and carrots.These meals mark a significant departure from Combs' previous lavish birthday celebrations. In 2023, he hosted a star-studded party at LAVO restaurant in London, attended by celebrities like Janet Jackson and Naomi Campbell. His 50th birthday in 2019 featured a grand event at his Beverly Hills mansion with guests including Beyoncé, Jay-Z, and Kim Kardashian. Currently, Combs is awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and prostitution, having been denied bail since his arrest in September 2024.Prosecutors in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs have expressed concerns about revealing the identities of anonymous accusers, citing serious issues of witness safety and potential obstruction. They argue that early disclosure of these identities could expose witnesses to intimidation or harm, especially given Combs' influence and the nature of the allegations. This stance is in response to Combs' defense team's request for the accusers' names to prepare for trial, which prosecutors contend is premature and could jeopardize the integrity of the proceedings.Additionally, prosecutors emphasize that disclosing accusers' identities at this stage is tantamount to providing an early witness list, which is not customary in criminal cases. They maintain that protecting the anonymity of the accusers is crucial to prevent any potential interference with the judicial process and to ensure that witnesses can testify without fear of retaliation. This approach aims to balance the defendant's right to a fair trial with the necessity of safeguarding the accusers and upholding the integrity of the legal process.(commercial at 8:20)to contact me:[email protected]:Diddy investigators raise ‘serious concerns’ for victims’ safety | Fox Newssource:Exclusive | Sean 'Diddy' Combs' birthday meal in prison revealed as he turns 55 behind barsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The absurdity of the Royal family has been on display for all to see lately as they have welcomed Prince Andrew back into the fold, even after his disgusting scandals, all the while still keeping Harry out in the cold. In this episode we explore the decision by King Charles to welcome Andrew back and how Harry is still left on the outside looking in. (commercial at 7:04)to contact me:[email protected]:Why Is Prince Harry a Bigger Royal Pariah Than Prince Andrew? (thedailybeast.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The cooperation between the governments of the United States and Mexico has been reduced to an almost non existent state at this point, after many allegations have been hurled back and forth between the two nations, not only recently but for many years.Now, that back and forth has caused a rift and that rift is allowing the cartels to not only operate, but to thrive. In this episode, we take a look at the fractured state of the relationship and where things might go from here.(commercial at 6:45)to contact me:[email protected]:Drug war cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico is at its lowest point in decades. What went wrong? (nbcnews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The cooperation between the governments of the United States and Mexico has been reduced to an almost non existent state at this point, after many allegations have been hurled back and forth between the two nations, not only recently but for many years.Now, that back and forth has caused a rift and that rift is allowing the cartels to not only operate, but to thrive. In this episode, we take a look at the fractured state of the relationship and where things might go from here.(commercial at 6:45)to contact me:[email protected]:Drug war cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico is at its lowest point in decades. What went wrong? (nbcnews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jamie Dimon, the head of the biggest bank in America, sat for a deposition on Friday over the allegations that his bank, JP Morgan Chase facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's behavior. While Jamie Dimon was sitting for the deposition however, JP Morgan was still on the attack as they continued their bombing run on the USVI for their complicity in Epstein's crimes.(commercial at 9:49)to contact me:[email protected]:JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon deposed in Jeffrey Epstein suit (cnbc.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Plaintiff Rodney Jones, represented by counsel, filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 25, 2024, in response to a Rule 11 letter dated March 4, 2024, within the 21-day safe harbor period. Due to a filing error in the heading, the Clerk issued a refiling notice on March 26, 2024. Plaintiff corrected and refiled the document on March 27, 2024.Despite this correction, the Clerk has since issued a notice stating that the Court must grant leave to amend. Plaintiff’s counsel contends that the amendment was timely and properly filed within the safe harbor window and seeks the Court’s clarification regarding the need for leave to amend in this instance.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The memorandum of law in reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition [ECF #148] supports Governor John de Jongh’s motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs fail to present legally sufficient claims against him. The reply reiterates that the allegations lack factual and legal merit, asserting that the claims do not meet the required legal standards to proceed. It emphasizes that the Plaintiffs' opposition does not adequately refute the defense’s arguments, particularly regarding sovereign immunity, statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim.Furthermore, the memorandum argues that Plaintiffs attempt to rely on conclusory statements rather than substantive evidence, making their claims insufficient for judicial consideration. It contends that even if the allegations were assumed to be true, they do not establish a valid legal basis for holding Governor de Jongh liable. The reply concludes by reinforcing that the motion to dismiss should be granted in its entirety, as the case against de Jongh lacks both jurisdictional and substantive grounds to move forward.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.159.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The memorandum of law in reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition [ECF #148] supports Governor John de Jongh’s motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs fail to present legally sufficient claims against him. The reply reiterates that the allegations lack factual and legal merit, asserting that the claims do not meet the required legal standards to proceed. It emphasizes that the Plaintiffs' opposition does not adequately refute the defense’s arguments, particularly regarding sovereign immunity, statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim.Furthermore, the memorandum argues that Plaintiffs attempt to rely on conclusory statements rather than substantive evidence, making their claims insufficient for judicial consideration. It contends that even if the allegations were assumed to be true, they do not establish a valid legal basis for holding Governor de Jongh liable. The reply concludes by reinforcing that the motion to dismiss should be granted in its entirety, as the case against de Jongh lacks both jurisdictional and substantive grounds to move forward.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.159.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.