The Epstein Rewind: Jeffrey Epstein And Ken Starr

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.

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.

In the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Maxwell submitted a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) and (c), alleging that Giuffre failed to comply with court orders and disclosure requirements. Maxwell contended that Giuffre did not provide necessary information and documents pertinent to the case, thereby hindering Maxwell's ability to mount an effective defense. The motion sought remedies including the exclusion of certain evidence and the imposition of monetary sanctions against Giuffre for these purported violations.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1137.19.pdf (free.law)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, Maxwell submitted a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) and (c), alleging that Giuffre failed to comply with court orders and disclosure requirements. Maxwell contended that Giuffre did not provide necessary information and documents pertinent to the case, thereby hindering Maxwell's ability to mount an effective defense. The motion sought remedies including the exclusion of certain evidence and the imposition of monetary sanctions against Giuffre for these purported violations.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1137.19.pdf (free.law)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The United States' withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 resulted in the abandonment of billions of dollars' worth of military weapons, vehicles, and equipment, a consequence of poor planning and execution by U.S. leadership. Despite decades of investment, the rapid collapse of the Afghan government and security forces left advanced weaponry, including aircraft, firearms, and armored vehicles, in the hands of the Taliban. Critics argue this outcome was a glaring oversight, as the U.S. failed to adequately secure or destroy its assets prior to departure, effectively arming a militant group it spent two decades fighting. This mismanagement has drawn significant scrutiny, as it not only represents a massive financial loss to taxpayers but also poses long-term security risks, with some of the equipment potentially being used to bolster the Taliban’s control or even sold to adversarial states and terror organizations.Following the U.S. military's withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, a significant cache of advanced weaponry was left behind, including M4 carbine rifles and sophisticated night-vision devices. These arms have since been acquired by militant groups such as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), enhancing their operational capabilities against the Pakistani military. The influx of these weapons has led to a notable increase in the lethality and frequency of attacks within Pakistan, posing substantial challenges to the nation's security forces.In addition to their use in Pakistan, these U.S.-origin weapons have surfaced in the Kashmir region. Security forces in Jammu and Kashmir have recovered American-made M4 rifles from militants during various encounters. The presence of such advanced weaponry in the hands of insurgents has raised serious concerns about regional security, indicating that these arms are being funneled through networks extending from Afghanistan into Kashmir. This development underscores the broader implications of unsecured military equipment left in conflict zones, as it exacerbates tensions and fuels ongoing conflicts in sensitive areas.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.