Ghislaine Maxwell And The Continued Attempt To Snatch Crumbs From The Estate

In this look back episode...Over 300 people have come forward claiming that they were the offspring of the dead pedophile.The website Epsteinheirs.com has been flooded with people claiming to be the illegitimate children of the dead man but as of yet no credible claims have been brought forward.To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11700085/130-people-claim-epstein-child-estate/

In this look back episode...According to Ian Halperin, Jeffrey Epstein was a big fan of Montreal and loved to visit the city trolling for young girls in the 70s and continued to enjoy visiting the city in years after.What connections did he make? Were other girls abused?(Commercial at 10:30)To contact me:[email protected]:https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/brownstein-writer-digs-up-dirt-linking-jeffrey-epstein-to-montreal

Ghislaine Maxwell and her legal saga in the USVI and in regard to the Epstein estate continues to drag on with the estate now accusing her of grinding their business of winding down the estate to a halt with her lawsuit.In this episode we take a look at what the estate had to say in its recent filing and how what it means for Maxwell.(commercial at 7:25)to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein estate asks judge to dismiss Ghislaine Maxwell claim | News | virginislandsdailynews.com

Jeffrey Epstein rarely did anything that wasn't part of the bigger picture. Choosing to build a palatial like dwelling In New Mexico most certainly fit the bill. A place where he was insulated by friends in high places and where his money went the extra mile, in this episode we take a look at Jeffrey Epstein and hustle he pulled in New Mexico. (commercial at 11:17)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/local_columns/tax-records-show-jeffrey-epsteins-power-influence/article_941610ac-831f-11ea-ba4b-fb874ada3017.html

In the memorandum of law filed on June 24, 2025, Best Buy Co., Inc. moves to dismiss the complaint brought by Latroya Grayson, arguing that her claims are legally insufficient and fail to meet the required pleading standards. Best Buy asserts that Grayson’s complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying the company to any actionable misconduct. They contend that her claims are vague, conclusory, and do not provide enough detail to establish liability under any legal theory presented. Best Buy emphasizes that the complaint does not demonstrate how the company engaged in or was directly responsible for any wrongdoing that could support the causes of action alleged..Furthermore, Best Buy argues that even if the facts alleged were accepted as true, they do not constitute a viable claim under the applicable law. The memorandum highlights deficiencies in Grayson’s legal assertions, including a failure to show damages or injury traceable to Best Buy’s conduct. The company also challenges any implied legal theories within the complaint as speculative and unsupported. As such, Best Buy requests that the court dismiss the case in its entirety with prejudice, citing the insufficiency of the complaint to survive a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.633985.71.0.pdf

In the memorandum of law filed on June 24, 2025, Best Buy Co., Inc. moves to dismiss the complaint brought by Latroya Grayson, arguing that her claims are legally insufficient and fail to meet the required pleading standards. Best Buy asserts that Grayson’s complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying the company to any actionable misconduct. They contend that her claims are vague, conclusory, and do not provide enough detail to establish liability under any legal theory presented. Best Buy emphasizes that the complaint does not demonstrate how the company engaged in or was directly responsible for any wrongdoing that could support the causes of action alleged..Furthermore, Best Buy argues that even if the facts alleged were accepted as true, they do not constitute a viable claim under the applicable law. The memorandum highlights deficiencies in Grayson’s legal assertions, including a failure to show damages or injury traceable to Best Buy’s conduct. The company also challenges any implied legal theories within the complaint as speculative and unsupported. As such, Best Buy requests that the court dismiss the case in its entirety with prejudice, citing the insufficiency of the complaint to survive a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.633985.71.0.pdf

Jay-Z sued attorney Tony Buzbee in Los Angeles Superior Court, accusing him of extortion and defamation after Buzbee had publicly named him as a suspect in a sexual assault allegation tied to the broader Diddy scandal. The lawsuit stemmed from demand letters Buzbee sent in late 2024, suggesting Jay-Z rape accusations would be pursued unless mediated—claims Jay-Z called blackmail. In July 2025, a judge dismissed Jay-Z’s suit, concluding the demand letters and Buzbee’s public statements were protected speech under California’s anti‑SLAPP laws and did not meet the legal definition of extortion or defamation.Meanwhile, Tony Buzbee's hotline for alleged Diddy victims remains operational and continues to receive calls. Originally set up in October 2024, the 1-800 number saw a tidal wave of over 12,000 calls in just 24 hours, with the volume remaining steady as people continue to come forward. Buzbee reports that many callers are witnesses or hesitant potential claimants—some describing disturbing reports from parties and after-parties. Despite Diddy's criminal acquittal on racketeering and sex trafficking, Buzbee is preparing civil suits, buoyed by the consistent stream of tips and allegations coming in through the hotline.to contact me:[email protected]:Judge Dismisses Jay-Z's Extortion Lawsuit Against Attorney Tony BuzbeeEXCLUSIVE: Diddy Sex Victim Hotline Still Being Flooded With Calls

Prince Andrew has reportedly been cleared to travel freely outside the UK after the FBI officially closed its investigation into his alleged links with Jeffrey Epstein. Though never formally charged, the Duke of York had self‑imposed a travel ban for roughly six years—venturing abroad just once to Bahrain in 2022—due to fears of arrest or subpoena if he left the UK. According to a leaked memo, U.S. authorities concluded there was no evidence of a so‑called “client list” or any criminal wrongdoing by Andrew, and with no pending charges, he can now travel internationally without legal jeopardy.The closure of the probe marks a significant shift for Andrew, who has largely stayed at his Royal Lodge residence in Windsor amid public and professional fallout stemming from his ties to Epstein. While he settled a civil lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre in 2022 without admitting liability, the absence of criminal charges—and the FBI’s assurance that no other high‑profile individuals would face prosecution—effectively removes the legal restrictions that had constrained his movements. Now, friends and royal insiders suggest he may begin traveling again, though the reputational damage from the Epstein connection continues to cloud his public standing.to contact me:[email protected]:'Air Miles Andy' free to end travel ban after FBI closes probe into Prince's links with paedo tycoon Jeffrey Epstein | The Sun

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein’s high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report into Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) presents a disturbing portrait of federal cowardice, systemic failures, and deliberate abdication of prosecutorial duty. Instead of zealously pursuing justice against a serial predator with dozens of underage victims, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida, under Alexander Acosta, caved to Epstein’s high-powered legal team and crafted a sweetheart deal that immunized not just Epstein, but unnamed potential co-conspirators—many of whom are still shielded to this day. The report shows that career prosecutors initially prepared a 53-page indictment, but this was ultimately buried, replaced by state charges that led to minimal jail time, lenient conditions, and near-total impunity. The OIG paints the decision as a series of poor judgments rather than criminal misconduct, but this framing betrays the magnitude of what actually occurred: a calculated retreat in the face of wealth and influence.Critically, the report fails to hold any individuals truly accountable, nor does it demand structural reform that could prevent similar derelictions of justice. It accepts, without sufficient pushback, the justifications offered by federal prosecutors who claimed their hands were tied or that the case was too risky—despite overwhelming evidence and a mountain of victim statements. The OIG sidesteps the glaring reality that this was not just bureaucratic failure, but a protection racket masquerading as legal discretion. It treats corruption as incompetence and power as inevitability. The conclusion, ultimately, feels like a shrug—a bureaucratic absolution of one of the most disgraceful collapses of federal prosecutorial integrity in modern history. It is less a reckoning than a rubber stamp on institutional failure.to contact me:[email protected]:dl (justice.gov)