Lauren Pisciotta Doubles Down On Her Kanye West Allegations In Her Second Amended Complaint (7/11/25)

Lauren Pisciotta, who served as Kanye West’s assistant and later head of staff between 2021 and 2022 (or through 2023, according to some filings), has filed an amended lawsuit leveling severe accusations against West. She alleges he repeatedly made lewd comments about her body, groped her, and coerced her into sexual encounters by dangling false promises of career advancement. The complaint accuses him of forcing her to watch him having sex with others, sending sexually explicit content, and, on multiple occasions, gaslighting and forcibly touching her. In particularly disturbing incidents, she claims West forced oral sex on her, attempted to penetrate her with his fingers, grabbed her throat at a concert, and locked her in a private room on his plane where he sexually assaulted her.Beyond these allegations of sexual battery, Pisciotta also accuses West of sex trafficking and stalking. She states that he recruited her under the guise of professional opportunity and then used coercion and career promises as leverage for compliance—actions she deems trafficking. She also recounts following her departure, West continued harassing her: allegedly moving into her apartment complex, arranging a “swatting” incident in Florida to provoke law enforcement at her home, and sending unwanted deliveries—all of which she views as persistent stalking and intimidation . West’s legal team denies the claims, labeling them “baseless” and accusing Pisciotta of extortion.to contact me:[email protected]:Kanye West accused of sexual assault, trafficking by Lauren PisciottaBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Elon Musk has been loudly criticizing the DOJ and FBI over their handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, calling out what he sees as a disgraceful failure to hold powerful figures accountable. He presents himself as an outsider raging against the elite, demanding justice and transparency from the very institutions he claims are protecting predators. But there's a glaring contradiction that undercuts this entire performance: Musk himself once sat down at the same table as Jeffrey Epstein. At a private billionaire’s dinner, years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction was public knowledge, Musk broke bread with a man already known to be a convicted sex offender—making his current outrage feel more like calculated damage control than genuine moral concern.The hypocrisy is almost unbearable. You don’t get to dine with a monster, stay silent for over a decade, and then pretend to be the loudest voice in the room demanding accountability. Musk’s selective outrage reeks of self-preservation, not justice. He wasn’t just in the same room—he was a participant in the same closed-door culture of wealth, access, and impunity that allowed Epstein to thrive. And now, as public pressure mounts, he wants to rewrite the past, cast himself as a truth-teller, and hope no one remembers where he was when it mattered. But history has receipts—and the dinner napkin still has his name on it.Elon Musk isn’t the only one feigning moral outrage about Jeffrey Epstein while conveniently forgetting the dinner table they once shared. In 2011, at a private billionaires’ dinner during a TED conference, Musk, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, and other tech titans sat shoulder to shoulder with Epstein—a man already convicted of soliciting sex from a minor. These weren’t ignorant bystanders. Epstein’s name was radioactive by then, his crimes well documented. Yet these men, who now pretend to be disgusted by the cover-up, saw no issue sharing wine and strategy with him over filet mignon and handshakes. It was a who’s who of unchecked power pretending Epstein was just another quirky financier with connections.Fast-forward to now, and the same billionaires want to position themselves as the public’s moral compass—demanding justice, accountability, and answers from the government while playing dumb about their own proximity to the rot. Musk rails against the DOJ, Bezos hides behind silence, and the rest of them act like their invitations got lost in the mail. But this wasn’t some accident. They sat there. They talked. They mingled. And they helped normalize a predator. These men didn’t just witness the corruption—they were part of the network that allowed it to keep operating in plain sight. Now they want to shout from the rooftops as if they weren’t once whispering in the same room. That’s not courage. That’s cleanup.to contact me:[email protected]:In 2011, Jeffrey Epstein Was A Known Sex Offender. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, And Sergey Brin Shared A Meal With Him AnywayBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Elon Musk has been loudly criticizing the DOJ and FBI over their handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, calling out what he sees as a disgraceful failure to hold powerful figures accountable. He presents himself as an outsider raging against the elite, demanding justice and transparency from the very institutions he claims are protecting predators. But there's a glaring contradiction that undercuts this entire performance: Musk himself once sat down at the same table as Jeffrey Epstein. At a private billionaire’s dinner, years after Epstein’s 2008 conviction was public knowledge, Musk broke bread with a man already known to be a convicted sex offender—making his current outrage feel more like calculated damage control than genuine moral concern.The hypocrisy is almost unbearable. You don’t get to dine with a monster, stay silent for over a decade, and then pretend to be the loudest voice in the room demanding accountability. Musk’s selective outrage reeks of self-preservation, not justice. He wasn’t just in the same room—he was a participant in the same closed-door culture of wealth, access, and impunity that allowed Epstein to thrive. And now, as public pressure mounts, he wants to rewrite the past, cast himself as a truth-teller, and hope no one remembers where he was when it mattered. But history has receipts—and the dinner napkin still has his name on it.Elon Musk isn’t the only one feigning moral outrage about Jeffrey Epstein while conveniently forgetting the dinner table they once shared. In 2011, at a private billionaires’ dinner during a TED conference, Musk, Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, and other tech titans sat shoulder to shoulder with Epstein—a man already convicted of soliciting sex from a minor. These weren’t ignorant bystanders. Epstein’s name was radioactive by then, his crimes well documented. Yet these men, who now pretend to be disgusted by the cover-up, saw no issue sharing wine and strategy with him over filet mignon and handshakes. It was a who’s who of unchecked power pretending Epstein was just another quirky financier with connections.Fast-forward to now, and the same billionaires want to position themselves as the public’s moral compass—demanding justice, accountability, and answers from the government while playing dumb about their own proximity to the rot. Musk rails against the DOJ, Bezos hides behind silence, and the rest of them act like their invitations got lost in the mail. But this wasn’t some accident. They sat there. They talked. They mingled. And they helped normalize a predator. These men didn’t just witness the corruption—they were part of the network that allowed it to keep operating in plain sight. Now they want to shout from the rooftops as if they weren’t once whispering in the same room. That’s not courage. That’s cleanup.to contact me:[email protected]:In 2011, Jeffrey Epstein Was A Known Sex Offender. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, And Sergey Brin Shared A Meal With Him AnywayBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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 SunBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Plaintiffs allege that Plaskett knowingly participated in and helped facilitate Epstein’s sex trafficking operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. They claim she visited Epstein’s New York mansion to solicit direct campaign contributions—repeatedly requesting $30,000 for her campaigns and the Democratic National Committee—and that Epstein then used his political influence to influence policies in the Virgin Islands. As general counsel for the Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority, Plaskett allegedly approved approximately $300 million in tax breaks that benefited Epstein’s businesses after receiving financial and professional support, including a job at a law firm connected to Epstein’s network.The survivors also contend that Plaskett leveraged her political leverage to pressure local authorities—such as customs, Coast Guard, and airport officials—to relax oversight and allow Epstein to transport women and girls between New York and the Virgin Islands without encountering legal scrutiny. The plaintiffs argue that these actions weren’t isolated misjudgments but part of a calculated pattern enabling a broader trafficking enterprise, with Plaskett’s contributions and interventions central to Epstein’s unimpeded operation and global network.to contact  me:[email protected]:Plaskett's attorney vows to fight 'baseless' lawsuit by Epstein victims | News | virginislandsdailynews.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jane Doe 1001, a plaintiff in the civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, alleges that she was lured into his orbit in 2019 under the guise of giving him a massage—and instead was subjected to sustained sexual abuse. According to her complaint, Epstein groomed and trafficked her across multiple locations over approximately a year and a half, using coercion, emotional manipulation, and abuse of power. The lawsuit asserts she suffered repeated sexual exploitation during this captivity period and then continued to endure psychological and emotional trauma long after the abuse ended.to contact me:[email protected]:DisplayFile.aspx (vicourts.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jane Doe 17, who filed a lawsuit against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, alleges that Epstein began grooming and sexually abusing her in 2008, when she was 26 years old and working in Florida. According to her complaint, Epstein, with assistance from Ghislaine Maxwell, lured her into his circle through promises of career help and lavish gifts. He then trafficked her across multiple locations—including Florida and New York—where she endured repeated rape, coercion, and threats that left her fearing for her life, including a chilling threat of being “fed to alligators” if she spoke out. Doe also claims she was forced to recruit other victims and that these abuses were photographed and videotaped to ensure her silence.  to contact me:[email protected]:DisplayFile.aspx (vicourts.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Juliette Bryant, a South African model, alleges in her 2019 federal lawsuit that Jeffrey Epstein began targeting her in 2002 when she was 20, promising to kickstart her career after connecting through a modeling contact. She claims she was trafficked to Epstein’s New York, Virgin Islands, Paris, and New Mexico properties, where she endured repeated sexual abuse—reportedly up to three times a day—in confined, fear-inducing environments orchestrated with the help of Ghislaine Maxwell. Bryant describes being isolated on Little Saint James, forced into nude photo sessions, and manipulated into compliance through emotional control and explicit threats against her and her loved ones.Bryant also alleges Epstein maintained psychological control long after she separated, citing a disturbing email as late as June 2019 requesting nude photos. Her lawsuit claims Epstein threatened her family and warned her about other accusers being “set up” or jailed, creating an atmosphere of terror that eroded her self-worth. She likens her time with Epstein to being trapped in a “factory” of abuse—fully controlled and monitored by him and Maxwell. Bryant seeks damages for rape, sexual battery, trafficking, false imprisonment, and emotional trauma, framing her case as a demand for accountability from the estate.to contact me:[email protected]:DisplayFile.aspx (vicourts.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.