Prince Andrew Enlists His Daughters To Help Him Regain His Status

Nicholas Tartaglione is a former police officer in New York who gained notoriety for his involvement in serious criminal activities. Here are the key points about his background and criminal case:Career and Background: Tartaglione was a police officer in Briarcliff Manor, New York. His career in law enforcement ended under a cloud of controversy due to allegations of misconduct and corruption.Criminal Charges: In December 2016, Tartaglione was arrested and charged with the murder of four men in a drug-related killing. The victims were Martin Luna, Urbano Santiago, Miguel Luna, and Hector Gutierrez, who were allegedly lured to a bar owned by Tartaglione, where they were murdered.Drug Trafficking: Tartaglione was also implicated in a drug trafficking conspiracy, accused of involvement in distributing large quantities of cocaine.High-Profile Prisoner: While awaiting trial, Tartaglione was held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York. During this time, he gained additional notoriety for being a cellmate of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier accused of sex trafficking, who died under suspicious circumstances in the MCC in August 2019. Tartaglione was questioned about Epstein's death but was not implicated.Now, after all is said and done, Tartaglione has been slapped with four life sentences.    However, when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein and what happened inside of that cell, none of us, besides Tartaglione know the truth.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:[email protected]:Jeffrey Epstein's ex-cellmate sent to prison for 4 murders (lawandcrime.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Nicholas Tartaglione is a man who is suspected in a quadruple homicide after a drug deal went wrong. However, he's also known for something else.Tartaglione was Jeffrey Epstein's cell mate when Epstein allgedly tried to kill himself for the first time. Jeffrey Epstein told his lawyers and others that Tartaglione attacked him. Tartaglione denied the allegations and no charges were ever filed. To add a little spice to the dish, all surveillance footage from the time in question no longer exists.Now, after over five years, Tartaglione's trial for murder will start in Westchester county.(commercial at 9:38)to contact me:[email protected]:Former NY cop, ex-Epstein cellmate, faces quadruple murder trial after bodies found buried at his home | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

One of the most absurd parts about Jeffrey Epstein's alleged suicide in prison is the first alleged attempt. It is absolutely insane to think that all of the systems put in place to safeguard a high profile prisoner like Jeffrey Epstein all failed at the same time, but that is the narrative that we are expected to accept. Meanwhile, at the time of the alleged first suicide, Jeffrey Epstein was telling his lawayers and people close to him that he was assaulted by Tartaglione. Yet, without any video evidence or any evidence besides the word of Tartaglione, the facility cleared him of the assault. Now, years later, we still are not getting any information about the investigation as the federal government continues to stall. (commercial at 7:23)to contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2019/08/14/epstein-told-lawyers-that-cellmate-nicholas-tartaglione-roughed-him-up/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

One of the most absurd parts about Jeffrey Epstein's alleged suicide in prison is the first alleged attempt. It is absolutely insane to think that all of the systems put in place to safeguard a high profile prisoner like Jeffrey Epstein all failed at the same time, but that is the narrative that we are expected to accept. Meanwhile, at the time of the alleged first suicide, Jeffrey Epstein was telling his lawayers and people close to him that he was assaulted by Tartaglione. Yet, without any video evidence or any evidence besides the word of Tartaglione, the facility cleared him of the assault. Now, years later, we still are not getting any information about the investigation as the federal government continues to stall. (commercial at 7:23)to contact me:[email protected]:https://nypost.com/2019/08/14/epstein-told-lawyers-that-cellmate-nicholas-tartaglione-roughed-him-up/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Following Jeffrey Epstein’s death in August 2019, serious questions arose about why he had been placed in a jail cell with Nicholas Tartaglione—a former cop awaiting trial for a brutal quadruple homicide. Tartaglione, a physically imposing figure, had previously been suspected of assaulting Epstein weeks before his death when Epstein was found semi-conscious in his cell with marks on his neck. Although both men denied that Tartaglione had attacked him, the pairing sparked outrage and speculation, especially given Epstein’s high-profile status and known suicide risk. Critics questioned the logic and judgment of prison officials, asking why Epstein—arguably one of the most notorious pretrial inmates in the country—was housed with a man facing the death penalty, particularly in a facility already under scrutiny for staffing shortages and security lapses.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Nicholas Tartaglione, the disgraced former cop who was accused of murdering four people in a drug deal gone bad has been found guilty on all four counts of murder. Tartaglione was also the cellmate of Jeffrey Epstein during Epstein's first alleged suicide attempt. (commercial at 7:57)to contact me:[email protected]:Police Officer With Bit Part in Epstein Jail Drama Is Convicted of Murder - The New York Times (nytimes.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This filing, submitted on behalf of Sean Combs and his co-defendants in the case English v. Combs et al., opposes the plaintiff’s renewed request for a 60-day extension to secure a third set of legal counsel. The defense argues that the plaintiff has already cycled through two legal teams—both of whom withdrew due to serious breakdowns in the attorney-client relationship, including what they described as “self-destructive conduct,” refusal to follow legal advice, and irreconcilable differences. The filing outlines a timeline of delays and extensions already granted, emphasizing that the plaintiff’s behavior has repeatedly stalled progress and wasted the court’s and defendants’ time and resources.The defendants urge the court to deny any further delay, asserting that the plaintiff’s complaint is fatally flawed and that she is unlikely to retain new counsel willing to continue litigating what they call “baseless claims.” They argue that granting another extension would prolong an already mismanaged case that has made little progress nearly a year after being filed. Moreover, the defense indicates it is prepared to file a motion to dismiss all eight of the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and warns that continued adjournments serve only to avoid scrutiny of the case’s legal shortcomings. Ultimately, the defense calls for the case to move forward without further delay, with or without new representation for the plaintiff.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.624352.74.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (S2 24 Cr. 542), the government opposes the defendant's motion to exclude evidence of prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). The prosecution asserts that Combs engaged in a pattern of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse against multiple victims, including those named in the indictment and others not specified therein. This evidence is presented as direct proof of the racketeering conspiracy charge and, alternatively, as admissible under Rules 413 and 404(b) to demonstrate Combs's propensity for sexual assault and to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.The government argues that the probative value of this evidence outweighs any potential prejudicial effect, emphasizing its relevance in illustrating the nature and scope of the alleged criminal enterprise. They contend that such evidence provides critical context for the jury to understand the full extent of Combs's conduct and its impact on the victims. The prosecution also maintains that a preliminary hearing to assess the admissibility of this evidence is unnecessary and inappropriate, asserting that the court can make determinations based on the existing record and legal arguments presented.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (S2 24 Cr. 542), the government opposes the defendant's motion to exclude evidence of prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). The prosecution asserts that Combs engaged in a pattern of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse against multiple victims, including those named in the indictment and others not specified therein. This evidence is presented as direct proof of the racketeering conspiracy charge and, alternatively, as admissible under Rules 413 and 404(b) to demonstrate Combs's propensity for sexual assault and to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.The government argues that the probative value of this evidence outweighs any potential prejudicial effect, emphasizing its relevance in illustrating the nature and scope of the alleged criminal enterprise. They contend that such evidence provides critical context for the jury to understand the full extent of Combs's conduct and its impact on the victims. The prosecution also maintains that a preliminary hearing to assess the admissibility of this evidence is unnecessary and inappropriate, asserting that the court can make determinations based on the existing record and legal arguments presented.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (S2 24 Cr. 542), the government opposes the defendant's motion to exclude evidence of prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). The prosecution asserts that Combs engaged in a pattern of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse against multiple victims, including those named in the indictment and others not specified therein. This evidence is presented as direct proof of the racketeering conspiracy charge and, alternatively, as admissible under Rules 413 and 404(b) to demonstrate Combs's propensity for sexual assault and to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.The government argues that the probative value of this evidence outweighs any potential prejudicial effect, emphasizing its relevance in illustrating the nature and scope of the alleged criminal enterprise. They contend that such evidence provides critical context for the jury to understand the full extent of Combs's conduct and its impact on the victims. The prosecution also maintains that a preliminary hearing to assess the admissibility of this evidence is unnecessary and inappropriate, asserting that the court can make determinations based on the existing record and legal arguments presented.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.