The Epstein Rewind: Epstein and The Intimidation Game

From the archives: 7-13-23Idaho University was gifted the house on King Road in the wake of the murders and they said from the start that the ultimate goal was to raze the place to the ground eventually. That plan was supposed to be enacted before the start of the new semester.Now though, the school has announced a pause in its plans as the victims families have come out in opposition to the plan, stating that they don't want the house demolished before the trial is over, that way the jury can get a look at the scene of the crime for themselves if they so choose.The university has announced that it still plans to demolish the house on King Road, but an exact date as to when that will happen is still yet to be decided.(commercial at 7:07)to contact me:[email protected]:University of Idaho will PAUSE demolition of house where four students were brutally murdered | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs, made by Tony Buzbee's client, claim that Diddy sexually assaulted her at an afterparty following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. The plaintiff, who was 13 years old at the time, alleges that she was drugged before the assault. The lawsuit also names an unnamed male celebrity as an additional assailant, with a female celebrity allegedly witnessing the incident.That male  celebrity has now been unmasked as Jay-Z.The case is part of a broader legal effort by Buzbee’s firm, representing over 120 individuals accusing Combs of sexual misconduct spanning decades, including claims from minors. Diddy denies all allegations, calling them false and defamatory.In this episode, we take a look at that amended lawsuit.  (commercial at 9:27)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.29.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this look back episode...Virginia Roberts tweeted out that incredibly powerful and evil people want to silence her and that she fears for her well-being.She also pleads with her followers to keep the case alive in the event something happens to her.Why would a victim of Epstein's fear for her life? Who was involved with Epstein? Who protected him?(commercial at 8:44)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7779829/amp/Virginia-Roberts-posts-chilling-Twitter-message-claiming-Im-not-suicidal.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

People like Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell are treated different by the justice system then we, the common citizen are. All you have to do is tune in to a show like cops to see it first hand as the exploitation of poor people happens in real time.Meanwhile the members of Jeffrey Epsteins criminal organization continue to enjoy their freedom.(commercial at 7:49)To contact me:[email protected]:https://torontosun.com/news/world/hunter-prince-andrew-and-ghislaine-maxwell-should-get-cops-Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:[email protected]:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:[email protected]:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:[email protected]:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a recent lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, an anonymous plaintiff, referred to as "John Doe," has requested to maintain his anonymity throughout the legal proceedings. Doe alleges that while working as a security guard at Combs' 2006 Hamptons White Party, he was given a drink he believes was spiked with a drug, leading to severe illness and subsequent sexual assault by Combs. Citing concerns for personal safety and potential professional repercussions, Doe's legal team argues that revealing his identity could subject him to public scrutiny and retaliation, thereby justifying his request to proceed under a pseudonym. The court's decision on this matter will consider the balance between the plaintiff's right to privacy and the defendant's right to a fair trial. While anonymity can protect plaintiffs from potential harm, it may also impact the transparency of the judicial process. This case adds to the growing number of allegations against Combs, who is currently facing multiple lawsuits and criminal charges related to sexual misconduct. The outcome of Doe's request could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly concerning the anonymity of plaintiffs in high-profile sexual assault allegationsto contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.629909.37.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Allegations have surfaced suggesting that JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon was aware of Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities prior to Epstein's 2019 arrest. Internal communications from 2008 reference a "pending Dimon review" concerning Epstein's accounts, indicating that the CEO may have been informed about Epstein's legal issues following his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Despite this, Epstein remained a client of JPMorgan until 2013. In response to lawsuits alleging the bank's complicity in Epstein's sex trafficking operations, Dimon testified in a 2023 deposition that he had no recollection of knowing Epstein or being aware of his crimes until media reports emerged in 2019.Critics argue that Dimon's professed lack of awareness is implausible, given his leadership role and the documented internal discussions about Epstein's accounts. The U.S. Virgin Islands government, in its lawsuit against JPMorgan, contends that the bank, under Dimon's direction, ignored clear warning signs and continued to profit from its relationship with Epstein. This situation raises serious questions about the ethical responsibilities of financial institutions and their executives in monitoring and reporting illicit activities of their clients.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Allegations have surfaced that politicians in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) enabled Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activities through a combination of negligence and direct assistance. Notably, court documents reveal that Epstein maintained "close ties" with USVI Governor Albert Bryan Jr., who allegedly solicited donations from Epstein for local schools and his inaugural committee. Furthermore, former Attorney General Denise George testified that Governor Bryan personally lobbied her in 2019 to grant Epstein a special waiver to the territory’s sex offender law, allowing him to travel without restrictions. Such actions suggest a troubling level of complicity among high-ranking officials, raising questions about the integrity of the USVI's political leadership.The situation is further compounded by the abrupt dismissal of Attorney General George in January 2023, shortly after she filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, accusing the bank of facilitating Epstein's sex trafficking operations. This move has been widely criticized as an attempt to stifle accountability and obstruct justice. The USVI government's actions, including engaging Epstein in legislative matters and accepting his financial contributions, reflect a profound failure to protect vulnerable individuals and uphold the rule of law. Such behavior not only tarnishes the reputation of the territory but also underscores the urgent need for systemic reforms to prevent the exploitation of power for personal gain.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.