The Epstein Rewind: Jeffrey Epstein And The Seed Money For The Company Carbyne

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:[email protected]:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The hits keep coming for JP Morgan Chase as the wider world continues to get a look at the audacious nature in which they conducted themselves. One of those windows that we've peaked in recently revealed emails sent from executives at JP Morgan to their fellow executives discussing Epstein and his crimes. In this episode, we hear more about Mary Erdoes, an employee at JP Morgan Chase at the time Epstein was a client and someone, who the USVI says knows more than she is letting on.(commercial at 13:12)to contact me:[email protected]:JPMorgan exec met with Epstein for YEARS after pedophile conviction | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell had many ways to intimidate their victims. One of the major ways they were able to keep control, however, was the dossiers that were compiled on their victims. In this episode, we hear more about the malicious scheme.(commercial at 15:51)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.thedailybeast.com/epstein-kept-dossiers-on-his-victims-to-blackmail-themBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

One of the most important aspects when talking about Jeffrey Epstein and the crimes committed by his criminal enterprise is the financial angle. For all of the platitudes we have heard from the investigators, we have still yet to see a real, robust investigation into the financial aspect of the case. Nothing personifies that like his corrupt charities. On this episode, we explore some of those charities and how they were manipulated and used to help shield Epstein and his activities.(commercial at 11:58)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/business/jeffrey-epstein-charity.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On this morning's edition of the show, we take a look at the headlines from overnight and talk a little bit more about Maxwell and Epstein's propensity to search out the most vulnerable amongst us for their abuse.(commercial at 13:52)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.ft.com/content/0b9d93da-1687-4eb1-bd53-0a84a1b40dffBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. government has opposed Sean “Diddy” Combs' motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants in his criminal case, arguing that Combs has failed to meet the legal standard required for suppression. The prosecution asserts that the warrants were lawfully obtained based on substantial probable cause and that Combs' claims of material omissions and falsehoods in the warrant affidavits do not meet the high burden necessary for a Franks hearing (a legal proceeding to challenge the validity of a search warrant). The government contends that the search warrants were specific, targeting evidence directly related to Combs’ alleged crimes, including sex trafficking, racketeering, and other offenses. They also argue that any alleged omissions or misstatements in the affidavits were not material to the finding of probable cause and did not demonstrate intentional deception by law enforcement.Furthermore, the opposition brief emphasizes that the search warrants were not overly broad and complied with legal standards, making them valid under the Fourth Amendment. The government argues that even if there were any technical flaws in the warrant applications, the good faith exception applies, meaning law enforcement acted within their authority and in reasonable reliance on judicial approval. Additionally, the prosecution maintains that the evidence collected is crucial for proving Combs’ alleged criminal enterprise, including coercion, violence, and obstruction efforts. As a result, they urge the court to reject Combs’ motion to suppress and allow the evidence to be used in the upcoming trial.to  contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.171.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. government has opposed Sean “Diddy” Combs' motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants in his criminal case, arguing that Combs has failed to meet the legal standard required for suppression. The prosecution asserts that the warrants were lawfully obtained based on substantial probable cause and that Combs' claims of material omissions and falsehoods in the warrant affidavits do not meet the high burden necessary for a Franks hearing (a legal proceeding to challenge the validity of a search warrant). The government contends that the search warrants were specific, targeting evidence directly related to Combs’ alleged crimes, including sex trafficking, racketeering, and other offenses. They also argue that any alleged omissions or misstatements in the affidavits were not material to the finding of probable cause and did not demonstrate intentional deception by law enforcement.Furthermore, the opposition brief emphasizes that the search warrants were not overly broad and complied with legal standards, making them valid under the Fourth Amendment. The government argues that even if there were any technical flaws in the warrant applications, the good faith exception applies, meaning law enforcement acted within their authority and in reasonable reliance on judicial approval. Additionally, the prosecution maintains that the evidence collected is crucial for proving Combs’ alleged criminal enterprise, including coercion, violence, and obstruction efforts. As a result, they urge the court to reject Combs’ motion to suppress and allow the evidence to be used in the upcoming trial.to  contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.171.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. government has opposed Sean “Diddy” Combs' motion to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants in his criminal case, arguing that Combs has failed to meet the legal standard required for suppression. The prosecution asserts that the warrants were lawfully obtained based on substantial probable cause and that Combs' claims of material omissions and falsehoods in the warrant affidavits do not meet the high burden necessary for a Franks hearing (a legal proceeding to challenge the validity of a search warrant). The government contends that the search warrants were specific, targeting evidence directly related to Combs’ alleged crimes, including sex trafficking, racketeering, and other offenses. They also argue that any alleged omissions or misstatements in the affidavits were not material to the finding of probable cause and did not demonstrate intentional deception by law enforcement.Furthermore, the opposition brief emphasizes that the search warrants were not overly broad and complied with legal standards, making them valid under the Fourth Amendment. The government argues that even if there were any technical flaws in the warrant applications, the good faith exception applies, meaning law enforcement acted within their authority and in reasonable reliance on judicial approval. Additionally, the prosecution maintains that the evidence collected is crucial for proving Combs’ alleged criminal enterprise, including coercion, violence, and obstruction efforts. As a result, they urge the court to reject Combs’ motion to suppress and allow the evidence to be used in the upcoming trial.to  contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.171.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​Bryan Kohberger's defense team has intensified efforts to prevent the imposition of the death penalty in his upcoming trial for the alleged murders of four University of Idaho students. Recent legal maneuvers include motions to prohibit the use of potentially prejudicial terms such as "murder," "psychopath," and "sociopath" during the trial, as well as references to "bushy eyebrows," which a surviving roommate used to describe the intruder. The defense argues that such language could bias the jury against Kohberger. Additionally, they seek to limit the display of crime scene photographs to avoid inflaming jurors' emotions.In a separate motion, Kohberger's attorney, Anne Taylor, revealed that he has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). She contends that this diagnosis should exempt him from the death penalty, asserting that ASD reduces his culpability and poses a risk of wrongful conviction due to potential misinterpretation of his behaviors by jurors. However, legal experts suggest that an autism diagnosis is unlikely to prevent the application of the death penalty, as current legal precedents do not consider ASD a barrier to such sentencing.source:Bryan Kohberger defense ramps up legal maneuvers in bid to avoid death row | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of Parham v. Combs et al (Case No. 3:24-cv-07191-RFL), plaintiff Ashley Parham filed an amended complaint against defendants Sean Combs, Kristina Khorram,Druski, Odell Beckham and Shane Pearce, alleging personal injury claims related to assault, libel, and slander under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The original complaint was filed on October 15, 2024, in the Northern District of California, with Parham seeking a jury trial to address these allegations.to contact me:[email protected]:Parham complaint FINAL-3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.