How The Legacy Media Failed The Jeffrey Epstein Survivors (Part 2)

The FBI has not been a stranger to controversy, whether it comes in the form of Larry Nassar or failing to stop a school shooter who has been on the radar for some time. After costing the tax payers of the country countless hundreds of millions in payouts to claimaints who have sued them, you would think that someone would take the time to address the obvious problems that have been festering within the FBI for decades. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to have happened and now, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, including Maria Farmer, have now demanded accountabilty from the agency that was supposed to protect them from people like Jeffrey Epstein. (commercial at 10:17)to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein Victim Maria FarmerDemands FBI Investigate Its Failure to Stop Him (thedailybeast.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

For most of Jeffrey Epstein's reign of terror, the media was providing him with cover. In this two piece series, we will take a look at some of the outlets and people who protected Epstein and how the legacy media overall failed the survivors time and time again, while at the same time protecting Jeffrey Epstein and his friends.(commercial at 11:00)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753390385/a-dead-cat-a-lawyers-call-and-a-5-figure-donation-how-media-fell-short-on-epsteiBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

For most of Jeffrey Epstein's reign of terror, the media was providing him with cover. In this two piece series, we will take a look at some of the outlets and people who protected Epstein and how the legacy media overall failed the survivors time and time again, while at the same time protecting Jeffrey Epstein and his friends.(commercial at 16:48)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753390385/a-dead-cat-a-lawyers-call-and-a-5-figure-donation-how-media-fell-short-on-epsteiBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Katie Ferguson was on a trip across the country with her ex boyfriend and her two children. She has not been seen since. Her ex boyfriend has been arrested on unrelated charges, but the authorities investigating the situation say that all signs point back to Adam Aviles, the ex boyfriend in question.However, they have not charged him with anything besides being a felon in posession of ammunition. Aviles remains in jail on the charges.Jason Jolkowski, a 19-year-old from Omaha, Nebraska, disappeared on June 13, 2001, while walking to meet a coworker for a ride to work. Despite extensive investigations by the police and relentless advocacy by his family, no leads or evidence have surfaced to explain his disappearance. His mother, Kelly Jolkowski, founded Project Jason, a non-profit that supports families of missing persons, and pushed for legislative changes, resulting in the passage of “Jason's Law” in Nebraska. Numerous theories have been proposed, including abduction, medical emergency, or trafficking, but none have been substantiated. The family continues to fight for answers, utilizing new forensic technologies, private investigators, and public outreach efforts, keeping Jason's story alive and advocating for other missing persons. Jason's disappearance remains a haunting mystery, but his family's unbreakable determination to find him and bring awareness to others in similar situations endures.to contact me:[email protected]:Missing Wyoming mom case eerily similar to Gabby Petito story (foxnews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case Doe v. Combs et al., No. 23-cv-10628 (JGLC), defendant Harve Pierre has filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying the allegations against him and asserting several affirmative defenses. Pierre contends that the claims are barred by statutes of limitations, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. He also argues that any actions taken were without malice or intent to harm, and that he did not engage in the alleged conduct. Pierre reserves the right to amend his defenses as the case progresses.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.81.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case Anna Kane v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:23-cv-10628-JGLC), the plaintiff, Anna Kane, alleges that Sean Combs, alongside other defendants, engaged in acts of sexual misconduct against her in 2003. Kane claims she was approached and coerced into traveling to New York, where she was allegedly drugged and assaulted by Combs and others at a recording studio owned by Bad Boy Entertainment. The complaint outlines claims of emotional trauma and seeks significant damages for the alleged acts, describing them as part of a broader pattern of misconduct within Combs' professional and personal sphere.In response, Combs has categorically denied the allegations in his formal answer to the amended complaint, maintaining that the claims are baseless and lack factual support. His legal team argues that the lawsuit is not only unfounded but also potentially time-barred under applicable statutes of limitations. The defense has filed motions to dismiss the case, asserting that the complaint fails to meet the required legal standards to proceed. Both parties continue to submit filings as the case advances, with Combs demanding a jury trial to resolve the matter.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.82.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case Anna Kane v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:23-cv-10628-JGLC), the plaintiff, Anna Kane, alleges that Sean Combs, alongside other defendants, engaged in acts of sexual misconduct against her in 2003. Kane claims she was approached and coerced into traveling to New York, where she was allegedly drugged and assaulted by Combs and others at a recording studio owned by Bad Boy Entertainment. The complaint outlines claims of emotional trauma and seeks significant damages for the alleged acts, describing them as part of a broader pattern of misconduct within Combs' professional and personal sphere.In response, Combs has categorically denied the allegations in his formal answer to the amended complaint, maintaining that the claims are baseless and lack factual support. His legal team argues that the lawsuit is not only unfounded but also potentially time-barred under applicable statutes of limitations. The defense has filed motions to dismiss the case, asserting that the complaint fails to meet the required legal standards to proceed. Both parties continue to submit filings as the case advances, with Combs demanding a jury trial to resolve the matter.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.82.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In December 2024, a woman identified as Jane Doe filed a lawsuit against Sean "Diddy" Combs, alleging that he sexually assaulted her during a charity basketball event at the City College of New York on December 28, 1991. According to the lawsuit, Doe and a friend attended the event, which was co-sponsored by Combs, then an emerging music producer. Upon arrival, they were escorted to a makeshift dressing room where Combs was present. Doe alleges that Combs offered her a drink, purportedly Coca-Cola, which caused her to feel disoriented after consumption. She claims that when she attempted to leave, Combs blocked her exit, proceeded to fondle her, and ultimately raped her. The assault allegedly ended when Combs was interrupted by a bodyguard informing him of a developing situation outside—a stampede that tragically resulted in nine fatalities.Combs' legal team has categorically denied the allegations, describing them as "facially ridiculous or demonstrably false." They assert that Combs has never engaged in sexual assault or sex trafficking and express confidence that the judicial process will exonerate him. This lawsuit adds to a series of legal challenges Combs has faced, including multiple allegations of sexual misconduct spanning several decades. As of December 2024, Combs is in federal custody, awaiting trial on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, to which he has pleaded not guilty.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.633975.1.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the defamation lawsuit Giuffre v. Maxwell (Case No. 1:15-cv-07433), Virginia Giuffre, formerly known as Virginia Roberts, submitted a Second Amended Supplemental Response and Objections to Ghislaine Maxwell's First Set of Discovery Requests. In this document, Giuffre addresses Maxwell's interrogatories and requests for production of documents, while raising several objections. She contends that many of Maxwell's discovery requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Giuffre also asserts that certain requests violate local civil rules and federal procedural rules, particularly regarding the permissible number of interrogatories and the scope of discovery.Additionally, Giuffre raises concerns about the invasion of her privacy and the potential harassment stemming from Maxwell's discovery demands. She emphasizes that some requests seek information protected by attorney-client privilege or other applicable privileges. Giuffre also notes that certain information sought by Maxwell is already in the defendant's possession or can be obtained through less burdensome means. Throughout her response, Giuffre maintains her objections while providing answers and producing documents where appropriate, aiming to balance compliance with discovery obligations against protecting her rights and interests as a victim of alleged sexual trafficking.to contact me: [email protected]  Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the defamation lawsuit Giuffre v. Maxwell (Case No. 1:15-cv-07433), Virginia Giuffre, formerly known as Virginia Roberts, submitted a Second Amended Supplemental Response and Objections to Ghislaine Maxwell's First Set of Discovery Requests. In this document, Giuffre addresses Maxwell's interrogatories and requests for production of documents, while raising several objections. She contends that many of Maxwell's discovery requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Giuffre also asserts that certain requests violate local civil rules and federal procedural rules, particularly regarding the permissible number of interrogatories and the scope of discovery.Additionally, Giuffre raises concerns about the invasion of her privacy and the potential harassment stemming from Maxwell's discovery demands. She emphasizes that some requests seek information protected by attorney-client privilege or other applicable privileges. Giuffre also notes that certain information sought by Maxwell is already in the defendant's possession or can be obtained through less burdensome means. Throughout her response, Giuffre maintains her objections while providing answers and producing documents where appropriate, aiming to balance compliance with discovery obligations against protecting her rights and interests as a victim of alleged sexual trafficking.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.