Tony Buzbee Responds To Macy's Motion To Dismiss The Diddy Claims (Part 2) (2/7/25)

Jeffrey Epstein's long time lawyer, Darren Indyke is being sued by survivors who say that they played a integral role in the criminal enterprise. Indyke and Kahn maintain that they are innocent. In the newest filing in the lawsuit, many accusations were made and one of the ones that continues to stick out is the CCTV accusations and more importantly, if there was CCTV, where are the videos?In this episode, we dive into the question once again and take a look at what the new lawsuit alleges. (commercial at 10:42)to contact me:[email protected]:Jeffrey Epstein Had a Creepy Panopticon Room to Monitor All His Guests (thedailybeast.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Doe v. Combs et al. (1:24-cv-07774), Plaintiff John Doe has filed a Memorandum of Law opposing Defendant Macy's Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. The lawsuit, initiated on October 14, 2024, in the Southern District of New York, involves multiple defendants, including Sean Combs and various associated entities. The nature of the suit pertains to personal injury claims.While the specific arguments presented in the Memorandum of Law are not detailed in the available information, such documents typically address the legal grounds upon which the defendant seeks dismissal and provide counterarguments to demonstrate the sufficiency of the plaintiff's claims. The opposition memorandum would aim to persuade the court that the case should proceed to discovery and potentially to trial, countering Macy's assertions for dismissal.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.629907.52.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of Doe v. Combs et al. (1:24-cv-07774), Plaintiff John Doe has filed a Memorandum of Law opposing Defendant Macy's Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. The lawsuit, initiated on October 14, 2024, in the Southern District of New York, involves multiple defendants, including Sean Combs and various associated entities. The nature of the suit pertains to personal injury claims.While the specific arguments presented in the Memorandum of Law are not detailed in the available information, such documents typically address the legal grounds upon which the defendant seeks dismissal and provide counterarguments to demonstrate the sufficiency of the plaintiff's claims. The opposition memorandum would aim to persuade the court that the case should proceed to discovery and potentially to trial, countering Macy's assertions for dismissal.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.629907.52.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a recent legal development, Jay-Z has withdrawn his motion for sanctions against attorney Tony Buzbee, who represents a woman accusing Jay-Z and Sean "Diddy" Combs of sexually assaulting her in 2000 when she was 13 years old. The withdrawal was filed on February 4, 2025, by Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, who requested that the motion be withdrawn without prejudice, allowing for the possibility of refiling in the future. Despite retracting the sanctions motion, Jay-Z's legal team continues to seek the dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that the allegations are legally unfounded and that the statute cited does not apply retroactively to the time of the alleged incident.The lawsuit, filed by Buzbee on behalf of an anonymous plaintiff, alleges that the assault occurred following the 2000 MTV Music Awards. Jay-Z has vehemently denied the accusations, labeling them as a blackmail attempt by Buzbee. In response, Jay-Z's legal team has filed motions to dismiss the case, citing inconsistencies in the plaintiff's account and questioning the applicability of the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act, which was enacted after the alleged incident. The legal battle has seen multiple filings and counterclaims, with both parties accusing each other of unethical conduct.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In March 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, represented by executors Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as well as NES LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company. In her complaint, Maxwell sought reimbursement for legal fees and personal security costs, asserting that Epstein had repeatedly promised to support her financially. She claimed to have been employed by Epstein from 1998 to 2006, managing his various properties across the U.S. and internationally, and contended that the estate was obligated to cover her legal expenses arising from her association with Epstein.Maxwell's lawsuit emphasized her denial of any involvement in or knowledge of Epstein's criminal activities, portraying herself as an innocent party entangled in subsequent legal battles. She argued that the financial support she sought was essential for her to defend against numerous civil lawsuits and criminal investigations linked to Epstein's alleged misconductIn this episode, we take a look at the USVI's motion to interene in that lawsuit.   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.

In March 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, represented by executors Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as well as NES LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company. In her complaint, Maxwell sought reimbursement for legal fees and personal security costs, asserting that Epstein had repeatedly promised to support her financially. She claimed to have been employed by Epstein from 1998 to 2006, managing his various properties across the U.S. and internationally, and contended that the estate was obligated to cover her legal expenses arising from her association with Epstein.Maxwell's lawsuit emphasized her denial of any involvement in or knowledge of Epstein's criminal activities, portraying herself as an innocent party entangled in subsequent legal battles. She argued that the financial support she sought was essential for her to defend against numerous civil lawsuits and criminal investigations linked to Epstein's alleged misconductIn this episode, we take a look at the USVI's motion to interene in that lawsuit.   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.

In March 2020, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands against the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, represented by executors Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as well as NES LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company. In her complaint, Maxwell sought reimbursement for legal fees and personal security costs, asserting that Epstein had repeatedly promised to support her financially. She claimed to have been employed by Epstein from 1998 to 2006, managing his various properties across the U.S. and internationally, and contended that the estate was obligated to cover her legal expenses arising from her association with Epstein.Maxwell's lawsuit emphasized her denial of any involvement in or knowledge of Epstein's criminal activities, portraying herself as an innocent party entangled in subsequent legal battles. She argued that the financial support she sought was essential for her to defend against numerous civil lawsuits and criminal investigations linked to Epstein's alleged misconductIn this episode, we take a look at the USVI's motion to interene in that lawsuit.   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.

It's been 1,000 days since Prince Andrew said during the Emily Maitliss interview that he would speak to authorities. He still has not said a word to them. In this episode, we take a look at the thousand days of silence and what has transpired since then.(commercial at 13:44)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19460142/prince-andrew-insulting-newsnight-epstein/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On tonight's episode we hear from another massage therapist who has a story to tell about Prince Andrew and his not friend, Ghislaine Maxwell. According to her, Maxwell was the one who set her up to massage Prince Andrew. A rather odd act for a not friend, no?Join me as I dive in!(commercial at 14:04)To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10502585/Ghislaine-Maxwell-told-masseuse-going-introduce-famous-God.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jes Staley had a long, established relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Both professionally and personally. Up until recently, he never had to answer for that relationship. Now though, after being shown the door at Barclays, he is also in jeopardy of losing out on big bucks as the company is withholding his deferred salary until the Epstein probe reaches its conclusion.(Commercial at 12:05)to contact me:[email protected]:https://www.wsj.com/articles/barclays-profit-falls-on-slowdown-in-investment-banking-11645603658Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.