In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.

Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegations

to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.

Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegations

to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Virginia Giuffre (formerly known as Virginia Roberts) submitted a detailed counterstatement challenging Maxwell's assertions. Giuffre disputed Maxwell's denials of involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual abuse and trafficking operations, providing specific instances and evidence to support her claims. She contended that Maxwell's public statements dismissing her allegations as false were themselves defamatory and aimed at discrediting her experiences as a victim. Giuffre's response emphasized the existence of genuine disputes over material facts, arguing that these issues necessitated a trial to resolve the conflicting accounts.

Giuffre's counterstatement also highlighted inconsistencies and omissions in Maxwell's narrative, aiming to demonstrate that Maxwell's involvement with Epstein was more extensive than acknowledged. By presenting corroborative testimonies and documentary evidence, Giuffre sought to undermine Maxwell's credibility and reinforce the legitimacy of her own allegations

to contact me:

[email protected]

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew and his loose releationship with the truth when it comes to his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is once again coming back to haunt him as it's now being claimed that he was still in contact with Jeffrey Epstein a lot longer than he previously claimed.


In this episode, we take a look at the new allegations and how Prince Andrew continues to dig the hole he is in deeper.



(commercial at 8:18)

to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

Emails say Prince Andrew met paedophile Jeffrey Epstein while the financier was still under house arrest... contradicting what royal told Newsnight | Daily Mail Online

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were very well versed at the art of using off shore financial institutions. In this episode we take a look at the FinCen files leak and how it relates to Epstein and Maxwell.



(commercial at 31:12)

to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/fincen-files-financial-scandal-criminal-networks







Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Investigation into Epstein, as a whole, has been a huge embarrassment. But in no other place have the authorities messed things up than in Florida. Today, we take another look back into the corruption that was obviously present during the investigation into Epstein and certainly in what followed.



(Commercial at 10:37)

To contact me:

[email protected]



Source:



https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/former-epstein-work-release-guard-destroyed-pbso-records-are-the-smoking-gun/?fbclid=IwAR0tIsAj8h2qX8JeFUaOgWhGVgXHNBw43A4lHGyfjUdHYXk8UbcMl2c55M0

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell is fighting tooth and nail to keep the documents from the civil case brought against her by Virginia Roberts.

Her lawyers claim releasing the documents would intrude on the privacy of those named in the documents.

Judge Preska is currently reviewing the first batch slated to be dropped to decide what will be released and what will stay sealed.

(commercial at 11:33)

To contact me:


[email protected]



Source:


https://abcnews.go.com/US/jeffrey-epstein-companion-ghislaine-maxwell-seeks-court-records/story?id=71199611

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In an interview with Law & Crime on October 2, 2024, attorney Tony Buzbee discussed the overwhelming response to a hotline established for individuals alleging sexual misconduct by Sean "Diddy" Combs. Buzbee revealed that within ten days of announcing his intent to pursue these cases, the hotline received approximately 3,200 calls. Following a press conference on October 1, the volume surged to 12,000 calls in just 24 hours. This significant influx underscores the extensive nature of the allegations and the number of individuals coming forward.

Buzbee, representing 120 accusers, detailed the challenges his team faces in sifting through the vast number of calls to identify victims and witnesses and to collect pertinent evidence. He emphasized the importance of thoroughly vetting each claim to ensure the credibility of the allegations. The attorney also highlighted the gravity of the accusations, which include the sexual abuse of minors, with one incident involving a 9-year-old boy auditioning at a New York City studio. Buzbee's remarks shed light on the extensive scope of the investigation and the serious nature of the claims against Combs.


(commercial at 14:53)

to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

tony-buzbee-lawsuit.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A memorandum of law in support of a motion to dismiss a complaint is a legal document prepared by an attorney that outlines the legal arguments and authorities supporting the dismissal of a lawsuit.When a defendant files a motion to dismiss a complaint, they are essentially asking the court to throw out the case against them. The memorandum of law serves to explain to the court why the complaint should be dismissed based on legal principles, statutes, regulations, and relevant case law.Typically, a memorandum of law in support of a motion to dismiss will:

1. Outline the Legal Standard: It will begin by stating the legal standard for dismissing a complaint in the jurisdiction where the case is being heard. This often involves citing relevant rules of civil procedure or case law.
2. Present Legal Arguments: The memorandum will then present the specific legal arguments as to why the complaint fails to state a valid claim for relief. This might include arguments that the complaint lacks legal merit, fails to establish jurisdiction, or is barred by a statute of limitations.
3. Cite Case Law and Precedent: The attorney will cite relevant case law and legal precedent to support their arguments. They may show how similar cases were dismissed by courts in the past under similar circumstances.
4. Address Counterarguments: If there are potential counterarguments that the opposing party might raise, the memorandum may also address these and explain why they do not undermine the motion to dismiss.
5. Conclusion: Finally, the memorandum will conclude by summarizing the key points and reiterating why the court should grant the motion to dismiss.

Overall, the memorandum of law is a critical tool in the litigation process, as it helps the court understand the legal basis for the defendant's request to dismiss the case.


In this episode we are diving into the Memorandum of Law in Support to dismiss Doe's claims against the corporate defendants.  

(commercial at 9:17)

to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.43.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)


Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A memorandum of law in support of a motion to dismiss a complaint is a legal document prepared by an attorney that outlines the legal arguments and authorities supporting the dismissal of a lawsuit.When a defendant files a motion to dismiss a complaint, they are essentially asking the court to throw out the case against them. The memorandum of law serves to explain to the court why the complaint should be dismissed based on legal principles, statutes, regulations, and relevant case law.Typically, a memorandum of law in support of a motion to dismiss will:

1. Outline the Legal Standard: It will begin by stating the legal standard for dismissing a complaint in the jurisdiction where the case is being heard. This often involves citing relevant rules of civil procedure or case law.
2. Present Legal Arguments: The memorandum will then present the specific legal arguments as to why the complaint fails to state a valid claim for relief. This might include arguments that the complaint lacks legal merit, fails to establish jurisdiction, or is barred by a statute of limitations.
3. Cite Case Law and Precedent: The attorney will cite relevant case law and legal precedent to support their arguments. They may show how similar cases were dismissed by courts in the past under similar circumstances.
4. Address Counterarguments: If there are potential counterarguments that the opposing party might raise, the memorandum may also address these and explain why they do not undermine the motion to dismiss.
5. Conclusion: Finally, the memorandum will conclude by summarizing the key points and reiterating why the court should grant the motion to dismiss.

Overall, the memorandum of law is a critical tool in the litigation process, as it helps the court understand the legal basis for the defendant's request to dismiss the case.


In this episode we are diving into the Memorandum of Law in Support to dismiss Doe's claims against the corporate defendants.  

(commercial at 9:17)

to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.43.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)


Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In case 1:24-cv-07975-AT, plaintiff Adam Guidry has filed a complaint through his counsel against defendants Tony Buzbee, The Buzbee Law Firm (operating under the name Anthony G. Buzbee LP), and unnamed individuals identified as John Does 1-10. The lawsuit alleges misconduct by the named parties, accusing them of actions that have caused harm to Guidry. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants acted in ways that violated legal or professional standards, warranting judicial intervention. The inclusion of John Does 1-10 suggests the potential involvement of additional parties whose identities remain unknown at this stage.

The complaint seeks remedies for the alleged wrongdoings, which may include damages or other relief deemed appropriate by the court. The filing highlights the plaintiff's claims against the prominent law firm and its principal, Tony Buzbee, framing the dispute as one requiring accountability for their actions. The specific allegations and the legal basis for the complaint will be central to the case as it progresses, with potential implications for both the plaintiff and the defendants.


(commercial at 13:13)

to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.49.1_2.pdf

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.