Ghislaine Maxwell Is Warned Not To Identify Her Accusers During Her Trial

In the case of Shante Kelly v. Sean Combs, et al., the plaintiff, Shante Kelly, has filed an amended complaint against several defendants, including Sean Combs and his associated companies, such as Daddy’s House Recordings Inc., CE Opco, LLC, and Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc. The complaint involves allegations against the various corporate entities under Combs' control, including Bad Boy Productions Holdings, Inc., and Bad Boy Books Holdings, Inc. The suit also includes unnamed organizational and individual defendants, identified as "Does 1-10," who may be revealed during the discovery process. Kelly's legal action seeks damages for the grievances outlined in the complaint and demands a jury trial for resolution.The case is filed under the civil docket number 1:24-cv-08024-VEC, and the complaint has been amended to reflect updates or changes in the claims or defendants. The plaintiff seeks redress for the issues outlined, and the legal proceedings will move forward as a jury trial, allowing a more detailed examination of the allegations, the roles of each defendant, and the damages sought by Kelly. This case is being handled in the Southern District of New York.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630375.71.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Juni 12min

In the final rebuttal of the government’s closing arguments, Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey delivered a sharp, surgical dismantling of the defense’s narrative. She told the jury that Sean Combs’ legal team had spent more time attacking the victims than actually refuting the charges. Comey emphasized that the defense wanted the jury to fixate on distractions—on credibility issues, sex, fame, and salacious details—rather than the through-line of abuse and control that ran across every victim’s testimony. She asserted that the witnesses’ imperfections didn’t negate the consistency of their stories, but rather underscored how real and raw their trauma was. According to Comey, the defense’s case relied not on innocence, but on shame—shaming the victims, questioning their motives, and hoping the jury would do the same.Comey then turned her focus to the broader implications of the case, urging jurors not to be seduced by the glitz and chaos that surrounded Combs’ world. She reminded them that at its core, this wasn’t about celebrity—it was about a man who used money, violence, and manipulation to maintain control over his inner circle. She walked them back through key testimony, highlighting how the accounts independently aligned on themes of fear, coercion, and isolation. In her final moments, Comey made a direct appeal to the jury’s sense of duty—not to be dazzled, not to be intimidated, but to see the case for what it was: a clear, prosecutable pattern of criminal conduct under the law. Her tone was resolute, leaving the jury with a piercing reminder: the law doesn’t bend for fame.And now...Diddy is on the clock as verdict watch is set to begin starating next week.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:@innercitypressBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Juni 11min

In the case of John Doe v. Sean Combs, Garren James, and Cowboys4Angels, filed under Civil No. 1:25-cv-01652-LAP, the plaintiff, John Doe, alleges serious claims against the defendants. Represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, John Doe asserts that he was subjected to sexual exploitation and trafficking by the defendants. The complaint outlines that Sean Combs, a prominent figure in the entertainment industry, along with Garren James, the founder of Cowboys4Angels, a male escort agency, and the agency itself, were involved in orchestrating and facilitating the plaintiff's exploitation. The plaintiff contends that he was coerced into engaging in commercial sex acts under duress and manipulation, with the defendants allegedly using their power and influence to control and exploit him.The First Amended Complaint provides detailed accounts of the plaintiff's experiences, including instances of being transported across state lines for the purpose of engaging in prostitution, a violation of federal trafficking laws. It also highlights the use of force, fraud, and coercion to compel the plaintiff's participation in these acts. The legal action seeks to hold the defendants accountable for their alleged roles in the trafficking scheme, aiming to secure justice and appropriate compensation for the plaintiff. The case underscores the serious nature of sex trafficking and the legal avenues available for victims to seek redress.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.25.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Juni 25min

The Prosecution:   During the opening statements of Sean "Diddy" Combs's federal sex trafficking trial, prosecutors portrayed him as a powerful figure who led a criminal enterprise over two decades. Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Johnson described Combs as having a "larger than life" public persona with a darker side that involved coercing women into drug-fueled sexual encounters and using violence to maintain control. The prosecution alleged that Combs's inner circle, including bodyguards and high-ranking employees, assisted in committing and concealing crimes such as kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice. Key evidence includes testimonies from three women—ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, a woman referred to as "Jane," and a former assistant named "Mia"—as well as surveillance footage from a 2016 incident showing Combs assaulting Ventura in a Los Angeles hotel hallway.Prosecutors detailed disturbing allegations, including Combs orchestrating events known as "freak-offs," where women were allegedly forced into degrading acts with male sex workers. One specific claim involved Combs instructing a sex worker to urinate in Ventura's mouth during such an event. The prosecution contends that these acts were part of a broader pattern of abuse and exploitation facilitated by Combs's entertainment empire. Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges, which include racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution, and faces the possibility of life imprisonment if convicted.The  Defense:During the opening statements of Sean "Diddy" Combs's federal sex trafficking trial, his defense team, led by attorney Teny Geragos, acknowledged Combs's history of violence and temper but firmly denied that his actions constituted sex trafficking, racketeering, or prostitution. Geragos portrayed the case as one centered on "love, jealousy, infidelity, and money," arguing that the relationships in question were consensual adult interactions, including participation in a "swinger's lifestyle." She emphasized that while Combs may have exhibited abusive behavior, the prosecution's attempt to classify these personal relationships as criminal enterprises was a mischaracterization.The defense also sought to humanize Combs, reminding jurors that he is not on trial for being "mean" or a "jerk," but for specific criminal charges that they argue are unfounded. Geragos highlighted that the government's case intrudes into Combs's private life without sufficient legal basis, asserting that the alleged victims were capable individuals who made their own choices. She contended that the prosecution's narrative was an overreach, attempting to criminalize consensual activities and personal flawsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:(4) Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial opening statements | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Juni 26min

In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (24 Cr. 542), federal prosecutors have filed an opposition to the defense's motions requesting a hearing, a bill of particulars, and a gag order. The defense sought a hearing to investigate alleged government leaks of evidence, specifically a 2016 video purportedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. Prosecutors refuted these claims, stating they did not possess the video prior to its public release and had no involvement in its dissemination. They argued that the defense's allegations are baseless and represent a strategic attempt to suppress critical evidence that is highly probative of Combs' alleged criminal conduct.Regarding the request for a bill of particulars, the defense sought detailed information about the charges to prepare for trial. Prosecutors contended that the indictment already provides sufficient detail, outlining the nature of the charges and the alleged criminal activities. They maintained that additional specifics are unnecessary and could compromise ongoing investigations or witness safety. Concerning the motion for a gag order to prevent public statements by potential witnesses and attorneys, prosecutors argued that existing court orders already address these concerns, rendering the defense's request redundant. They emphasized the importance of balancing the defendant's right to a fair trial with the public's right to information, asserting that current measures are adequate to maintain this balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:diddy.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Juni 40min

In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (24 Cr. 542), federal prosecutors have filed an opposition to the defense's motions requesting a hearing, a bill of particulars, and a gag order. The defense sought a hearing to investigate alleged government leaks of evidence, specifically a 2016 video purportedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. Prosecutors refuted these claims, stating they did not possess the video prior to its public release and had no involvement in its dissemination. They argued that the defense's allegations are baseless and represent a strategic attempt to suppress critical evidence that is highly probative of Combs' alleged criminal conduct.Regarding the request for a bill of particulars, the defense sought detailed information about the charges to prepare for trial. Prosecutors contended that the indictment already provides sufficient detail, outlining the nature of the charges and the alleged criminal activities. They maintained that additional specifics are unnecessary and could compromise ongoing investigations or witness safety. Concerning the motion for a gag order to prevent public statements by potential witnesses and attorneys, prosecutors argued that existing court orders already address these concerns, rendering the defense's request redundant. They emphasized the importance of balancing the defendant's right to a fair trial with the public's right to information, asserting that current measures are adequate to maintain this balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:diddy.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Juni 23min

A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Juni 19min

A memorandum in support of a request for dismissal of a complaint is a legal document submitted to a court that outlines the reasons why a complaint should be dismissed. This type of memorandum is typically prepared by the defendant or their legal counsel and presented to the court as part of the pre-trial proceedings.In this document, the defendant usually provides legal arguments and evidence to support their request for dismissal. This could include demonstrating that the complaint fails to state a valid legal claim, that there is a lack of jurisdiction, or that there are other legal grounds for dismissal.The memorandum serves as a persuasive tool for the court, aiming to convince the judge that the complaint does not have merit and should not proceed to trial. It is important for the memorandum to be well-researched, clearly written, and supported by relevant legal precedent.In this episode we begin our look at the UMG memorandum in support of dismissing the complaint filed against them by Rodney Jones.   to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.616406.41.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

28 Juni 14min