Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 1)

Transcript

The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 1) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to continue taking
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: a look at some more court documents in regard to
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: the CVRA and the non prosecution Agreement, and this time
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: we're taking a look at the Affid David of Bradley
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: Edwards regarding need for the production of documents Case number
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: nine zero eight DASH CV DASH eight zero seven three
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: six DASH KAM Jane Do one Jane Do two versus
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: the United States of America The Affid David of Bradley J. Edwards.
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: I Bradley J. Edwards Do hereby declare that I'm a
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: member in good standing of the Bar of the State
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: of Florida. Along with co Council, I represent Jane Do
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: number one and Jane Do number two as referred to
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: as victims in the above listed action to enforce their
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act. I also represented
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: them in several other victims in civil suits against Jeffrey
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am also familiar with
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: the criminal justice system, having served as a state prosecutor
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: in the Broward County State Attorney's Office. The Affid David
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: covers factual issues regarding the government's assertions of privilege to
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: more than thirteen thousand pages of documents it has produced
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: for in camera inspection. In the case, this affid David
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: provides factual information demonstrating that the government's assertions of privilege
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: are not well founded. It further demonstrates that the victims
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: have a compelling and substantial need for the information requested
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: and have no other way of obtaining that information. Background
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: regarding unsuccessful efforts to reach stipulated facts with the government.
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: On July seven, two thousand and eight, I filed a
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: petition to enforce the CVR rights at Jane DO one
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: and Jane DO two with regard to sex offenses committed
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: against them by Jeffrey Epstein while they were miners. Though
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: a course of the proceedings since then is one known
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: to the Court. For purposes of this Affidavid regarding privileges,
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: it's enough to briefly recount the efforts of the victims
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: to reach a stipulated set of facts with the government,
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: efforts that the government has blocked. The Court first held
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: a hearing on victims petition on July eleventh, two thousand
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: and eight. The Court discussed a need to have complete record,
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: and this is going to be an issue that's going
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: to go to the Eleventh Circuit, so it may be
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: better to have a complete record as to what your
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: position is and the governments is to what actions were taken.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: The court concluded that the hearing with the following instructions,
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: So I'll let both of you confer about whether there
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: is a need for any additional evidence to be presented.
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: And that was the transcript we did previously, so this
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: is building on that. The victims and the US Attorney's
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: Office then attempted to reach a stipulated set of facts
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: underlying the case. The US Attorney's Office offered a very
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: abbreviated set of proposed facts, and the victims responded with
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: the detailed set of proposed facts rather than respond to
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: the victim's specific facts. However, the U. S. Attorney's Office
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: suddenly reversed course. On July twenty ninth, two thousand and eight,
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: it filed a notice to court regarding absence of need
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: for evidentiary hearing. The U. S. Attorney's Office took the
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: following position after consideration, the government believes that an evidentiary
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: hearing is not necessary. The office asserted that the court
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: need only take judicial notice of the fact that no
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: indictment had been filed against Epstein to resolve the case.
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: On August first, two thousand and eight, the victims filed
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: a response to the government's notice, given a proposed statement
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: of facts surrounding the case. The victim's response also requested
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: that the court direct the government to confer with the
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: victims regarding the undisputed facts of the case and produced
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: the non prosecution agreement and other information about the case.
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: On August fourteenth, two thousand and eight, the Court held
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: a hearing on the case regarding the confidentiality of the
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: non na prosecution agreement. The court ultimately ordered production of
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: the agreement to the victims. After the U. S. Attorney's
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: Office made the non prosecution agreement available to the victims,
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: the victims reviewed it and pursued further discussion with the U. S.
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office. Ultimately, however, the U. S. Attorney's Office declined
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: to reach a stipulated set of facts with the victims
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: and declined to provide further information about the case. With
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: negotiations at an impasse, the victims attempted to learn the
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: facts of the case in other ways. In approximately May
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: of two thousand and nine, Council for the Victims propounded
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: discovery requests in both states and federal civil cases against Epstein,
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: seeking to obtain correspondence between Epstein and prosecutors regarding his
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: plea agreement, information that the U. S. Attorney's Office was
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: unwilling to provide to the victims, and information that was
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: highly relevant both to the victim's civil suit and their
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: CVRA enforcement action. Epstein refused to produce the information, and,
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: as the Court is aware, extended litigation to obtain the
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: materials followed. The Court rejected all of Epstein's objections to
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: producing the materials. On June thirtieth, twenty ten, Council for
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: Epstein sent to Council for Victims approximately three hundred and
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: fifty eight pages of email correspondence between Criminal Defense Council
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: and the U. S. Attorney's Office regarding the plea agreement
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: that had been negotiated between them. These emails began to
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: disclose for the first time the extreme steps that had
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: been taken by the US Attorney's Office to avoid prosecuting
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: Epstein and to avoid having the victims in the case
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: learn about the non prosecution agreement that had been reached
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: between Epstein and the government. While the court ordered that
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: all of the correspondents be turned over to the victims,
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: Epstein chose to disobey that order and instead only produced
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: the correspondents authored by the government and redacted all correspondents
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: authored by him or his attorneys. In mid July twenty ten,
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: Jane do one and Jane do two settled their civil
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: lawsuits against Epstein. Then, armed with new information, they turned
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: to moving forward in the CVR case. On September thirteenth,
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: twenty ten, the victims informed the court that they were
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: preparing new filings in the case. On October twelfth, twenty ten,
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: the court entered in order directing the victims to provide
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: a status report on the case by October twenty seventh,
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: twenty ten. That same day, Council for the victims again
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: contacted the US Attorney's Office about the possibility of reaching
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: a stipulated set of facts in the case. That same day,
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: the US Attorney's Office responded, we don't have any problem
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: with agreeing that a factual assertion is correct if we
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: agree that is what occurred. On October twenty third, twenty ten,
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: the victims email to the US Attorney's Office a detailed
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: proposal statement of facts that many of the facts now
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: documented by the correspondents between the US Attorney's Office and
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: Epstein's council. The victims requested that the US Attorney's Office
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: identify which facts it would agree to. In a letter
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: to the US Attorney's Office, the victim stated, if you
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: believe that any of the facts they proposed during correct,
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: Jane do one and Jane Doe two would reiterate their
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: long standing request that you work with us to arrive
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: at a mutually agreed statement of facts. As you know,
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: in the summer of two thousand and eight, Jane do
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: one and Jane do two were working with you on
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: a stipulation of facts when you reverse course and took
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: the position that no recitation of the facts was necessary.
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: I hope that your email means that you will at
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: least look at our facts and propose any modifications that
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: you deem appropriate. Having that evidence quickly available to the
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: court would help move the case to a conclusion. That
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: same day, the US Attorney's Office agreed to forward the
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: proposed statement of facts to the appropriate Assistant US Attorney
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: for review on October twenty six, twenty ten. Rather than
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: stipulate to undisputed facts, the US Attorney's Office contacted the
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: victims attorneys and asked them to delay the filing of
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: their motion for a two week period of time so
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: that negotiations could be held between the office and the
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: victims in an attempt to narrow the range of disputes
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: in the case and hopefully reach a settlement resolution without
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: the need for further litigation. Negotiation between the victims in
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: the US Attorney's Office then followed over the next two days. However,
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: at six eleven pm on October twenty seventh, twenty ten,
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: the date on which the victims pleading was due, the
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: US Attorney's Office informed the victims that it did not
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: believe that it had time to review the victim's proposed
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: statement of the facts and advise which were accurate and
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: which were inaccurate. The office further advised the victims that
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: it believed that the victims did not have a right
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: to confer with their office under the CVRA in this case, because,
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: in its view, the case is civil litigation rather than
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: criminal litigation. As a result, purely as an accommodation to
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: the US Attorney's Office. On October twenty seventh, twenty ten,
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: the victims filed a report with the court in which
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: they agreed to delay filing their motion and accompanying facts
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: for up to two weeks to see if negotiations can
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: resolve or narrow the disputes with the U. S. Attorney's Office.
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: Discussions with the U. S. Attorney's Office dragged on, including
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: a personal meeting between Jane do One and the U.
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: S Attorney in December of twenty ten. After further discussion
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: failed to produce any agreement or other visible progress, the
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: victims informed the US Attorney's Office that they would file
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: their summary judgment motion with the court on March eighteenth,
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: twenty eleven, and requested further cooperation from the office on
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: the facts. Ultimately, after months of discussion, the US Attorney's
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: Office in formed Council for the Victims that, contrary to
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: promises made earlier to stipulate to undisputed facts, no such
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: stipulation would be forthcoming. Instead, on March fifteenth, twenty eleven,
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida,
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: wil Fredo A. Farah sent a letter to the victims
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: declining to reach any agreement on the facts, because, as
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: a matter of law, the CVRA is inapplicable to this matter,
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: in which no federal criminal charges were ever filed. Your
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: request for the government's agreement on a set of proposed
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: stipulated facts is unnecessary and premature. That is because whether
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: the rights in eighteen US Code Section thirty seven to
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: seventy one a attached prior to the filing of a
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: charge in federal court is a matter of statutory interpretation.
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: Resolution of that question is not dependent upon the existence
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: of any certain set of facts other than whether a
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the U. S.
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: District Court for the Southern District of Florida. And while
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: this office remains willing to cooperate, cooperation does not mean
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: agreeing to facts that are not relevant to the resolution
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: of the legal dispute at issue. Letter from Wilfredo A.
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: Ferrer to Paul G. Cassel, accordingly, unable to work with
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: the government to reach a resolution of the facts. On
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: March twenty first, twenty eleven, the victims filed emotion for
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: some rejudgment alleging fifty three undisputed facts, along with some
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: evidentiary support for each of the facts. The victims also
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: filed a motion to have their facts accepted because of
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: the government's failure to contest their facts. The victims also
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: filed emotion to have the court direct the government not
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: to withhold relevant evidence. Following a hearing on the motions
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: on September twenty six, twenty eleven, the court rejected the
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: government's argument that the CBRA was inapplicable in the case
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: because the government had never filed charges against Epstein. The court, however,
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: rejected the victim's argument that it should accept their facts
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: because of the government's failure to contest the facts. Instead,
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: the court directed that discovery could proceed in the form
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: of requests for admissions and document production requests. The court
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: reserved ruling on the victim's motion that the government should
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: be directed not to withhold evidence. All right, folks, we're
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: in the description box.