Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Judge Engelmayer Denies The Request Made By Khanna And Massie For A Special Master

Transcript

Judge Engelmayer Denies The Request Made By Khanna And Massie For A Special Master · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Epstein Chronicles. Judge Angelmeyer has declined to appoint the Special
• 0:09
  Master over the Epstein file release as requested by Rocanna
• 0:14
  and Thomas Massey, and in this episode, we're going to
• 0:18
  take a look at the actual opinion and order that
• 0:20
  was filed by Judge engel Mayer explaining why he denied
• 0:25
  the request. Case number one twenty dash CR zero zero
• 0:31
  three to three zero dash p ae United States of
• 0:35
  America First Glenn Maxwell Paul A. Engelmeyer, District Judge. This
• 0:41
  decision resolves the motion by two United States representatives to
• 0:45
  participate as a Mike Kai Kurrie I in this criminal case.
• 0:51
  Representatives Thomas Massey and Rocanna are co sponsors of the
• 0:56
  Epstein File Transparency Act, which were enacted nearly unanimously by
• 1:01
  Congress and signed into law on November nineteenth, twenty twenty five.
• 1:06
  The Act required the Attorney General, within thirty days of
• 1:09
  its enactment and subject to certain exceptions, to make publicly
• 1:13
  available all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in
• 1:19
  the possession of the Department of Justice that relate to
• 1:22
  the notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. In a motion filed January thirteenth,
• 1:27
  twenty twenty six, the representatives seek leave to participate in
• 1:31
  the cases A. Mike Kai, Kerrie I for the purpose
• 1:35
  of assuring DOJ's compliance with the EFTA. They assert that
• 1:39
  in multiple respects, DOJ has violated the Act. First, they
• 1:44
  assert DOJ is not complied with the December nineteenth, twenty
• 1:47
  twenty five, deadline set by the Act for the public
• 1:50
  release of a responsive records. They note that the DOJ's admission,
• 1:55
  as of January fifth, twenty twenty six, more than two
• 1:58
  weeks after the deadline, publicly released only twelve thousand, two
• 2:02
  hundred and eighty five documents, with more than two million
• 2:05
  documents potentially responsive to the Act in various phases of review. Second,
• 2:11
  they assert DOJ has not complied with the separate provision
• 2:15
  of the Act requiring the Attorney General within fifteen days
• 2:18
  of the deadline for release, to submit a report to
• 2:21
  the House and Senate Judiciary committees identifying the categories of
• 2:25
  records released and withheld, and summarizing all redactions and the
• 2:29
  legal basis. Third, they assert, in withholding and redacting documents,
• 2:34
  DOJ is invoked common law privilege that the Act does
• 2:37
  not permit, and has applied extensive redaction that appear to
• 2:41
  exceed the one statutory exception victim identifying information that the
• 2:45
  DOJ is invoked. Fourth, they assert DOJ's extensive redactions appear
• 2:50
  inconsistent with the act's prohibition on withholding or redacting records
• 2:55
  to protect politically exposed persons. Fifth, they assert many files
• 2:59
  that at first publicly released were later retracted in full,
• 3:04
  which may have removed from public view records or portions
• 3:07
  thereof whose withholding or redaction is not necessary to protect
• 3:12
  victim privacy. The representatives also assert that DOJ has falsely
• 3:17
  blamed the courts for its multiple failures to comply with
• 3:19
  the Act, when in fact courts have merely required that
• 3:23
  before releasing discovery material, DOJ ensure that these do not
• 3:27
  improperly identify victims. To address the urgent and grave concerns,
• 3:32
  the representatives seek a neutral, independent review of DOJ compliance
• 3:37
  with the Act. They ask the Court to appoint a
• 3:40
  special Master or independent monitor for the purpose of ensuring
• 3:44
  that all the documents and electronically stored information are immediately
• 3:48
  made public in accordance with the EFTA. They also seek
• 3:52
  the court to compel testimony about the production that have
• 3:56
  been and will be made without independent oversight. The represent
• 4:00
  state we do not believe the DOJ will produce the
• 4:02
  records as required by the Act. To put simply, they
• 4:06
  state DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosure under
• 4:10
  the Act. The Court has since received letters and emails
• 4:14
  from victims of Epstein supporting the representative's request for appointment
• 4:18
  of a neutral to oversee DOJ's compliance. These express concern
• 4:23
  that the DOJ otherwise will not comply with the Act.
• 4:27
  They note that the DOJ's track record preceding passage of
• 4:30
  the Act has been marked by paying lip service to
• 4:33
  the victims and failing to treat us with the solicitude
• 4:37
  we deserve. The question raised by the representatives and the
• 4:41
  victims are undeniably important and timely. They raise legitimate concerns
• 4:46
  about whether DOJ is faithfully complying with the order. But
• 4:51
  for two reasons, the representative's request for relief cannot be
• 4:54
  granted in this case. One, the federal criminal case does
• 4:58
  not give the court jurisdiction or authority to supervise DJ's
• 5:02
  compliance with EFTA, a civil records disclosure statute United States
• 5:07
  First Glenn Maxwell is a criminal prosecution. The only parties
• 5:11
  to the case are Maxwell and the US, the latter represented,
• 5:15
  as is always the case, by the DOJ. The indictment
• 5:18
  against Maxwell brought charges under six federal criminal statutes. Those
• 5:23
  were not brought under the EFTA, which did not exist
• 5:26
  at the time and is not a criminal statute, and
• 5:30
  this case is now effectively closed. Maxwell was convicted at
• 5:33
  trial in December of twenty twenty one and sentenced in
• 5:36
  June of twenty twenty two. The Second Circuit affirms her
• 5:40
  conviction and sentenced in September twenty twenty four, and the
• 5:43
  Supreme Court denied her petition in October of twenty twenty five.
• 5:48
  The only outstanding item in the case is Maxwell's recent
• 5:51
  pro se petition, in which she collaterally challenges her conviction
• 5:55
  and sentence on grounds that do not relate to the EFTA.
• 6:00
  This court lacks authority to grant the representative's request for relief.
• 6:04
  It is axiomatic that federal courts have limited jurisdiction as
• 6:09
  defined by the Constitution and federal law. The representatives have
• 6:13
  not articulated how the criminal statutes under which Maxwell was
• 6:17
  charged would empower the court to enforce the EFTA. They
• 6:21
  have not cited any case supporting that Congress grant to
• 6:24
  federal district courts of exclusive original jurisdiction to hear cases
• 6:28
  brought under federal criminal law carries with it the authority
• 6:31
  to superintend enforcement of the EFTA, a civil records disclosure statute.
• 6:38
  No provision of the EFTA vests this Court with that authority.
• 6:43
  The Court is also unaware of authority supporting that a
• 6:46
  district courts inherent although limited supervisory power to oversee the
• 6:50
  administration of criminal justice, empowers it to broadly oversee compliance
• 6:55
  with that civil statute. No party here is claimed that
• 6:58
  this step is necessary to ensure the integrity of Maxwell's conviction,
• 7:02
  which became final upon the denial of repetition, and the
• 7:06
  federal court supervisory power over a criminal case generally does
• 7:10
  not extend to addressing injuries to non parties. In urging
• 7:15
  the Court to act, representatives noted that this Court, in
• 7:19
  a decision last month, recognized the efta's clear disclosure mandate,
• 7:24
  but that decision considered the EFTA for a limited purpose.
• 7:28
  The judge who initially oversaw this case, the Honorable Alison J. Nathan,
• 7:33
  had put in place the protective order governing discovery. The
• 7:37
  protective order, which limits the government and maxwell's ability to
• 7:41
  publicly disclosed discovery material, remained and remains in place. Because
• 7:46
  the voluminous discovery in this case included records that the
• 7:49
  Act requires to be released, the protective order was a
• 7:52
  potential obstacle to DOJ's compliance with the EFTA. Accordingly, DOJ
• 7:58
  asked the Court to modify the detective order to enable
• 8:01
  DOJ to release such discovery. This Court, construing the EFTA
• 8:06
  and the protective order, agreed that modification of the latter
• 8:09
  was necessary to enable compliance with the former, and granted
• 8:13
  DOJ's motion in modifying the provision order or protective order. However,
• 8:19
  this Court did not itself compelled DOJ to publicly release
• 8:23
  any records. It was EFTA that did so. Nor did
• 8:27
  this court's decision assert authority over DOJ's compliance with EFTA.
• 8:32
  It merely removed an obstacle the unmodified protective order to
• 8:36
  such compliance, and the existence in this case of a
• 8:39
  protective order an order commonplace in federal criminal practice does
• 8:43
  not expand this Court's jurisdiction. The criminal case against Maxwell
• 8:48
  thus does not give the Court authority to enforce the EFTA.
• 8:52
  The representative's proposed participation here as a mi kai KERRIEI
• 8:56
  is not permissible. Neither party in the case has made
• 9:00
  any motion concerning the implementation of EFTA. The representative's attempt
• 9:05
  to participate here to raise a new issue whether a
• 9:09
  Special Master or other neutral should be appointed to oversee
• 9:12
  DOJ's compliance with the Act, is therefore not permissible. Such
• 9:18
  is the case here. The representatives do not seek to
• 9:21
  opine on any live issue before the court. The only
• 9:25
  such issue are those raised by Maxwell recently filed Section
• 9:28
  twenty two to fifty five petition, and the appointment of
• 9:31
  a neutral to supervise DOJ's compliance with the EFTA is
• 9:36
  far afield from any matter pending before the Court. It's
• 9:39
  thus not a permitted form of a meekis participation conclusion.
• 9:47
  For the two reasons above, the Court respectfully denies the
• 9:50
  representative's motion to participate in the criminal case as a
• 9:53
  mi kai kerrie I. This criminal case does not give
• 9:56
  the court charter to supervise the DOJ's compliance with the EFTA,
• 10:02
  and the motion exceeds the bounds of permissible a Michai participation.
• 10:07
  The decision is without prejudice to the representative's right to
• 10:11
  initiate a separate lawsuit. The representatives are, also, of course,
• 10:14
  at liberty to pursue oversight of DOJ via the tools
• 10:18
  available to Congress. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed
• 10:23
  to terminate the motion pending at dock at eight thirty seven,
• 10:26
  so ordered Judge Paul A. Engelmeyer, dated January twenty first,
• 10:32
  twenty twenty six. All of the information that goes with
• 10:35
  this episode can be found in the description box.