Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Leon Black's Battle To Sanction Wigdor And His Accuser (5/9/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Leon Black's Battle To Sanction Wigdor And His Accuser (5/9/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein chronicles.
0:04
In this episode, we're diving right back in to those
0:06
Leon Black core documents in his lawsuit against the Jane
0:11
Doe issuing him for allegedly assaulting her after being trafficked
0:15
to Leon Black by Jeffrey Epstein, Case number one twenty
0:20
three Dash CV Dash zero six four one eight Jane
0:25
Doe versely On Black defendantly On Black's memorandum of law
0:30
in support of his motion for sanctions against Whigdoor LLP
0:34
and Jean Christiansen defendantly On Black respectfully submits this memorandum
0:40
in support of his motion for sanctions against Whigdoor and
0:44
Jene Christiansen Council for Plaintiff. The preliminary statement, this is
0:49
a textbook case for the imposition of sanctions. To put
0:51
it plainly, the complaint in this action is made up
0:54
out of whole cloth stitched together by plaintiff and our
0:57
lawyers at Whigdor for a soul transparent purpose to inflict
1:01
maximal reputational and other harm on someone in means of
1:05
hopes of extracting a major and totally undeserved payday. Plaintiff
1:10
whose own immediate family members have consistently acknowledged has a
1:14
long history of dreaming up alternate realities, concocted the entire story,
1:19
and her lawyers at Wigdor, now pursuing their third utterly
1:23
frivolous sexual assault litigation against mister Black, the first of
1:26
which has now been dismissed and the second of which
1:29
will be hotly contested, knowingly aided and abetted their client's
1:33
delusions without doing even the most basic due diligence into
1:37
the facts, and indeed deliberately turned the blind eye to
1:40
an overwhelming body of evidence squarely contradicting the allegations in
1:45
the complaint. Sanctions here are not only warranted, buck compelled
1:49
in order to vindicate the court's authority the old Whigdor
1:52
to account for their egregious misconduct, and to dissuade prospective
1:56
copycats from charting the same wayward course that whig Or
2:00
has pursued. Plaintiff's complaint spinds a dramatic tale of a
2:03
young girl with a supposed developmental and congenital disability, abandoned
2:09
by her parents and then lured into the orbit of
2:11
a cheerleading coach named Elizabeth. In the complaint, one who
2:14
purportedly subjected her to physical abuse and then trafficked her
2:18
to notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and many others as relevant here.
2:23
Wigdoor alleges that during an extended period when she was
2:27
shipped off on a weekly basis to Epstein's properties in
2:30
New York, the US Virgin Islands in Florida, she was
2:34
sexually assaulted, including allegedly being raped by mister Black more
2:38
than twenty two years ago. Everything the complaint says about
2:41
mister Black is utterly and demonstrably false. Mister Black has
2:46
never met or even heard a plaintiff, much less raped her,
2:49
a fact mister Black is fully prepared to establish should
2:52
this matter proceed. But the complaint here is a sham,
2:55
the direct product of obvious lies by plaintiff, squarely enabled
2:59
by a law firm that not only failed to conduct
3:01
a reasonable inquiry, but that in fact has ignored objective evidence,
3:06
casting a serious paul on their clients bonafides, and directly
3:10
disproving key allegations in the complaint. After getting word of
3:15
the complaint, mister Black retained professional investigators to investigate plaintiff
3:19
and her allegations, and swiftly learned facts that the most
3:22
basic inquiry, had whig Or done, one would have been unearthed.
3:27
The investigation, in telling, among other things, discussions with plaintiff's family, friends,
3:31
and acquaintances, raises serious doubts about the allegations that the
3:35
plaintiff has autism and that she has mosaic Down syndrome.
3:40
Putting aside the fact that these allegations, if believed, would
3:43
compel a diligent lawyer to be on heightened alert and
3:46
to make additional inquiries before accusing anyone of Haineu's crimes
3:49
decades in the past. Mister Black's investigation showed that, according
3:53
to plaintiff's own family, redacted has a history of making
3:57
up alternate realities and never claimed to have autism or
4:01
mosaic Down syndrome until well into adulthood. Plaintiff's family confirmed
4:06
that plaintiff studied the behavior of people with autism and
4:08
intentionally mimic that behavior starting in her twenties. Her family
4:12
said she claimed to have mosaic Down syndrome only when
4:16
she was in her thirties, after a cousin posted on
4:18
social media about her child with Down syndrome and received
4:22
positive support and attention, and far from suffering from learning
4:27
or other significant intellectual challenges. Plaintiff graduated from high school
4:31
and college and is now believed to be studying law.
4:35
Mister Black's investigation also found that plaintiff did not join
4:39
the cheerleading squad coached by Elizabeth until plaintiff was in
4:42
her senior year of high school, not when she was fifteen,
4:45
as the complaint complaints. It also showed that, contrary to
4:49
the allegations in the complaint, plaintiffs lived with her parents
4:52
throughout high school and moved in with Elizabeth for a
4:54
short time only after she graduated and started college because
4:58
Elizabeth's home was closer to to her college campus. Indeed,
5:02
plaintiff drove redacted to and from school nearly every day
5:06
during plaintiffs redacted. Plaintiff did not, as she say and
5:10
whig or now claim, miss countless Fridays and Mondays from
5:13
her junior year of high school due to trips to
5:15
Ebstein's properties. Her parents, sister, and friends all do not
5:20
recall her missing any significant time from school other than
5:23
a single period of inpatient hospitalization. In fact, none of
5:28
the individuals contacted recall plaintiff ever making any trips to
5:31
New York, Florida, or the US Virgin Islands. Instead, they
5:35
recalled only a single trip abroad to the Bahamas with Elizabeth,
5:39
Elizabeth's young son, and Elizabeth's female friend, after plaintiff had
5:43
graduated high school. On top of all of this, there
5:47
is not one reference to plaintiff's actual name in the
5:49
multitude of materials available in the public domain in connection
5:53
with the various investigations and lawsuits connected to Abstein over
5:57
the years. Plaintiff's is not made maid any claims against
6:01
Epstein's estate, never retained any of the lawyers representing groups
6:04
of victims, nor joined any of the many public lawsuits.
6:08
It blinks reality to suggest that plaintiff had been regularly
6:12
trafficked by the world's most notorious pedophile, and yet her
6:15
name has never surfaced anywhere at any time until now,
6:19
that is, and only against mister Black. Moreover, the complaint
6:23
allegations purporting to reference facts about Epstein simply repeated information
6:28
that is readily available through an Internet search. Had Wigdor
6:32
conducted any inquiry at all, and at a minimum or
6:34
reasonable inquiry, it would have discovered any and all of
6:37
the facts. Mister Black so quickly identified that disprove her
6:41
made up claims. But regardless, Whigdor was unnotice that plaintiff's
6:46
claims should be investigated because it was expressly toll prior
6:49
to filing the complaint that plaintiff's allegations were false, uncorroborated,
6:54
and likely fabricated her family and friends, and contemporary photographs
6:59
of plaintiff and Hi High School confirmed the falsity of
7:02
her allegation that she physically presented as a young child
7:05
at the time. Wigdoor's response was to disregard the notice,
7:09
refused to investigate the facts, and file a complaint accusing
7:12
mister Black and others of some of the most despicable
7:15
acts one could imagine. And worse, Wigdor still refused to
7:19
lift a finger even after mister Black sent it a
7:22
Rule eleven letter detailing these facts and the results of
7:25
mister Black's preliminary investigation, even though more shockingly, Wigdor has
7:30
evidently been in contact with plaintiff's family, Elizabeth and others
7:34
only after the filing of the complaint and undoubtedly either
7:37
heard and ignored or simply turned a blind eye to
7:40
what plaintiff family has told them. Although plaintiff's name has
7:45
been anonymous in the case, mister Black's name has not
7:49
and true to form, Wigdor has whipped up yet another
7:51
media frenzy surrounding these unimaginably lurid and disgusting allegations for
7:56
the consumption of mister Black's family, friends, business, associate, and
8:00
the public. One reason the law requires attorneys to investigate
8:04
claims is to avoid the untoward ruination of putative defendant's name.
8:09
Wigdor fell to uphold its duty to investigate plaintiff's claims,
8:13
choosing instead to blindly accept her spacious allegations at face value.
8:18
Because Wigdor did not do so and has refused to
8:21
withdraw or modify the complaint's allegations in the face of
8:24
the evidence mister Black has advanced sanctions should be imposed
8:29
the background one plaintiff's allegations. On July twenty fifth, twenty
8:34
twenty three, Whigdor filed a complaint on behalf of plaintiff
8:37
Jane Doe, commencing the instant proceeding. The complaint tells a
8:41
lurid story of abuse, grooming, and sex trafficking starring Epstein
8:46
and his cohort of notorious associates, culminating in the heinous
8:49
sexual assault a plaintiff allegedly at the hands of mister Black.
8:54
The complaint is replete with specific, detailed allegations about plaintiff
8:59
and the circumstance that led her to the alleged introductions
9:02
to Epstein and defendant. Nowhere did Whigdor specifically identify that
9:07
there were any allegations that it believes will likely have
9:10
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity to further investigate discovery.
9:15
In other words, it made representation to the court that
9:18
the complaints factual contentions had evidentiary support Federer CIVP eleven B.
9:24
Mister Black's attorneys understand that Whigdor was expressly warm prior
9:28
to filing the complaint that plaintiff's allegations regarding Epstein and
9:32
Leon Black were false, uncorroborated, and likely fabricated. Among other things,
9:38
plaintiff alleges that when she was fifteen, she participated in
9:41
a county cheerleading program for eight to twelve year old girls.
9:45
She specifically alleges that she was allowed to participate despite
9:48
being much older than the other girls, because she could
9:51
fit into the child size uniform. She then alleges that
9:55
she was groomed by the adult who ran the program,
9:58
whom plaintiff refers to as Elizabeth, and soon began living
10:01
at Elizabeth's house while still a high school student. Plaintiff
10:05
claims that she did not have her own bed there,
10:07
much less a bedroom. According to plaintiff, Elizabeth subjected plaintiff
10:12
to horrific physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including punching, kicking,
10:17
dragging plaintiff up the stairs, depriving her of food and water,
10:21
making her dress in small children's clothing, forcing her to
10:24
exercise to exhaustion, threatening to kill her, and forcing her
10:27
to watch Elizabeth and her male friend Charlie have sex.
10:30
Plaintiff next alleges that in the late summer of two
10:33
thousand and one, when she was fifteen, Elizabeth and Charlie
10:36
took her to an adult party in a suburb outside
10:39
of DC, where she was introduced to Glenn Maxwell. The
10:44
very next week, Plaintiff alledges Elizabeth put plaintiff on a
10:47
private plane from Virginia to Palm Beach, where plaintiff was
10:51
introduced to Epstein and brought into his fold. Plaintiff alleges
10:55
that she was thereafter shipped out to Epstein's homes in
10:59
Palm beach in US Virgin Islands most weekends and as
11:02
a result, miss countless Fridays and Mondays from her junior
11:05
year of high school, almost causing her to fail. Plaintiff
11:09
also alleges that Epstein began handing plaintiff off to other men,
11:13
which would ultimately lead to the alleged rape by defendant
11:16
that forms the basis of plaintiff's putative claim. All right,
11:20
we're gonna wrap up right here, and then the next
11:22
episode we'll pick up with Part two. All of the
11:25
information that goes with this episode can be found in
11:28
the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to another
11:31
episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking
11:36
up with Jane Doe's lawsuit against Leon Black and Leon
11:40
Black's motion to sanction Jane Doe and her lawyers. Three.
11:44
Defendant's investigation immediately uncovers evidence disproving these allegations. Soon after
11:51
Whigdor filed the complaint, mister Black began investigating the outlandish, silacious,
11:56
and sensational allegations in the complaint. The story began and
12:00
to unravel immediately with a modicum of inquiry. Indeed, Defendant's
12:04
initial preliminary investigation gives the lie to Plaintiff's entire narrative
12:09
and has failed to uncover even a shred of evidence
12:11
supporting plaintiff's account. His investigators easily obtained evidence that either
12:17
refuted key details in the complaint or showed them to
12:20
be patently and unequivocally false. A the cheerleading program, for example,
12:26
plaintiff alleges that, as a fifteen year old high school student,
12:29
she participated in a cheerleading program for eight to twelve
12:32
year old girls, and that she was allowed to participate
12:35
because she could not fit into a child size uniform.
12:38
This hyper specific allegation, no doubt included to make plaintiff's
12:42
allegations of underage sex trafficking seem even more heinous, is
12:46
demonstrably false. Witness statements, including signed, sworn declarations, and photographic evidence,
12:52
proved that plaintiff participated in a recreational cheerleading program called
12:56
redacted that was open to high school age girls Melendez
13:00
Declaration thirteen, Exhibit B. Furthermore, plaintiff physical development was normal
13:06
and she could not fit into a uniform for an
13:08
eight to twelve year old child Melendez Declaration eleven and
13:11
thirteen numerous photographs of plaintiff from the period alleged in
13:16
the complaint confirmed that she was at least normal size
13:19
and development. Indeed, a dated official photograph of plaintiff and
13:24
her cheerleading team, which mister Black's investigators were able to
13:27
easily obtain during their preliminary inquiry, shows that plaintiff was
13:31
of normal size and development for age B Living with
13:36
Elizabeth as another example, plaintiff alleges that she began living
13:41
nearly full time with their cheerleading coach, Elizabeth, while plaintiff
13:45
was still in high school. Plaintiff's family, however, stated unequivocally
13:49
that plaintiff lived at home throughout high school. Indeed, plaintiff
13:53
stated that she drove her to school nearly every day
13:56
during plaintiff's redacted. Plaintiff's family members and h school classmates
14:01
deny that plaintiff ever lived outside of her home during
14:03
high school, nor do any of them recall plaintiff missing
14:06
school for any significant amount of time other than when
14:10
plaintiff was redacted. Mister Black's investigators were able to quickly
14:15
determine that plaintiff did, in fact live with her former
14:17
cheerleading coach for a brief period of time after plaintiff
14:21
graduated from high school. After graduating, plaintiff enrolled at redacted.
14:26
Misredacted live closer to redacted than Plaintiff's family, and so
14:30
as a favor, offered to let plaintiff live with her
14:33
while she attended college. Plaintiff was eighteen years old at
14:36
the time and, contrary to allegations in the complaint, had
14:39
her own bedroom. Plaintiff's family, misredacted, misredacted son, and misredacted's
14:45
then boyfriend who lived with misredacted at the time all
14:48
confirmed that plaintiff was a freshman in college during the
14:50
brief period when she lived with misredacted, and the plaintiff
14:54
did not live with misredacted while she was in high school.
14:58
In addition, contry to a platf its allegations about being
15:01
trafficked around the country and the US Virgin Islands, all
15:04
of the interview we stated that plaintiff never traveled out
15:08
of the state, let alone out of the country, other
15:10
than for her hospitalization and a trip to the Bahamas
15:13
that she took with misredacted, misredacted's teenage son, and a
15:17
female friend of misredacted which occurred after plaintiff graduated high
15:21
school see Plaintiff's history concerning mental health issues. In addition
15:26
to evidence refuting and indeed outright disproving key allegations in
15:30
Plaintiff's complaint, mister Black's investigation revealed that Redacted, among other things,
15:36
members of Plaintiff's family stated that she has assumed a
15:39
series of different names and personas redacted, has the history
15:43
of making up alternate realities and frequently invents things that,
15:47
in their words, become her reality. Redacted, Plaintiff's family members
15:52
and misredacted, and plaintiff's high school classmates all stated that
15:56
Plaintiff did not display any symptoms or characteristic of autism
16:01
while in high school, and indeed, Plaintiff's family confirmed that
16:04
she was not diagnosed with autism during her childhood or
16:07
while she lived home throughout high school. Plaintiff's sister, who
16:11
now works with autistic children, stated that plaintiff only began
16:14
displaying such behaviors in her twenties, and did so intentionally
16:18
in order to present herself as a person with autism.
16:22
For example, plaintiff once noted that people with autism don't
16:25
look other people in the eye, and therefore began to
16:28
avoid looking people in the eye, a behavior she has
16:31
never before displayed. Plaintiff's family members also noted that plaintiff
16:36
first claim to have mosaic Down syndrome when she was
16:38
in her thirties, after a cousin posted on social media
16:42
about her child with Down syndrome and received positive support
16:46
and detention. D absolutely no evidence connecting plaintiff to Apstein
16:50
or his associates. Mister Black's investigation has not turned up
16:54
even a shred of evidence connecting plaintiff to Epstein. Investigations
16:58
concerning Epstein have been ongoing for many years, led by
17:01
numerous criminals, civil and other regulatory authorities, as well as
17:05
civil litigants and the innumerable law firms representing them. Many
17:09
of the women actually associated with Epstein have been identified,
17:13
yet no one has ever identified plaintiff, either directly or indirectly,
17:17
as having any connection to Ebstein. Significant materials concerning Epstein
17:22
have been made public through judicial proceedings and multiple databases,
17:26
but not one contains any direct or indirect reference to plaintiff. Three.
17:31
Mister Black serves a Rule eleven warning letter whigdor Fells
17:35
to meaningfully respond. On August twenty fifth, twenty twenty three,
17:39
Council for Defendant served Whigdor with a warning letter pursuant
17:42
or Rule eleven C two of the Federal Rules a
17:45
Civil Procedure. In this Rule eleven letter, Council raised many
17:50
of the investigative findings cataloged above and put Wigdor on
17:53
notice that Defendant would seek sanctions under Rule eleven based
17:57
on Whigdoor's apparent failure to conduct any in investigation, let
18:01
alone reasonable inquiry, prior to filing the complaint. On September seventh,
18:05
twenty twenty three, Wigdor served its a response to the
18:09
Rule eleven letter. In response, Wigdor stated only we're fully
18:13
confident in our investigation and inquiry that was more than
18:17
reasonable of our client's claims. However, Wigdor did not identify
18:22
any investigative steps that took prior to filing plaintiff's complaint,
18:26
Nor did Whigdor address any of the investigative findings discussed
18:30
above or explain why it had either failed to discover
18:33
those facts during its supposed investigation, or why it preceded
18:37
to file plaintiff's complaint despite having learned them. Nowhere in
18:41
Whigdor's response did it explain why in light of the
18:44
facts uncovered by mister Black's investigators. It nevertheless believed that
18:48
the factual contentions in the complaint had evidentiary support federarciv
18:54
p eleven B three s Strich declaration, nor did after
18:58
a reasonable opportunity for further and investigation or a discovery
19:01
fed r civ p eleven b three argument. The legal
19:06
standard Rule eleven requires an attorney who files a pleading
19:10
to certify, among other things, that all factual contentions made
19:14
within those pleadings have evidentiary support, or, if specifically so identified,
19:18
will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
19:23
further investigation or discovery. Fed R civ p. Eleven requires
19:28
lawyers to think first and file later on pain of
19:31
personal liability. Accordingly, Rule eleven imposes a duty upon counsel
19:36
to undertake a reasonable inquiry into the factual validity and
19:40
legal viability of their pleadings fed r cive p. Eleven b.
19:45
By presenting to the court of pleading and attorney certifies that,
19:48
to the best of the person's knowledge, information and belief
19:51
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that the
19:55
pleading is valid and properly brought before the court see
20:00
Verse Jail versus Hartmax Corporation. Rule eleven directs council to
20:04
stop think and investigate carefully before serving and filing papers.
20:09
Under Rule eleven, an attorney has an affirmative duty to
20:13
make reasonable inquiry under the facts and the law. An
20:16
attorney can violate Rule eleven by either failing to make
20:18
a reasonable pre filing inquiry into the basis for her
20:22
client's allegations, or filing a paper that no competent attorney
20:26
could believe after reasonable inquiry is well grounded. In fact,
20:31
attorneys are entitled to rely on their client's factual representations
20:35
only if those representations are objectively reasonable. Whereas, here the
20:40
claims involve allegations a serious wrongdoing against others, Counsels should
20:44
conduct a thorough investigation before filing c Anderson versus County
20:48
of Montgomery, Before alleging what actually amounted to criminal wrongdoing
20:53
by various court officers, Attorneys should have conducted a serious
20:56
investigation O'Rourke verse. Dominion Voting System Incorporated, five point fifty
21:01
two Ft. Supp. Three d. Eleven sixty eight twelve oh three, Colorado.
21:07
In light of serious nature of allegations, the required degree
21:10
of due diligence and pre filing investigation was heightened. Kleppen's
21:14
blind reliance on his client was especially unreasonable given the
21:18
nature of Cohn's charges. The affid David caused plaintiff for bribery,
21:22
witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and subornation of perjury serious
21:26
criminal conduct under any circumstances, but extraordinary charges in the
21:30
context of otherwise ordinary litigation c second versus exon. The
21:37
Court cautions that great care ought to be exercised in
21:39
filing a complaint, particularly where serious allegations of racial discrimination
21:44
are being alleged against a publicly recognized corporation. An attorney
21:49
should not file a complaint based on assumption of facts.
21:52
He must first conduct a reasonable investigation into the facts.
21:56
The key element of a claim should be examined with
21:59
special scrutiny, particularly where an inquiry would reveal a lack
22:03
of factual basis for the allegations. Where redacted clients redacted
22:09
may affect their perception or ability to discern or tell
22:13
the truth, their attorney has a heavy burden to investigate
22:16
the foundation and the details of their claim. An attorney
22:20
also has a continuing duty to reassess the validity of
22:23
his or her client's claim. A litigant obligation with respect
22:27
to the contents of these papers are not measured solely
22:31
of the time they are filed with or submitted to
22:33
the court, but include reaffirming to the court and advocating
22:37
positions contained in those pleadings and motions after learning that
22:41
they cease to have any merit. In Perry, the Court
22:43
sanctioned plaintiff's council where a reasonable inquiry would have made
22:47
it patently clear that the claims that absolutely no chance
22:50
of success, and explain that was the case, regardless of
22:53
when the facts that would have invalidated the claims were discovered.
22:57
Even if council's initial interview with the client might have
23:00
suggested a good faith basis for filing this suit, defendant's
23:04
profer of plumbing receipts and all the above information revealed
23:08
emotions would have prompted an objectively reasonable attorney to make
23:12
a more thorough examination of his client. Under Rule eleven,
23:16
the court may impose an appropriate sanction for violation of
23:18
Rule eleven B, which may include monetary directives, in order
23:22
to pay a penalty into the court, or, if imposed
23:25
on motion and warranted for effective deterrence and order directing
23:29
payment to the movement of part or all of the
23:32
reasonable attorney fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
23:37
Christiansen signed the complaint on behalf of Wigdor pursuant to
23:40
Rule eleven. Wigdor and Christiansen thus certified that plaintiff's claims
23:44
were based on factual allegations corroborated by a reasonable prefiling inquiry.
23:50
Either they did not perform such an inquiry or decide
23:53
to pursue plaintiff's claim despite the blatant inconsistencies in her
23:56
story and with at least indifference to easily lead discoverable
24:01
contradictory facts. After they were placed on notice of the fact,
24:05
and we're provided with sworn statements that disprove many of
24:08
the key allegations in the complaint, they refuse to retract
24:11
those obviously false statements. This conduct violates Rule eleven, and
24:15
the Court at sanctioned Whigdor and Christiansen for their repeated
24:19
failures to make reasonable inquiries into the facts. All right,
24:22
We're gonna wrap up episode two here and in the
24:24
next episode, dealing with the topic we'll pick up where
24:27
we left off. All of the information that goes with
24:30
this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
24:34
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
24:38
this episode, we're going to continue taking a look at
24:41
the lawsuit between Jane Doe and Leon Black. This time
24:46
we're gonna look at Leon Black's reply memorandum of law
24:50
and further support of his motion for sanctions against Whigdor
24:54
LLP and Gene Christiansen Case number one twenty three Dash
24:59
CV DASH zero six four one eight. Jane Doe versely
25:04
on Black defendantly On Black's reply memorandum of law in
25:09
further support of his motion for sanctions against Whigdoor LLP
25:13
and Jene Christiansen. Defendantly, On Black respectfully submits this reply
25:17
memorandum of law in further support of his motion for
25:20
sanctions against Plaintiff's council, Whigdoor LLP and Jeene Christensen ECF
25:26
Document number forty nine Preliminary statement. This is as black
25:31
and white a case warranting the imposition to Rule eleven
25:33
sanctions as there can be as defendants. Moving papers conclusively
25:38
showed the Whigdor Law Firm and its lead lawyer in
25:41
this matter, Miss Christensen, have engaged in flagrant and egregious
25:46
litigation misconduct. The record before the court on that point
25:50
is robust and not seriously disputed. Long standing law and
25:54
professional responsibility obligations absolutely required Whigdor and Christiensen to conduct
26:00
an adequate investigation concerning their clients purported claims, and when
26:05
they put their first signatures on their client's complaint, they
26:08
certified to the court that they had in fact done
26:10
just that they profess certification. However, that was a total sham.
26:16
To be clear, Whigdor and Christiansen did no honest diligence
26:20
into plaintiffs' claims, as defendant post complaint investigation has proven,
26:25
and even when they cannot point to any work they
26:27
did to assure themselves of their clients bonafides, this is
26:31
not a case of simple mistake or oversight on their part.
26:35
To the contrary, Defendant's preliminary investigation has already adduced mountains
26:39
of evidence completely discrediting the entirety of plaintiffs made up story,
26:44
and that a bare minimum has cast a shadow over
26:47
her narrative so as to compel Whigdor and Christiansen to
26:50
tell this court in no uncertain terms, what inquiry, if any,
26:54
they made, as well as to rebut or at least
26:56
attend to her abut the definitive evidentiary showing defense is made.
27:01
They have not bothered to do either, instead studiously avoiding
27:05
saying they made any inquiry at all to validate plaintiff's allegations.
27:09
In fact, and in yet another instance of independently sanctionable behavior,
27:14
Whigdor and Christiansen are utterly unrepentant, apparently content to file
27:19
and now to continue to prosecute bad claims alleging a
27:22
grievous and brutal sexual assault against an allegedly incapacitated victim,
27:27
a shocking accusation of such consequence that the law not
27:31
surprisingly mandates heightened scrutiny by the lawyers pursuing it before
27:35
they proceeded with a public lawsuit, unable or unwilling to
27:40
either meaningfully answer the results of Defendant's investigation or identify
27:44
for the court what specific steps were taken before the
27:47
complaint was filed. In effect and admission of guilt, Wigdor
27:51
and Christiansen attempt to deflect by advancing a grab bag
27:54
of technical arguments that are as irrelevant as they are
27:58
substantively misguided. They protest, for instance, that an award of
28:03
sanctions here would be premature at this point, misinterpret the
28:06
federal rules, disregard governing precedents and the Advisory Committee's notes
28:11
to Rule eleven, and desperately invoke New York's anti slap
28:15
statute where it clearly does not apply. None of these
28:18
contentions authorize Whigdor and Christiensen to manufacture false and reputationally
28:24
ruinous claims predicated on decades old, purported events lacking a
28:29
shintilla of contemporaneous confirmation, and to do so exclusively in
28:34
blind reliance on a client with an established history of
28:37
mendacity and invention, and in the face of reams of
28:40
red flags and direct contradictions. Sanctions are appropriate and warranted
28:45
given these extreme and unusual circumstances. The argument Whigdor has
28:51
failed to provide information about whatever inquiry it made, including
28:55
whether it made any inquiry. The laws crystal clear that
28:59
attorneys may rely on their client's representations only when they
29:03
are objectively reasonable. Jeffreys versus Rossi, two seventy five FT. Supp.
29:09
Four sixty three four eighty SDNY two thousand and three.
29:13
See also Craig versus City of New York. If all
29:17
the attorney has is her client's assurance that facts exist
29:20
or do not exist when a reasonable inquiry would reveal otherwise,
29:24
she is not satisfied her Rule eleven obligations. Wigdor has
29:29
come nowhere close to meeting the objective reasonableness standard here
29:33
to the country, Any reasonable observer and certainly licensed lawyers
29:37
with decades of specialized experience would have sensed real trouble
29:41
here and seriously scrutinized plaintiffs apparent description of the events
29:45
at issue before going ahead with litigation. Plaintiff's complaint makes
29:49
allegations of horrific crimes that happened more than twenty years
29:53
ago against the now very public backdrop of Jeffrey Epstein
29:57
and Glaine Maxwell's crimes, some of which were all edgedly
30:00
committed by non parties such as Elizabeth, Plaintiff's cheerleading coach.
30:04
The complaint alleges at plaintiff is developmentally about twelve years old,
30:09
experiences the world in a childlike way, and is extremely trusting,
30:13
does as she's told by authority figures, and does not
30:16
question them. Remarkably Wigdor's opposition is completely silent as to what,
30:22
if any inquiries it may have made before filing the
30:25
complaint when it had been explicitly warned that the allegations
30:29
regarding Leon Black were false, uncorroborated, and likely fabricated Memorandum
30:34
at five. Wigdor does not and could not deny that
30:38
it received such warnings, including before Defendants Rule eleven letter.
30:42
Wigdor is also silent as to any inquiries it made
30:45
after it received Defendants Rule eleven letter. It thus appears
30:49
clear that the only source for the complaint's allegations is
30:53
the plaintiff herself and her attorneys, despite these pre and
30:56
post filing warnings and the ocean of red flags calling
30:59
attention to her lack of credibility. In the Rule eleven
31:03
letter attached as Exhibit one, defend an expressly toll Wigdor,
31:07
among other things, that plaintiff's family and others close to
31:10
her believe that one plaintiff frequently creates realities for herself
31:14
that are not grounded in fact, and then believes them,
31:17
particularly where these alternative realities help her gain attention. Two.
31:21
She never displayed any symptoms of either a mosaic down
31:24
syndrome or autism, nor was she diagnosed with either condition.
31:28
During her childhood. She lived with her parents the entire
31:32
time that she attended high school. None of her family
31:35
or acquaintances recalled her missing significant time from school. She
31:39
only traveled out of the home state on one occasion.
31:42
She did not live with Elizabeth during high school or
31:45
as a miner, and her physical development and maturity were
31:48
normal in high school. These circumstances mandated more than mindless
31:53
reliance on a client statements. Against this backdrop, Whigdor tries
31:57
to defend itself by arguing that defendants mond motion for
32:00
sanctions is based entirely on Defendant's denial of the allegations
32:04
against them, and that is improper for the court to
32:07
resolve contested factual disputes on Rule eleven motions. That is inaccurate.
32:13
Defendant's motion does not seek dismissal of Plaintiff's claims and
32:17
the allegations underlying it. Defendant does, of course, adamantly deny
32:20
those allegations, as he made clear in his memorandum, he
32:24
will establish their falsity at the proper time. Defendant's motion
32:29
only addresses whether Wigdor willfully fail to investigate, as rule
32:33
eleven requires before it filed the complaint, and then in
32:37
the face of contradicting evidence after receipt of the rule
32:40
eleven letter. Wigdor also quibbles with the quality, the admissibility,
32:44
and the self serving nature of the evidence presented in
32:47
the rule eleven letter, and argues that defendant is prematurely
32:51
seeking early discovery. Incredibly, Whigdor does not put any flesh
32:56
on the bones of that argument by explaining, for instance,
32:59
what it thinks is problematic about that evidence. Wigdor seems
33:03
to be suggesting, but notably not saying out right, that
33:07
every other person in the world, including Plaintiff's family, friends,
33:10
and acquaintances, none of whom have any stake or interest
33:14
in this lawsuit or any connection to defendant, is a liar.
33:18
The role eleven letter plays Wigdor on notice that additional
33:21
evidence was available to it, and it was no longer reasonable,
33:24
if it ever was, for Wigdor to rely exclusively on
33:28
the equally self serving allegations from the plaintiff. Defendant seeks
33:33
no discovery from plaintiff at this point, but Rule eleven
33:36
requires the plaintiff to explain the inquiry it made in
33:39
order to determine if that inquiry was reasonable under the circumstances.
33:44
Wigdor's failure to do so subjects it to sanctions. Wigdor
33:48
also represents that it will produce the relevant documents in
33:51
her possession, such as medical records and school attendance records,
33:55
but Wigdor does not say that such records are actually
33:58
in plaintiff's possession, alone that it has reviewed them. If
34:02
it had such records, Wigdor could have responded to the
34:05
Rule eleven letter or could have represented in a proper
34:08
declaration that it had reviewed the plaintiff school attendance and
34:11
door medical records and was therefore comfortable that specific allegations
34:16
in the complaint were in fact accurate. Wigdoor's silence on
34:19
this point again leads inexorably to the conclusion that no
34:23
investigation was done. Two. Defendant is authorized to seek sanctions now,
34:29
not later. Wigdor argues that Defendant's motion is untimely, pointing
34:33
to decisions in which it says courts have denied or
34:36
declined to rule on Rule eleven motions based on their timing.
34:40
Wigdor repeatedly claims that its well settled law that defendants
34:45
filing of this motion is a blatant abuse and improper
34:48
opposition at two and three and six. Wigdor is mistaken
34:53
for starters. Nothing in the text of Rule eleven or
34:56
elsewhere in the Federal rules precludes a sanctioned motion at
34:59
the stage, nor suggests that such a motion must await
35:03
some future milestone. That alone forecloses Wigdoor's timing defense. Because
35:08
Miss Christiansen's declaration Document sixty one and sixty two was
35:13
not made under penalty of perjury, the court should disregarded
35:17
US Code twenty eight, Section seventeen forty six Edwards versus
35:21
ROACHO twenty twenty two w L two ninety four zero
35:25
six seven at one N two SDN Y, February two,
35:30
twenty twenty two. All right, we're gonna wrap up part
35:32
one right here, and then the next episode dealing with
35:35
the topic. We'll pick up where we left off. All
35:38
of the information that goes with this episode can be
35:41
found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome
35:44
to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
35:49
we're picking up where we left off with Leon Black
35:52
and his lawsuit with Jane Doe. In any event, the
35:55
case law and the Advisory Committee's notes to the nineteen
35:58
ninety three amendments to Rule eleven. Nineteen ninety three notes,
36:02
which added the safe harbor provision, may clear that not
36:05
only is it proper for a party to file a
36:07
motion for sanctions promptly after the filing of the inappropriate paper,
36:12
but also that the failure to do so could subject
36:15
the party to a finding that the motion is untimely.
36:19
The nineteen ninety three notes directly address this issue. The
36:22
revision leaves for the resolution on a case by case basis,
36:26
considering the particular circumstances involved the question as to when
36:30
a motion for violation of Rule eleven should be served
36:33
and when, if filed, it should be decided. Ordinarily, the
36:37
motion should be served promptly after the inappropriate paper is filed,
36:41
and if delayed too long, may be viewed as untimely.
36:45
Despite the clarity of the nineteen ninety three notes, Whigdor
36:48
relies on case law. It claims holds that the pleadings
36:52
sanctions under Rule eleven will normally be determined at the
36:55
end of the litigation. Opposition at three Wigdor two cases
37:01
as the source for this quote, but disregards that the
37:03
quote comes from the Advisory Committee's notes to the nineteen
37:06
ninety three amendments to Rule eleven, a fact noted in
37:10
both cases and addresses the timing of the court's decision,
37:13
not the timing of the motion. The notes to the
37:16
nineteen ninety three amendment, which added the safe harbor provision,
37:20
directly contradict Wigdor's assertion. The Committee explained there that given
37:26
the safe harbor provisions discussed below, a party cannot delay
37:30
serving its Rule eleven motion until conclusion of the case
37:33
or judicial rejection of the offending contention. Wigdor's end of
37:38
the litigation contention is thus based on an outdated law.
37:42
Defendant explained this very point in the memorandum at twenty
37:45
one to twenty two, and Wigdor is simply elected to
37:48
disregard it. In particular, defend In cited this Court's decisions
37:53
in Safe Strap Company versus Kuala Corp. Two seven y
37:56
FSupp two D four oh seven SDNY to thousand and
38:00
three and Aja Energy Llc. Versus Wary Bank twenty nineteen
38:05
w L four six eight eight six two nine SDNY
38:09
September twenty six, twenty nineteen. Aja Energy has decided prediscovery
38:15
and Save Strap was decided prior to emotion to dismiss. Indeed,
38:20
in Safe Strap, the Court expressly held, contrary to Whigdoor's arguments,
38:24
that efforts to pursue sanctions at this early stage in
38:27
the litigation, atypical though they may be, would not without
38:30
more justify the denial of Defendant's motion. The court proceeded
38:35
to engage in a lengthy discussion in a footnote as
38:38
to why this was the case, relying heavily on the
38:41
nineteen ninety three notes. As defendant explained as Whigdor ignored
38:45
in its opposition despite quoting the case opposition at three
38:49
and four, the Safe Strap Court cited series of cases
38:53
in which delayed Rule eleven motions that were denied untimely.
38:57
To seven d f Dot supp to d d at
39:00
four thirteen and three. The Court explained that when the
39:03
challenge filing is a complaint, all party should move for
39:06
sanctions promptly after the complaint is filed. It also explained
39:10
that the addition of the safe Harbor provision changes the
39:13
dynamic of Rule eleven by acting as a practical time limit,
39:17
since the opportunity for plaintiff to correct and withdraw the
39:20
pleating required and timely submission of the safe Harbor letter.
39:24
Safe Strap also explained the distinction that the opposition completely disregards.
39:30
There is a difference between when a party should file
39:32
the motion and when the court should consider it. Most
39:35
of the cases cited for Wigdor by the principles that
39:39
the motion is premature or improper stand only for the
39:42
proposition that the courts may differ consideration of a Rule
39:46
eleven motion until the facts have been further developed. CEG. Sangland,
39:51
First Time Warner Incorporated. Twenty fifteen w L four four
39:55
six nine eight three eight at two SDN Y July thirteen,
40:00
twenty fifteen, declining to consider sanctions motion until a full
40:04
evidentiary record is developed. While the Court may consider this
40:08
issue at its discretion, it need not wait here because
40:11
Wigdor's complete failure to conduct any inquiry is inherently unreasonable.
40:16
It's not only the falsity of Wigdor's allegations that is
40:20
that issue and sanctionable. It is their object failure to
40:23
conduct any investigation at all before publicly filing such horrific
40:27
allegations against the defendant. Three. Wigdor was required to do
40:32
more than blindly accept plaintiff's purported account throughout the opposition,
40:37
Wigdor accuses defendant of attempting to discredit, shame, malign, and
40:42
denigrade plaintiff by referring in its sanctions motion to Plaintiff's
40:46
alleged mental and develop mental status. Wigdor is unfairly attempting
40:50
to use Plaintiff's alleged mental status as both the sword
40:54
and the shield. Wigdor put a plaintiff's mental capacity at
40:58
issue in the first place, alleged that developmentally, she is
41:01
about twelve complaint at twelve, it is difficult for her
41:05
to understand social cues based on the behavior of people
41:08
she encounters. Plaintiff experiences the world in a childlike way
41:13
and is extremely trusting. These allegations were no doubt included
41:17
to make plaintiff's account of abuse and trafficking sound even
41:21
more heinous. But if Wigdor believe these allegations without any
41:24
investigation as to their veracity, they bear strongly on plaintiff's
41:29
ability to discern reality from fiction and increase the potential
41:34
for her allegations to be inaccurate. In addition, in the
41:37
Rule eleven letter, Wigdor was told that Plaintiff's family and
41:41
others believe that she frequently creates realities for herself that
41:44
are not grounded in fact, and then acts as if
41:47
she believes them. These specific allegations require Whigdor's inquiry consists
41:52
of more than blind acceptance of the plaintiff's story in
41:55
order to be reasonable and acceptable. Under Rule eleven, attorneys
42:00
have a heightened duty to investigate when a client presents
42:03
with issues like those described in the complaint memorandum at
42:07
sixteen through eighteen. Defendant was not and is not trying
42:10
to shame or denigrate this anonymous plaintiff and raise these
42:14
developmental issues responsively, only to show that base on what
42:18
Wigdor said about plaintiff, there would have been reason to
42:21
question plaintiff's ability to provide accurate information. The additional information
42:27
included in the Rule eleven letter only reinforces those questions.
42:31
Wigdor cannot introduce information about plaintiff's mental status when it
42:36
is convenient tu tar defendant with atrocious allegations while claiming
42:40
that plaintiff's mental status insulates her and it from the
42:44
requirements of Rule eleven four. Defendant's Rule eleven letter was
42:49
procedurally proper and yet another effort to circumvent any reckoning
42:53
for its actions. Wigdor makes a fleeting argument near the
42:57
end of its brief that defendant did not comply with
42:59
Rule Leves because he served a boilerplate notice and three
43:03
page letter with supporting afidavids, which Wigdor asserts were not
43:07
the same as the memorandum of law and supporting affidavids
43:10
defendant ultimately filed in support of his motions for sanctions.
43:15
That argument fails for at least two reasons. First, Wigdor
43:19
mistates Rule eleven C two, which does not require the
43:22
pre motion service of a memorandum of law or affidavids,
43:26
nor does it use the words formal fully supported motion.
43:29
Star Mark Management Incorporated First Kuon Chun Heinki soy In
43:33
Sauce Factory Limited six eighty two ft three D one
43:37
seventy one seventy six Second Circuit twenty twelve. Rather, Rule
43:42
eleven requires only service of the motion, that is, the
43:46
notice of motion, as well as providing the subject with
43:49
notice of the specific conduct or emission for which the
43:53
sanctions are being considered Idea at one seventy five. As
43:57
star Mark, the case on which Whigdor relies exis planes
44:00
Rule eleven C two is satisfied. Where As here the
44:04
letter described the specific conduct that allegedly violated Rule eleven
44:08
B six eighty two ft three d at one seventy five.
44:12
As for any differences between the previously filed Melendez declaration
44:17
that accompanied the Rule eleven letter and the Melendez declaration
44:20
submitted in support of Defendant's motion, Wigdor points to no
44:24
requirement that the warning letter must be accompanied by the
44:27
precise supporting materials ultimately accompanying the motion. Nor does Wigdor
44:32
explain what additional information and defamatory accusations were added to
44:37
the Melendez declaration, nor could Wigdor plausibly do so, given
44:42
that the two are substantially similar and the few differences
44:45
are of facts referenced in the Rule eleven letter. Second,
44:49
Wigdor misrepresents the content and length of the defendant's Rule
44:53
eleven letter. That detailed four page letter identified the precise
44:58
conduct justifying sanctions. The failure to investigate, notwithstanding multiple red
45:03
flags supported by evidence casting serious doubt on numerous allegations
45:08
in the complaint and on plaintiff's credibility, which Whigdor would
45:12
have discovered had it conducted even a cursory investigation, Wigdor
45:16
was clearly unnotice up the grounds for sanctions and cannot
45:20
credibly complain that it was unable to prepare a defense. Five.
45:24
Wigdor's anti slap argument is meritless. Finally, Whigdor makes a
45:29
last ditch effort to evade sanctions by arguing, without citing
45:33
any legal authority, that Defendant's motion is a transparent attempt
45:37
to circumvent New York's anti slap statute. This argument is meritless. Defendant,
45:42
for his part, has not found any case in which
45:45
a court is held that a motion for sanctions could
45:48
somehow constitute a claim for purposes of New York's anti
45:51
slap statutes. Nor does wigdor cross move for sanctions pursuant
45:56
to New York's anti slap statutes, seek leaves to an
46:00
end plaintiff's complaint to add a claim under the New
46:03
York Anti slap Statutes, or seek any other relief based
46:06
on defendants alleged violations of the spirit but not the
46:10
actual letter of New York's anti slap laws. Wigdor's contention
46:15
that defendant's requests for sanctions is just a defamation claim
46:19
in disguise, as premised on a blatant mischaracterization of Defendant's motion,
46:24
which is about Wigdor's duty to conduct an inquiry. Had
46:27
Wigdor undertaken even a perfunctory inquiry, it would have quickly
46:32
discovered evidence that casts serious doubt on Plaintiff's account and
46:36
that raises serious questions about her credibility. Wigdor's failure to
46:40
do so, or its reckless decision to file the complaint
46:43
despite having uncovered such information, is what Warren sanctions here
46:48
conclusion for the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the
46:52
Court grant his motion and impose appropriate sanctions against Whigdor
46:57
and Christiansen. This document was dated October thirtieth, twenty twenty three,
47:03
and it was signed by Susan Estrich. All of the
47:06
information that goes with this episode can be found in
47:09
the description box