Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Brad Edwards And The Battle Over The CVRA (Part 1) (6/12/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Brad Edwards And The Battle Over The CVRA (Part 1) (6/12/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
0:03
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to continue taking
0:06
a look at some more court documents in regard to
0:10
the CVRA and the non prosecution Agreement, and this time
0:14
we're taking a look at the Affid David of Bradley
0:18
Edwards regarding need for the production of documents Case number
0:23
nine zero eight DASH CV DASH eight zero seven three
0:28
six DASH KAM Jane Do one Jane Do two versus
0:33
the United States of America The Affid David of Bradley J. Edwards.
0:39
I Bradley J. Edwards Do hereby declare that I'm a
0:42
member in good standing of the Bar of the State
0:44
of Florida. Along with co Council, I represent Jane Do
0:49
number one and Jane Do number two as referred to
0:52
as victims in the above listed action to enforce their
0:55
rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act. I also represented
0:58
them in several other victims in civil suits against Jeffrey
1:01
Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am also familiar with
1:06
the criminal justice system, having served as a state prosecutor
1:09
in the Broward County State Attorney's Office. The Affid David
1:13
covers factual issues regarding the government's assertions of privilege to
1:17
more than thirteen thousand pages of documents it has produced
1:20
for in camera inspection. In the case, this affid David
1:24
provides factual information demonstrating that the government's assertions of privilege
1:29
are not well founded. It further demonstrates that the victims
1:32
have a compelling and substantial need for the information requested
1:36
and have no other way of obtaining that information. Background
1:40
regarding unsuccessful efforts to reach stipulated facts with the government.
1:44
On July seventh, two thousand and eight, I filed a
1:47
petition to enforce the CVR rights at Jane DO one
1:50
and Jane DO two with regard to sex offenses committed
1:53
against them by Jeffrey Epstein while they were miners. Though
1:57
a course of the proceedings since then is one known
2:00
to the Court. For purposes of this Affidavid regarding privileges,
2:04
it's enough to briefly recount the efforts of the victims
2:07
to reach a stipulated set of facts with the government,
2:10
efforts that the government has blocked. The Court first held
2:14
a hearing on victims petition on July eleventh, two thousand
2:17
and eight. The Court discussed a need to have complete record,
2:20
and this is going to be an issue that's going
2:22
to go to the Eleventh Circuit, so it may be
2:25
better to have a complete record as to what your
2:27
position is and the governments is to what actions were taken.
2:32
The court concluded that the hearing with the following instructions,
2:35
So I'll let both of you confer about whether there
2:38
is a need for any additional evidence to be presented.
2:42
And that was the transcript we did previously, so this
2:45
is building on that. The victims and the US Attorney's
2:49
Office then attempted to reach a stipulated set of facts
2:52
underlying the case. The US Attorney's Office offered a very
2:55
abbreviated set of proposed facts, and the victims responded with
2:59
the detailed set of proposed facts rather than respond to
3:02
the victim's specific facts. However, the U. S. Attorney's Office
3:06
suddenly reversed course. On July twenty ninth, two thousand and eight,
3:10
it filed a notice to court regarding absence of need
3:13
for evidentiary hearing. The U. S. Attorney's Office took the
3:17
following position after consideration, the government believes that an evidentiary
3:21
hearing is not necessary. The office asserted that the court
3:25
need only take judicial notice of the fact that no
3:28
indictment had been filed against Epstein to resolve the case.
3:32
On August first, two thousand and eight, the victims filed
3:35
a response to the government's notice, given a proposed statement
3:38
of facts surrounding the case. The victim's response also requested
3:42
that the court direct the government to confer with the
3:45
victims regarding the undisputed facts of the case and produced
3:49
the non prosecution agreement and other information about the case.
3:53
On August fourteenth, two thousand and eight, the court held
3:56
a hearing on the case regarding the confidentiality of the
3:59
non name prosecution agreement. The court ultimately ordered production of
4:03
the agreement to the victims. After the U. S. Attorney's
4:07
Office made the non prosecution agreement available to the victims,
4:10
the victims reviewed it and pursued further discussion with the U. S.
4:14
Attorney's Office. Ultimately, however, the U. S. Attorney's Office declined
4:18
to reach a stipulated set of facts with the victims
4:22
and declined to provide further information about the case. With
4:26
negotiations at an impasse, the victims attempted to learn the
4:29
facts of the case in other ways. In approximately May
4:34
of two thousand and nine, Council for the Victim's propounded
4:37
discovery requests in both states and federal civil cases against Epstein,
4:42
seeking to obtain correspondence between Epstein and prosecutors regarding his
4:47
plea agreement, information that the U. S. Attorney's Office was
4:51
unwilling to provide to the victims, and information that was
4:54
highly relevant both to the victim's civil suit and their
4:57
CVRA enforcement action. Epstein refused to produce the information, and,
5:02
as the Court is aware, extended litigation to obtain the
5:06
materials followed. The Court rejected all of Epstein's objections to
5:10
producing the materials. On June thirtieth, twenty ten, Council for
5:15
Epstein sent to Council for Victims approximately three hundred and
5:19
fifty eight pages of email correspondence between Criminal Defense Council
5:23
and the U. S. Attorney's Office regarding the plea agreement
5:26
that had been negotiated between them. These emails began to
5:30
disclose for the first time the extreme steps that had
5:33
been taken by the US Attorney's Office to avoid prosecuting
5:37
Epstein and to avoid having the victims in the case
5:40
learn about the non prosecution agreement that had been reached
5:43
between Epstein and the government. While the court ordered that
5:47
all of the correspondents be turned over to the victims,
5:50
Epstein chose to disobey that order and instead only produced
5:53
the correspondents authored by the government and redacted all correspondents
5:57
authored by him or his attorneys. In mid July twenty ten,
6:02
Jane do one and Jane do two settled their civil
6:05
lawsuits against Epstein. Then, armed with new information, they turned
6:09
to moving forward in the CVR case. On September thirteenth,
6:13
twenty ten, the victims informed the court that they were
6:17
preparing new filings in the case. On October twelfth, twenty ten,
6:22
the court entered in order directing the victims to provide
6:25
a status report on the case by October twenty seventh,
6:28
twenty ten. That same day, Council for the victims again
6:32
contacted the US Attorney's Office about the possibility of reaching
6:36
a stipulated set of facts in the case. That same day,
6:40
the US Attorney's Office responded, we don't have any problem
6:43
with agreeing that a factual assertion is correct if we
6:46
agree that is what occurred. On October twenty third, twenty ten,
6:51
the victims email to the US Attorney's Office a detailed
6:54
proposal statement of facts that many of the facts now
6:57
documented by the correspondents between the US Attorney's Office and
7:01
Epstein's council. The victims requested that the US Attorney's Office
7:06
identify which facts it would agree to. In a letter
7:09
to the US Attorney's Office, the victims stated, if you
7:12
believe that any of the facts they proposed during correct,
7:16
Jane do one and Jane Doe two would reiterate their
7:19
long standing request that you work with us to arrive
7:22
at a mutually agreed statement of facts. As you know,
7:25
in the summer of two thousand and eight, Jane do
7:27
one and Jane do two were working with you on
7:30
a stipulation of facts when you reverse course and took
7:32
the position that no recitation of the facts was necessary.
7:37
I hope that your email means that you will at
7:39
least look at our facts and propose any modifications that
7:43
you deem appropriate. Having that evidence quickly available to the
7:47
court would help move the case to a conclusion. That
7:49
same day, the US Attorney's Office agreed to forward the
7:52
proposed statement of facts to the appropriate Assistant US Attorney
7:56
for review on October twenty six, twenty ten. Rather than
8:00
stipulate to undisputed facts, the US Attorney's Office contacted the
8:04
victims attorneys and asked them to delay the filing of
8:08
their motion for a two week period of time so
8:10
that negotiations could be held between the office and the
8:13
victims in an attempt to narrow the range of disputes
8:16
in the case and hopefully reach a settlement resolution without
8:20
the need for further litigation. Negotiation between the victims in
8:24
the US Attorney's Office then followed over the next two days. However,
8:29
at six eleven pm on October twenty seventh, twenty ten,
8:33
the date on which the victims pleading was due, the
8:36
US Attorney's Office informed the victims that it did not
8:39
believe that it had time to review the victim's proposed
8:42
statement of the facts and advise which were accurate and
8:45
which were inaccurate. The office further advised the victims that
8:50
it believed that the victims did not have a right
8:53
to confer with their office under the CVRA in this case, because,
8:57
in its view, the case is civil litigation rather than
9:01
criminal litigation. As a result, purely as an accommodation to
9:05
the US Attorney's Office. On October twenty seventh, twenty ten,
9:09
the victims filed a report with the court in which
9:12
they agreed to delay filing their motion and accompanying facts
9:15
for up to two weeks to see if negotiations can
9:18
resolve or narrow the disputes with the U. S. Attorney's Office.
9:23
Discussions with the U. S. Attorney's Office dragged on, including
9:26
a personal meeting between Jane do One and the U.
9:28
S Attorney in December of twenty ten. After further discussion
9:34
failed to produce any agreement or other visible progress, the
9:38
victims informed the US Attorney's Office that they would file
9:41
their summary judgment motion with the court on March eighteenth,
9:44
twenty eleven, and requested further cooperation from the office on
9:49
the facts. Ultimately, after months of discussion, the US Attorney's
9:53
Office in formed Council for the Victims that, contrary to
9:56
promises made earlier to stipulate to undisputed facts, no such
10:00
stipulation would be forthcoming. Instead, on March fifteenth, twenty eleven,
10:05
the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida,
10:08
wil Fredo A. Farah sent a letter to the victims
10:11
declining to reach any agreement on the facts, because, as
10:15
a matter of law, the CVRA is inapplicable to this matter,
10:19
in which no federal criminal charges were ever filed. Your
10:22
request for the government's agreement on a set of proposed
10:24
stipulated facts is unnecessary and premature. That is because whether
10:29
the rights in eighteen US Code Section thirty seven to
10:33
seventy one a attached prior to the filing of a
10:36
charge in federal court is a matter of statutory interpretation.
10:40
Resolution of that question is not dependent upon the existence
10:44
of any certain set of facts other than whether a
10:46
charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the U. S.
10:50
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. And while
10:53
this office remains willing to cooperate, cooperation does not mean
10:57
agreeing to facts that are not relevant to the resolution
11:00
of the legal dispute at issue. Letter from Wilfredo A.
11:05
Ferrer to Paul G. Cassel, accordingly, unable to work with
11:10
the government to reach a resolution of the facts. On
11:12
March twenty first, twenty eleven, the victims filed emotion for
11:16
some rejudgment alleging fifty three undisputed facts, along with some
11:21
evidentiary support for each of the facts. The victims also
11:25
filed a motion to have their facts accepted because of
11:28
the government's failure to contest their facts. The victims also
11:32
filed a motion to have the court direct the government
11:34
not to withhold relevant evidence. Following a hearing on the
11:39
motions on September twenty six, twenty eleven, the court rejected
11:42
the government's argument that the CBRA was inapplicable in the
11:46
case because the government had never filed charges against Epstein.
11:51
The court, however, rejected the victim's argument that it should
11:54
accept their facts because of the government's failure to contest
11:57
the facts. Instead, the court directed that discovery could proceed
12:01
in the form of requests for admissions and document production requests.
12:05
The court reserved ruling on the victim's motion that the
12:08
government should be directed not to withhold evidence. All right, folks,
12:12
we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode,
12:15
we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of
12:18
the information that goes with this episode can be found
12:21
in the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome to
12:24
another episode of the Epstein chronicles. In this episode, we're
12:27
going to pick up where we left off with the
12:29
Brad Edwards Affid David in regards to CVRA and documents
12:34
not being produced by the government in light of the
12:37
court's order. On October third, twenty eleven, the victims file
12:41
requests for production with the government. The requests included twenty
12:45
five specific requests, each of which linked very directly to
12:49
the facts that the victims were attempting to prove in
12:51
the case. On November seventh, twenty eleven, the day when
12:55
the government's responses were due, rather than produce even a
12:58
single page of discovery, the government filed a motion to
13:01
dismiss the victim's petitions. On that same day, the government
13:05
filed a motion to stay discovery. The victims filed a
13:09
response arguing that the government's motion was a stall tactic.
13:13
The victims also filed a motion to compel production of
13:16
all their discovery requests. The government filed a reply arguing
13:21
that it was not stalling. Indeed, the government told the
13:23
court that the United States has agreed to provide some
13:27
information to the victims even during the pendency of the
13:30
stay of discovery, and is undertaking a search for that
13:34
information contrary to that representation. However, over the next seventeen months,
13:39
the government did not produce any information to the victims,
13:43
despite the victims reminding the government of that statement made
13:46
to the court. Ultimately, after some additional motions and rulings,
13:50
on June nineteenth, twenty thirteen, the Court denied the government's
13:54
motion to dismiss and lifted any stay of discovery. That
13:58
same day, the court entered and order granting the victim's
14:01
motion to compel and directing the government to produce all
14:04
correspondents between it and Epstein, all the communications between the
14:09
government and outside entities, and every other document requested by
14:13
the victims with respect to the third item. The court
14:17
allowed the government to assert privilege by producing the items
14:20
in question for in camera inspection and filing a contemporaneous
14:24
privileged log. The Court required that the privileged log must
14:27
clearly identify each document by the author, address, recipient date,
14:32
and general subject matter. On July nineteenth and July twenty seventh,
14:37
twenty thirteen, the government made its production with regard to
14:41
Item number one correspondence with Epstein. The government withheld the
14:45
correspondence pending the ruling from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein's
14:49
motion to stay production of these materials. With regard to
14:52
the other items, the government produced fourteen thousand, eight hundred
14:56
and twenty five pages of documents to the court for
14:59
in camera inspection, but turned over only three hundred and
15:02
fifty seven pages to the victims. Thus, the government asserted
15:07
privilege to more than ninety percent of the documents in question.
15:11
The documents that the government produced were almost worthless to
15:14
the victims, as they included such things as the victim's
15:17
own letters to the government, court pleadings filed by the
15:21
victims themselves or other victims by Epstein or by news
15:25
media organizations, public court rulings on Epstein related matters, public
15:30
newspaper articles, and similar materials already available to the victims.
15:35
It also included roughly four hundred pages of notices sent
15:39
to the various other victims in the case, notices that
15:42
were substantially indistinguishable from the notices the victims themselves in
15:47
this case had already received. Almost without exception, the documents
15:52
the government produced do not go to the disputed issues
15:55
in the case. The government made one last production of
15:59
material in the cause case on August six, twenty thirteen.
16:03
This involved roughly fifteen hundred pages of documents that were
16:06
largely meaningless in the context of the contested issues in
16:09
the case. They included public documents in the case, such
16:14
as the crime victim's own pleadings copy of the victims
16:17
redacted some rejudgment motion. Curiously, while the government has produced
16:21
these documents that would likely fall into a relevant category
16:25
of documents, they have simultaneously refused production of hundreds of
16:29
other documents that are responsive to our requests on the
16:33
basis of relevance. The victims have tried to obtain information
16:38
on all relevant subjects through requests for admission. The government, however,
16:42
has refused to admit many of the victim's central allegations
16:46
in the case. A copy of the victim's requests for
16:49
admissions and the government's response is attached to this affidavid,
16:53
so the court can see that the victims have diligently
16:56
tried to pursue this avenue for developing the facts in
16:59
the case. The victims have also tried to obtain information
17:04
on subjects related to their suit by voluntary requests for
17:07
interview with persons who are no longer employed by the
17:11
Justice Department. For example, I've sent letters to both Bruce
17:15
rein Hart and Alex Acosta, who both have information about
17:19
the Epstein case, requesting an opportunity to discuss the case
17:22
with them. Both of them have ignored my letters. The
17:26
need for materials requested by the victims. The documents that
17:30
the victims requested that the government produced to them on
17:33
October three, twenty eleven, are all highly relevant to their
17:37
CVRA enforcement action. We would not have requested them otherwise.
17:42
The victims also have no other means of obtaining the
17:45
requested material. This section of the affid David explains why
17:48
the materials are needed by the victims for the convenience
17:52
of the court. The affid David will proceed on a
17:55
section by section basis concerning the need for material also
17:59
for the convenience of the court. A copy of the
18:01
October three, twenty eleven requests for production is attached to
18:05
the Affidavid also attaches the victim's supplemental discovery request of
18:10
June twenty fourth, twenty thirteen. As the Court will note
18:14
from reviewing the requests for production, most of the requests
18:18
specifically recount the allegations that the requested documents would support
18:23
in an effort to eliminate any dispute from the government
18:26
that the documents were not relevant to the case. Many
18:29
of the requests for production linked directly to specific paragraphs
18:33
in the victim's previously filed summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the
18:38
victims have a very specific need for these documents to
18:41
support the allegations in the summary judgment motion found that
18:45
De forty eight at three twenty three. The Court has
18:49
previously concluded that the victim's proof of their claims is
18:52
at this point in the case inadequate. Instead, the Court
18:56
is ruled whether the evidentiary proofs will entitle the victims
18:59
to the relief of setting aside the non prosecution agreement
19:03
is a question properly reserved for the determination upon a
19:06
fully developed evidentiary record. The Court is further indicated that
19:11
it'll be considering estoppel argument raised by the government as
19:15
a defense in the case. The Court is noted that
19:18
this argument implicates a fact sensitive equitable defense which must
19:22
be considered in the historical, factual context of the entire
19:26
interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities, and the federal
19:31
offense victims, including an assessment of the allegation of a
19:35
deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the
19:40
victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between
19:43
Epstein and the federal authorities until well after the fact
19:46
and presentation of the non prosecution agreement to them. The
19:52
victims have a compelling need for information about the government's action,
19:56
to show what the entire interface was and to respond
19:59
to the government's estoppel arguments as well as other defenses
20:03
that it appears to be preparing. Derays. Requests for a
20:07
production Number one requests information recording the Epstein investigation. These
20:13
documents are needed to support the victim's allegation that the
20:16
government had a viable criminal case for many federal sex
20:19
offenses that it could have pursued against Epstein. RFP Number
20:25
two requests Information regarding crime victim notification. In the case,
20:29
these documents are needed to support victims allegations that their
20:33
rights under CVRA their right to notice and to confer
20:36
with the government, were violated in the case. In particular,
20:40
these documents are needed to demonstrate that the victims were
20:43
not properly notified about the non prosecution agreement entered into
20:47
by the government and Jeffrey Epstein, and that the government
20:50
did not confer with the victims about the agreement. RFP
20:55
Number three requests information about the NPA, including in particular
21:00
identiality provision. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the
21:04
confidentiality provision precluded disclosing the agreement to Jane No. Number
21:09
One and Jane No. Number Two, as well as to
21:11
other victims. These documents are further needed to demonstrate that
21:15
Jeffrey Epstein specifically orchestrated the secrecy of the agreement, thereby
21:20
deliberately causing the government CVR violation in the case. RFP
21:25
number four requests documents relating to a negotiation between the
21:30
government and Jeffrey Epstein concerning the court and or location
21:34
in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea, including
21:37
in particular, any negotiation concerning concluding the plea in Miami
21:43
or other location outside of West Palm Beach. These documents
21:47
are relevant to the victim's allegations that the government was
21:50
interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement
21:53
that would effectively keep Epstein's victims, most of whom resided
21:57
in or about Palm beach from learning what was happening
22:00
through the press. R IFP number five request documents pertaining
22:03
to negotiation between the government and Jeffrey Epstein regarding any
22:08
legal representation of the victims in civil cases by Epstein.
22:12
These documents are needed to prove the victim's allegation that
22:16
part of the plea negotiation with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts
22:19
to make sure that victims would be represented in civil
22:22
cases against Epstein by someone who was not experienced personal
22:26
injury lawyer or by someone familiar to Epstein and his
22:30
legal team. R IP number six request documents concerning the
22:34
government and or Epstein's awareness of discussions of possible public
22:38
criticism and the victim objections to the non prosecution agreement
22:42
that they negotiated. The documents are needed to prove the
22:46
victim's allegation that the government wanted the non prosecution agreement
22:50
with Epstein concealed from public view because of the intense
22:53
public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been disclosed,
22:57
and or the possibility that victims would have objected in
23:00
court and convince the judge not to accept the agreement.
23:04
They are also relevant to bias and motive by the
23:08
authors or subjects of other documents in the case. RFP
23:12
Number seven request documents regarding the government's awareness of its
23:16
potential CVRA obligation in the case and regarding any discussion
23:20
between government and Epstein concerning these CVR obligations in the case.
23:25
The documents are needed to approve the victim's allegation that
23:28
the government was aware that it potentially had obligations under
23:32
the CVRA to notify the victims about the non prosecution
23:36
agreement and any related state court plea agreement. RFP number
23:41
eight requests documents regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the
23:45
government to give them a more favorable plea arrangement and
23:49
or non prosecution agreement, including efforts on his behalf by
23:52
former President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Harvard law professor
23:57
Alan Dershowitz. These materials are needed to prove the victim's
24:01
allegation that after Epstein signed the non prosecution agreement, his
24:05
performance was delayed while he used his significant social and
24:09
political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a
24:12
more favorable plea deal. These materials are also needed to
24:17
establish the course of proceedings in the case, which is
24:20
necessary in light of the government's letters to the victims
24:23
concerning the status of the case. All right, folks, we're
24:26
going to wrap up right here and in the next
24:28
episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
24:31
we left off. All of the information that goes with
24:33
this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
24:38
and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
24:41
this episode, we're picking up where we left off with
24:44
Brad Edwards and his cvra Affi David RFP Number ten
24:51
requests documents regarding the victim's allegations that the FBI was
24:54
led to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going
24:57
to produce a federal criminal prossecut and that the FBI
25:01
was also misled by the US Attorney's Office about the
25:04
status of the case. The government has argued that these
25:08
documents are not relevant to the case because the only
25:11
issue is whether the government misled victims, but the government
25:15
fails to recognize that the victims received information about the
25:18
case through the FBI. These documents are therefore needed to
25:23
demonstrate that the victims received an accurate information about the
25:26
status of the case an accurate information caused by the
25:30
US Attorney's office negotiation with Epstein. If the FBI agents
25:35
were not accurately informed about the progress of the case,
25:38
then they could not have accurately informed the victims about
25:41
the progress of the case, a central point in the
25:44
victim's argument. Moreover, these documents would show a common scheme
25:49
or plan, something made admissible in a trial by operation
25:52
of FED are evidence four four B. Of course, if
25:55
the U s Attorney's Office was misleading the FBI about
25:59
the NPA, it would have been part of the same
26:01
scheme or plan to mislead the victims as well. The
26:05
documents are also needed to support specific allegation in the
26:09
victims Summary Judgment motion RFP number eleven request documents regarding
26:14
various meetings that the government, including FBI agents had with
26:18
the victims. These documents are needed to prove that during
26:21
those meetings, the government did not disclose to the victims
26:25
or their attorneys that a non prosecution agreement had been
26:28
negotiated with Epstein, and even if signed with Epstein that
26:32
related to their cases. Allegations that the victims have advanced
26:36
in their Summary Judgment motion RFP number twelve requests all
26:40
documents connected with a request from the US Attorney's Office
26:44
to me Bradley J. Edwards to write a letter concerning
26:47
the need for filing the federal charges against Epstein and
26:51
follow up to that letter. These documents are needed to
26:54
show that this request was made to me without disclosing
26:58
the existence of the non prep prosecution agreement. Thus, just
27:02
as Jane Do number one and Jane Do number two
27:04
were deceived about the NPA, I was deceived as well.
27:08
It's also needed to contradict the government's apparent position that
27:12
it disclosed the existence of the NPA to me and
27:15
to the victims. The government admits that when Epstein was
27:19
pleading guilty to the state charges discussed in the non
27:22
prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein's defense attorneys sought to
27:27
keep the document memorializing the non prosecution agreement confidential, but
27:32
denies that they sought at that time to keep the
27:35
existence of the non prosecution agreement confidential. RFP Number thirteen
27:40
requests documents regarding how Honor about June twenty seventh, two
27:44
thousand and eight, the government learned that Epstein would be
27:47
entering his plea to stay charges honor about June thirtieth,
27:51
two thousand and eight. The documents are needed to describe
27:54
the course of proceedings in the case and to prove
27:57
both the government and Epstein's awareness that he would be
28:00
entering a guilty plea and thus blocking prosecution of other
28:04
crimes without the victims full knowledge of what was happening.
28:08
RFP Number fourteen requests documents relating to the government and
28:12
Epstein working together to keep the existence of the non
28:15
prosecution agreement secret, including declining comment about the existence of
28:20
such an agreement when asked about it when his guilty
28:23
plea in State court became public knowledge. These documents are
28:27
needed to prove the victim's allegation that the government concealed
28:30
the NPA from them, and to contradict what appears to
28:35
be the government position, namely that the victims were aware
28:38
of the NPA shortly after it was negotiated. Government answers
28:43
to RFA thirteen B claiming that the USAO had communicated
28:47
with Jang Do one about the non prosecution agreement that
28:50
Bard conferring with victims about the agreement. RFP Number fifteen
28:54
requests documents pertaining to the feasibility of notifying the victims
28:58
about the NPA, along with information concerning how the victims
29:03
came to receive a corrected notification letter on or about
29:06
September third, two thousand and eight, months after Epstein had
29:09
pled guilty. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the
29:13
government had no valid reason for failing to provide notice
29:16
to the victims. It's also needed to demonstrate why the
29:19
victims at the first received inaccurate information about the NPA,
29:24
as well as Epstein's involvement in that inaccurate notice. RFP
29:29
number sixteen requests documents regarding Bruce Reinhardt, a senior prosecutor
29:33
who was present in the US Attorney's office during the
29:36
time that the office negotiated the NPA with Epstein, blocking
29:40
his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern District of Florida.
29:44
In RFP number sixteen, the victims have sought documents showing
29:47
that Reinhart learned confidential, non public information about the Epstein matter.
29:53
The Court will recall that Reinhardt has filed a sworn
29:56
affid David with this Court in which he flatly declared
29:59
that while he was a prosecutor in the office, I
30:01
never learned any confidential non public information about the Epstein matter.
30:07
When Reinhart made that statement, it seemed improbable to me.
30:10
Because Rehinehart was in close contact with other prosecutors in
30:13
the office, it would seem likely that he would have
30:17
discussed the high profile Epstein case with him. Additionally, I
30:20
learned through a public record that, while still a prosecutor
30:23
at the office, mister Reinhart established his criminal defense office
30:27
at the exact address the exact suite number as Jeffrey
30:30
Epstein's personal business address. However, I did not have any
30:34
direct way of contradicting Reinhardt's Warren statement. Since then, however,
30:40
in answering the victim's request for admissions, the government has
30:43
admitted that it possesses information that rein Hart learned confidential
30:48
non public information about the Epstein case and that he
30:51
discussed the Epstein case with other prosecutors. Of course, this
30:56
means that the government has documents that Reinhart filed the
30:59
false Effie David with the court. This gives rise to
31:02
the reasonable inference that if rein Hart was willing to
31:04
provide false information about this subject, he may have additional
31:08
information about the case that's being concealed as well material
31:14
about Reinhart are also needed to support the victim some
31:16
rejudgment motion. Reinhart's after David with the court also states,
31:21
because I did not have any I did not share
31:23
non public confidential information about the Epstein investigation with any
31:28
of Epstein's attorneys. Because the government has information demonstrating that
31:32
the first part of this statement is false, it may
31:35
well be that the second part of the statement is
31:37
false as well. Given that mister Reinhart established a business
31:41
address identical to Epstein's business address at a time while
31:45
he was still serving and working at the US Attorney's Office,
31:48
and that mister Reinhart ultimately represented several of Epstein's co conspirators,
31:53
jet pilots, and staff during the civil litigation, any involvement
31:57
mister Hinhard had with mister Epstein's case while working at
32:00
the office is highly relevant. The government has further admitted
32:04
that it possesses documents reflecting contact between Bruce Reinhart and
32:09
persons or entities affiliated with the Jeffrey Epstein case before
32:13
Reinhart left his job at the US Attorney's Office. As
32:16
stated above, rein Hart left the US Attorney's Office to
32:19
start a private firm that was located in the same
32:22
address as Epstein's personal business, where he was daily This
32:26
would appear to be a violation of the Florida Rules
32:29
of Ethics for attorneys. Information about Reinhart's connection to Epstein
32:34
is critical to the victim's allegations in the case. If
32:37
Reinhart was helping Epstein gain insight about the prosecutions efforts,
32:42
that would provide a motive for rein Hart and other
32:44
prosecutors not to properly notify the victims and not to
32:48
confer with them. Also, if Epstein was improperly receiving information
32:52
about the prosecution's efforts against them, or lack thereof, that
32:56
could be highly relevant to the remedy stage of the case,
32:59
in which the victims will ask, among other things, to
33:01
have the NPA agreement invalidated. Epstein has already indicated that
33:07
he will raise a double jeopardy argument against that effort. However,
33:10
double jeopardy considerations do not apply in situations where the
33:14
defendant was not truly in jeopardy of prosecution. In addition,
33:18
the court may wish to consider in crafting a remedy
33:21
Epstein's culpability for the violation of the MPa. Evidence that
33:26
Epstein was improperly obtaining information about the prosecution's efforts against
33:30
them would be highly relevant to that culpability assessment. It's
33:34
also relevant to the estoppel defense that the government, and
33:37
perhaps Epstein as well, intends to raise. Evidence concerning Reinhardt's
33:42
connections include improper connections to Epstein is also relevant to
33:46
bias and motive in the case. It would show, for example,
33:49
that Reinhardt had a reason to encourage others in the
33:53
US Attorney's office to give Epstein a more lenient deal
33:55
than the one he was entitled to. RFP Number sixteen
33:59
requests information not only about improper connections between Epstein and Reinhardt,
34:04
but more broadly about such connections with any prosecutors. Of course,
34:09
if the government possesses such information, it would be highly
34:12
relevant to the victims allegations for the reasons just discussed.
34:17
In its answers to the victim's request for admission, the
34:19
government admits that it has information about personal or business
34:23
relationships between Jeffrey Epstein and another prosecutor involved in the case,
34:28
Matthew Menchell. Answers to requests for admission at twenty the
34:33
government should be required to disclose all of those documents
34:36
so that the victims can determine whether there was anything
34:39
improper about those relationships. In my experience, it's highly unusual
34:43
for federal prosecutors to work on a case prosecuting someone
34:47
such as Epstein and then shortly thereafter leave the employment
34:50
of the federal government and enter into a business relationship
34:54
with the person who was being prosecuted. RFP number seventeen
34:58
ask for documents concerning the investigation into Epstein's prosecution undertaken
35:03
by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility OPR in Washington,
35:08
d c. The investigation was undertaken at the request of
35:12
the victims, who asked the Justice Department to determine whether
35:15
improper influence were brought to bear during the negotiations involving
35:19
the possible prosecution and ultimately the non prosecution of Epstein.
35:24
It's apparent from the privileged logs that the government has
35:26
produced that OPR generated a great deal of correspondence at
35:30
least forty six pages regarding this request. Of course, improper
35:35
influence being brought to bear on the Epstein prosecution would
35:38
support the victim's allegations that they are not being properly notified. Moreover,
35:43
OPR may well have investigated the specific allegations that are
35:47
at issue in the case, or directed others to undertake
35:50
such an investigation. Here again, this information would be critical
35:54
to supporting the victim's case. In fact, because OPR has
35:57
presumably investigated many of the precise actions and actors about
36:01
which the victims complain in the litigation, and have already
36:05
gathered many of the documents needed, the production of the
36:08
OPR case file could probably shortcut this litigation and discovery process.
36:14
There is no other way to obtain this information from OPR.
36:17
On May sixth, twenty eleven, nearly half a year after
36:20
the victim's request of December tenth, twenty ten for an investigation,
36:24
OPR sent a letter to my co council, Professor Paul Cassel,
36:28
in which it stated that it regretted it couldnot be
36:31
of assistance in providing information about the allegations. All right, folks,
36:36
we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
36:37
next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up
36:40
where we left off. All of the information that goes
36:42
with this episode can be found in the description box.
36:46
What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
36:48
Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we
36:52
left off with Brad Edwards and his CVR Affid David
37:00
RFP number eighteen. As for information about why the US
37:03
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was conflicted
37:07
out of handling various issues related to the Epstein case.
37:10
This information is needed to show why the victims did
37:14
not receive proper notification about the NPA that the office
37:18
negotiated with Epstein. It appears that the conflict of interest
37:22
that has been recognized may have had to do with
37:24
the office's treatment of the victims. Moreover, in its production
37:28
of documents and in follow up correspondence, the US Attorney's
37:32
Office for the Southern District of Florida has indicated that
37:35
there are no responsive documents being held by the US
37:38
Attorney's Office in the other district that is handling conflict matters.
37:43
It appears that this other office in the Middle District
37:46
of Florida. This appears to be improbable because the conflict
37:50
matters would presumably generate many documents covered by the victim's
37:54
discovery requests, including the OPR investigative file. Accordingly, the conflict
38:00
matter is highly relevant to determining whether the US Attorney's
38:03
Office has provided complete production to the victims. A conflict
38:08
of interest would also be highly relevant to the motivations
38:11
of the government attorneys throughout the handling of the Epstein
38:14
case RFP number nineteen. As for information supporting allegations made
38:20
in March of twenty eleven by former US Attorney Alexandra Acosta,
38:25
he sent a three page letter to the news media
38:28
in which he claimed that when government attorneys began investigating Epstein,
38:32
Epstein launched a year long assault on the prosecution and prosecutors.
38:37
This information is needed to explain why the US Attorney's
38:40
Office would have withheld notifications from victims about the NPA.
38:44
If prosecutors were being assaulted, as Acosta has said they were,
38:49
then they would have reason to disregard their obligations to
38:52
crime victims. In addition, this would show improper behavior by Epstein,
38:56
which would be irrelevant at the remedy stage of the
38:59
case into determining the scope of any remedy. These allegations
39:03
would also bear strong on motive and bias are if
39:07
P number twenty requests documents between the government and state
39:11
and local prosecutors and police agencies, including the Palm Beach
39:14
Police Department, regarding the non prosecution agreement. Because this involves
39:19
information outside of the department, it is the victims understanding
39:22
that the government has already turned over all of this
39:25
information to them, as the Court has directed. For the
39:29
sake of completeness, however, it's worth noting that this information
39:32
is needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly
39:35
informed that Epstein's plea to state charges would trigger the
39:39
NPA and preclude prosecution for crimes committed against them. Are
39:43
if P Number twenty one requests correspondence regarding the NPA. Here, again,
39:47
the victims understand that the government is prepared to produce
39:51
all of this information to them once the stay pending
39:54
action by the Eleventh Circuit is lifted. Again, for the
39:58
sake of completeness, it's worth noting that the correspondence is
40:01
needed to demonstrate the victim's claims that the government was
40:04
concealing the existence of the NPA from them, and that
40:08
this was done at Epstein's behest. The Court has specifically
40:12
noted that the victims have a need for information that
40:15
will allow them to argue to the court in support
40:17
of their allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and
40:21
federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on
40:25
the pendency of negotiation between EPSTEIN and federal authorities until
40:29
well after the fact and presentation of the non prosecution
40:33
agreement to them. RFP number twenty two requests information about
40:39
consideration that EPSTEIN provided or offered to provide to any
40:43
individual within the government. Here, again, the victims understand that
40:47
this information is being provided to them. It's again worth noting, however,
40:51
that this information is highly relevant to explaining why the
40:55
US Attorney's Office would not have properly notified the victims
40:58
about what's happening in their case, an allegation that is
41:01
at the center of the victims Summary Judgment motion RFP
41:05
number twenty three. As for documents that will assist Jane
41:08
DO one and Jane DO two in protecting their rights
41:11
under the CVRA, the request links to the government's obligation
41:15
under the CVRA to use its best efforts to protect
41:18
victims' rights. US Code eighteen, Section thirty seven seventy one
41:23
C one. The direct connection between this request, and the
41:26
victim's case is self explanatory. RFP number twenty four requests
41:30
correspondence related to the Epstein prosecution that the government had
41:35
with entities outside the federal government. Here again, it's my
41:39
understanding that these materials have already been ordered produced CD
41:44
one ninety two. For the sake of completeness, this information
41:47
is again relevant to showing the course of the Epstein
41:50
investigation and why the victims were not properly notified about
41:54
the event during that investigation. RFP number twenty five request
41:58
all initial productions that are required under the Federal rules
42:02
of Civil procedure. This is a protective request to ensure
42:06
that should it be determined that the civil rules apply,
42:09
they then receive all material to which they are entitled.
42:13
In June of twenty thirteen, the victims sent a supplemental
42:16
request for production as in the government to provide any
42:20
information concerning any investigation that the Department undertook concerning the
42:24
treatment of the victims during the investigation in the case,
42:28
including any FBI grand jury, OPR or other investigation in
42:33
the Southern District of Florida, Middle District of Florida, or elsewhere.
42:37
Here again, this information is critically needed, as it would
42:40
go directly to proving the victim's allegations that their rights
42:44
were violated during the investigation of Epstein. This information would
42:48
also go directly to defeating the government's estoppel argument. The
42:52
information would also show a motive and bias inadequate privilege log.
42:58
The government has preduc used a privileged log that violates
43:01
the court's order in the case I have been greatly
43:05
hampered in responding to the government's assertions of privilege because
43:09
of that inadequate log. Indeed, in many cases, it's impossible
43:13
to determine whether the government's assertions of privilege are even
43:17
plausible because of the inadequacy of the log. The court
43:21
is directed the government to produce a privileged log that
43:23
clearly identifies each document as to which privilege is asserted
43:28
by the author, address ee, recipient, date, and general subject matter.
43:33
Many of the entries into the privileged log failed to
43:36
meet the requirement. A good illustration of the inadequacies of
43:40
the privileged log comes from the very first entry in
43:43
the log, covering box number one, some thirty nine pages
43:46
of documents. Yet the only description of these thirty nine
43:50
pages is file folder entitled corre GJ Subpoenas containing correspondence
43:58
related to various grandeur recipes US and Attorney Villafana's handwritten notes.
44:03
Another good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log
44:07
is provided on page twenty of the first privileged log
44:10
with regard to box number three. The government asserts privilege
44:14
here regarding ninety pages of documents, yet the only description
44:18
of these ninety pages is file folder entitled key Documents
44:22
containing correspondence between AUSA and case Agent regarding indictment prep questions,
44:28
victim identification information, corrections to draft indictment, indictment preparation timeline,
44:35
key grand jury materials. There are many other illustrations of
44:39
the inadequacies of that privilege log that the court will
44:42
see when it examines it. I have also filed contemporaneously
44:46
a response to the Government's privileged log, which identifies many
44:50
situations of an inadequate privileged log, as well as other
44:53
responses that are needed to respond to the government's log.
44:57
The Government has never contacted ME or Co Council about
45:01
any burdens associated with producing a privileged log that complied
45:05
with the government directives. At all times relevant to this case,
45:10
I would have been willing to work with the Government
45:12
Council to minimize any excessive burden from producing an adequate
45:17
privilege log. The request for production that I sent to
45:20
the Government specifically invited discussions to avoid any excessive burden
45:25
failure to prove factual underpinning of privileged claim Many of
45:30
the government's privilege assertions require factual premise, such as the
45:34
existence of an attorney client relationship and the rendition of
45:38
legal services within that relationship. Yet the government has not
45:41
provided the factual underpinnings of any of its privileged assertions.
45:46
An illustration of the problem is found on page one
45:49
of the Supplemental Privilege Log with regard to Supplemental Box
45:52
number three. The entry here reads seven ten eight emails
45:56
between Ja Slowman and Marie Villafauna, I Atkinson and FBI
46:01
are E proposed response to Goldberger's letter victim notification. The
46:06
log then indicates that the government is asserting attorney client privilege,
46:09
work product privilege, and deliberative process privilege. The government, however,
46:14
does not provide any document for any of the factual
46:17
underpinnings of any of these claims. For example, with regard
46:21
to the attorney client claim, the government does not explain
46:24
who the attorney is and who the client is. With
46:27
regard to the work product claim, the government does not
46:30
explain what litigation this document contemplated. And with regard to
46:34
the deliberative process, the government does not explain what deliberative
46:39
process was involved. There are many other illustrations of the
46:42
government's failure to prove the factual underpinnings of the privilege assertions,
46:47
which the court will see when it examines the Victim's
46:50
responsive log. Waiver of confidentiality. Some of the privileges that
46:55
the government asserted have been waived. Of course, a requirement
46:58
of a privilege is that confidentiality be maintained. Some of
47:02
the materials have been circulated outside of any confidential circle,
47:06
thereby waiving privilege. An illustration of waiver found on page
47:10
one of the Supplemental Privilege Log with regard to Supplemental
47:14
Box number three. The entry here reads seven to eight
47:17
AW eight email from Marie Vilafauna to alex Acosta, Jay
47:21
Slowman Atkinson, an FBIRI proposed response to Goldberger's letter victim notification.
47:29
The log then indicates that the government is asserting attorney
47:32
client privilege with the email, but the emails were not
47:35
internal to the US Attorney's office, but were also sent
47:38
to the FBI. This is another illustration of the inadequacies
47:43
of the privileged Log because who in the FBI the
47:46
materials were sent to is not disclosed. But the FBI
47:50
is a law enforcement investigative agency, not an agency that
47:53
provides legal advice. Accordingly, any attorney client privilege would be
47:58
waived by dissemination of these emails outside of the attorney's office.
48:04
Another illustration of waiver is found on page three of
48:07
the Supplemental Privileged Log with regard to supplemental box number three.
48:11
The entry here reads file folder labeled meeting with ken
48:14
Starr raa JS drew containing handwritten notes by a Marie
48:19
Vilafauna ken Starr and of course a defense attorney who
48:23
represented defended Epstein. Recording information provided by a defense attorney
48:28
is now part of any governmental attorney client privilege. Another
48:32
illustration of waiver is found on page seven of the
48:35
Supplemental Privileged Log with regard to the supplemental box number three.
48:40
The entry here reads file folder entitled notes Plea Negotiations
48:45
containing nine seventeen oh seven email from Maria Villafauna to
48:49
Jay Richards and kirkandall r E status update on dated
48:53
and typed handwritten notes by Marie Villafauna. Items to be
48:57
completed on case, strength of case, victim interviews, summary of evidence,
49:02
guideline calculations. The government is asserting attorney client privilege regarding
49:07
this email. I understand the reference to Richards and Kirkandall
49:10
to be references to FBI agents, not attorneys in the
49:13
US Attorney's Office. Accordingly, the attorney client privilege would not
49:18
extend to this email. All right, folks, We're going to
49:21
wrap up right here, and in the next episode dealing
49:23
with the topic, we're going to pick up where we
49:25
left off. All of the information that goes with this
49:28
episode can be found in the description box.