Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / The DOJ Shrugs Off Calls For a Special Master In A Letter To The Court

Transcript

The DOJ Shrugs Off Calls For a Special Master In A Letter To The Court · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:02
  Epstein Chronicles. So the DOJ continues to do everything in
• 0:07
  their power to not be in compliance with the law
• 0:10
  passed by Congress and signed by the President of the
• 0:14
  United States. And in this episode, we're going to take
• 0:17
  a look at the letter sent to Judge Engelmeyer complaining
• 0:21
  that Roe Kanna and Thomas Massey want to have a
• 0:24
  special Master appointed over the disbursement of the files. So
• 0:30
  with that said, let's dive in January sixteenth, twenty twenty six.
• 0:36
  Dear Judge Engelmeyer, this is a criminal case with two parties,
• 0:40
  the government and the defendant, Glaiine Maxwell, that is long
• 0:43
  since over Cee Dockett seven seven seven at three to
• 0:48
  one seven five through three to one seven seven, Jerry's
• 0:52
  guilty verdict on counts one and three through six, and
• 0:55
  verdict of acquittal on count two six fifty seven. Judge
• 0:59
  Nathan's de den isle of Maxwell's post trial rule twenty
• 1:02
  nine Motion seven seventy nine at ninety six through ninety eight.
• 1:07
  Judge Nathan's oral imposition of sentence six ninety six. Maxwell's
• 1:11
  judgment of conviction Us versus Maxwell fourth two fifty six,
• 1:16
  Second Circuit twenty twenty four, the Second Circuits affirments of
• 1:21
  Maxwell's judgment of conviction Maxwell versus Us October sixth, twenty
• 1:25
  twenty five, the Supreme Court's denial of Maxwell's writ, and accordingly,
• 1:30
  there are only two issues currently pending before the Court.
• 1:33
  One resolution of Maxwell's collateral challenge to her conviction and
• 1:38
  sentence pursu into US Code twenty eight, Section twenty two
• 1:41
  fifty five, and to this court supervision enforcement and door
• 1:46
  modification of a protective order that Judge Nathan issued years
• 1:50
  ago with respect to discovery material that the government provided
• 1:54
  to Maxwell, determining what the government may make public without
• 1:58
  violating that protective order. With regard to the latter, the
• 2:01
  Court modified the protective order to permit the government to
• 2:04
  release publicly certain materials covered by the protective order, subject
• 2:09
  to limitation, so that the government could comply with the
• 2:13
  Epstein Files Transparency Act of November nineteenth, twenty twenty five. However,
• 2:20
  because the issue before the Court was the scope of
• 2:22
  the protective order as opposed to the government's obligation under
• 2:26
  the Act, the Court did not, and respectfully should not,
• 2:29
  mandate such disclosures. Despite the narrow scope of live issues
• 2:34
  before the court. Representatives Rocanna and Thomas Massey now seek
• 2:38
  to use this criminal case, to which they are not parties,
• 2:41
  to enforce the provisions of the Act, which was passed
• 2:44
  after the Supreme Court denied Maxwell's petition and her writ,
• 2:49
  thus rendering judgment final. By seeking relief in the form
• 2:52
  of oversight of the Department of Justice compliance with the Act,
• 2:56
  which relief or cause of action are not provided for
• 3:00
  in any statute, and having no Article three standing, they
• 3:03
  do so by seeking leave to appear as Amichi Curi
• 3:08
  without once citing the purpose of Amichikurai to provide the
• 3:12
  court with neutral assistance and analyzing the issues before it.
• 3:16
  The Court thus should exercise its broad discretion to deny
• 3:20
  the appearance of Amichi Curai in the case Amichi Curai
• 3:25
  cannot raise new issues and seek new relief. Amichi Curai
• 3:31
  exists to provide the court with neutral assistance and analyzing
• 3:34
  the issues before it. Their function is not to raise
• 3:38
  new issues. Representatives Rocana and Massi's motion for leave runs
• 3:42
  a foul of all the rules. Seeking entry into a
• 3:45
  long closed criminal case, The representatives explicitly tried to create
• 3:49
  a new issue by moving the Court to appoint a
• 3:51
  special Master and independent monitor for the purpose of compelling
• 3:55
  the Department of Justice to make a mandatory production under
• 3:58
  the Act. The supposed need for this oversight is an
• 4:02
  issue that neither a party has raised, nor could they,
• 4:05
  as the narrow issue before this Court has been how
• 4:08
  the Protective Order can be modified to allow the government
• 4:11
  to proceed under the Act as opposed to enforcement of
• 4:15
  the Act itself, and the Court already reached the decision
• 4:18
  on that issue modifying the Protective Order Doct. Eight twenty
• 4:22
  at twenty three to twenty four. There is no pending issue,
• 4:25
  much less one touching on the extraordinary relief sought by
• 4:28
  the representatives with which Amichi could assist the Court. The
• 4:34
  primary role of the amicis is to assist the Court
• 4:37
  in reaching the right decision in a case affected with
• 4:39
  the interest of the general public. In short, Representatives Conna
• 4:43
  and Massey, who propose moving to appoint a special Master
• 4:47
  to compel production of documents or to compel the testimony
• 4:51
  of SDNY officials, promised to exceed the well defined role
• 4:55
  of Amchi Kurai. An amicis cannot make independent mo motions
• 5:00
  and is precluded from engaging in adversarial activities such as
• 5:04
  motions to compel. Representatives Conna m Massey do not seek
• 5:08
  merely to go well beyond the permissible bounds of amicus.
• 5:12
  They do not even come as a friend to the
• 5:14
  court and provide the court with an objective, dispassionate, neutral
• 5:18
  discussion Us Versus Gotti seven fifty five ed N Y
• 5:22
  ninety one. Rather, they seek to vindicate their own particular
• 5:26
  interests Town of Bedford twenty one, Sieve twenty twenty two,
• 5:32
  SDN Y twenty twenty two, and advance their vision of
• 5:37
  what the EFTA review should look like. Courts routinely deny
• 5:41
  motions for leave in this circumstance see Long Island Soundkeeper
• 5:44
  Fund verset. NY Athletic Club. Denial of leave to appear
• 5:49
  as amicis in a situation such as this, in which
• 5:52
  the applicant appears to have its own particular interest in
• 5:56
  the outcome of the litigation is far from unprecedented, and
• 6:00
  so too should this court. Representative Conna and Massy improperly
• 6:05
  seek judicial enforcement of the Act. In light of the
• 6:09
  Representative's motion, this Court asked whether Representative Conna and Massy
• 6:13
  have Article three standing, and whether the Court has the
• 6:16
  authority to rule upon or take action to bring about
• 6:19
  DJ's compliance with the Act, putting aside that this is
• 6:23
  clearly not the proper forum for the motion in the
• 6:25
  first place. The answer to both questions is, respectfully no.
• 6:29
  Representative Conna and Massy lack standing. To have a standing,
• 6:33
  a plaintiff must show one an injury in fact, two
• 6:37
  fairly traceable to the challenge conduct of the defendant, three
• 6:41
  that is likely to be redressed by the requested relief,
• 6:45
  and most obviously absent. Here is an injury in fact
• 6:49
  or an invasion of a legally protected interest that is
• 6:52
  concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
• 6:58
  Representatives ConA MASSI claim injury based on the Department of
• 7:02
  Justice allege noncompliance with the act's production requirements. But the
• 7:07
  Act does not provide any personal statutory right to seek
• 7:11
  information at issue Center for Biological Diversity First, US International
• 7:17
  Development DC Circuit twenty twenty three. The Act is unlike,
• 7:22
  for example, the Freedom of Information Act, which creates an
• 7:25
  individual right to obtain information, and even if the Act
• 7:30
  did confer such a right, Representative Kana and Massey do
• 7:34
  not demonstrate that this informational injury cause them any harm.
• 7:39
  An asserted informational injury that causes no adverse effects cannot
• 7:43
  satisfy Article three. Put simply, their generalized grievance is insufficient
• 7:49
  for Article three standing to the extent that Representative Conna
• 7:54
  and Massey rely on their political office that they are
• 7:57
  the leads of the Epstein File Transparency Act. Individual members
• 8:01
  of Congress, such as Representatives Conna and Massey, asserting wholly
• 8:05
  abstract and widely dispersed institutional injury, do not have a
• 8:09
  sufficient personal stake in the dispute and have not alleged
• 8:13
  a sufficiently concrete injury to have established Article three standing.
• 8:17
  Individual members lack standing to assert the institutional interests of
• 8:21
  a legislature. Accordingly, Representatives ConA and Massey do not have
• 8:26
  standing to raise issues concerning DOJ's compliance with the Act. Respectfully,
• 8:31
  the government submits that the court lacks the authority to
• 8:35
  enter the requested relief. When the Constitution or laws of
• 8:38
  the United States do not support a cause of action,
• 8:41
  a federal court cannot reach out to award remedies. A
• 8:46
  plaintiff must have a cause of action under the applicable statute.
• 8:51
  To get any form of relief in the federal court room,
• 8:54
  a litigant must have a cause of action. The Act
• 8:57
  does not provide a cause of action see e g.
• 9:00
  D Egbert versus Bolet, five ninety six, twenty twenty two.
• 9:05
  Creating a cause of action is a legislative endeavor. Because
• 9:08
  the statute does not evince Congress intent to create a
• 9:13
  private cause of action asserted, this court may not create
• 9:17
  that action through judicial mandate. If the statute does not
• 9:21
  itself provide a private cause of action, will not be
• 9:25
  created through judicial mandate. The mere fact that the statute
• 9:29
  was designed to protect advisors clients does not require the
• 9:32
  implication of a private cause of action for damages on
• 9:36
  their behalf. We have held that if a statute does
• 9:38
  not specify a consequence for non compliance with statutory timing provisions,
• 9:43
  the federal courts will not, in the ordinary course, impose
• 9:47
  their own course of sanction. With no standing and no
• 9:51
  cause of action, the representatives are unable to seek relief
• 9:54
  they requested, and respectfully of the Court is without authority
• 9:58
  to issue it. Fal courts lack jurisdiction if no name
• 10:02
  plaintiff has standing nor does this Court supervision of the
• 10:05
  protective order in the case or otherwise change the calculus.
• 10:10
  While the Court has the inherent power to enforce its order,
• 10:14
  the protective order only one reaches a subset of documents
• 10:17
  under review. The protective order covers all discovery the prosecution
• 10:22
  made to the defense in the Maxwell case, two operates
• 10:26
  to protect victim privacy, and three restricts what the government
• 10:30
  may disclose, as opposed to mandating such disclosure. In short,
• 10:34
  the protective order simply does not provide a basis for
• 10:38
  a judicial oversight of the departments compliance with the Act.
• 10:41
  Representatives Kana and Massey do not have standing. Their stated
• 10:45
  objectives are inconsistent with the role of an amicus as
• 10:49
  well as the role of the court. In any event,
• 10:52
  there is no authority permitting the Court to grant the
• 10:55
  representatives the relief they improperly seek. The Court therefore should
• 10:59
  deny their emotion for leave to file an amicus brief, Respectfully, Yours, Pamela,
• 11:05
  Jay Bondi, Todd Blanche and Jay Clayton. All of the
• 11:10
  information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 11:13
  the description box.