Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Lawyers For Epstein Survivors Seek Judicial Intervention Due To Redaction Issues

Transcript

Lawyers For Epstein Survivors Seek Judicial Intervention Due To Redaction Issues · 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 take a
0:06
look at the letter sent on behalf of Epstein's survivors
0:11
by Brad Edwards and Brittany Henderson to Judge Berman and
0:15
Judge Ngelmeyer. We write on behalf of victims of Jeffrey
0:20
Epstein regarding an unfolding emergency that requires immediate judicial intervention.
0:26
On Friday, January thirtieth, twenty twenty six, Department of Justice
0:30
publicly released more than three and a half million Epstein
0:33
related documents, while failing to redact victim names and other
0:37
personally identifying information in thousands of instances, despite repeated representation
0:43
that redaction was the sole reason for delayed release and
0:47
DOJ acknowledgment that failure to redact would cause extraordinary harm
0:52
to victims. Concern regarding victim protection and the necessity of
0:56
proper redactions were first raised with Attorney General am Bondi
1:00
on February twenty eighth, twenty twenty five, following her release
1:05
of the Epstein Files Phase one see letter attached as
1:08
exhibit A. On August fifth, twenty twenty five, the Undersign
1:12
sought assistance from Judge Berman to ensure the DOJ's compliance
1:17
with Crime Victims' Rights Act eighteen US Code, Section thirty
1:21
seven seventy one. While DOJ navigated initial document requests and
1:25
release see letter attached as Exhibit B, the public interest
1:30
and transparency related to Jeffrey Epstein then caught a tailwind,
1:35
and on November twelfth, twenty twenty five, the House Oversight
1:38
Committee released twenty thousand documents into the public domain littered
1:43
with Feld redactions, causing widespread panic among the survivors of
1:47
Jeffrey Epstein all over the world. On November nineteenth, twenty
1:52
twenty five, the Epstein Files Transparency Act was signed into
1:55
law as HR forty four oh five. On November twenty fifth,
2:00
twenty twenty five, the undersigned again wrote to the Court
2:03
raising serious concerns regarding victim privacy and protection under the CVRA.
2:09
The Court directed DOJ to consult with Council for All
2:12
Victims prior to releasing victim sensitive information. As a result,
2:17
by December fourth, twenty twenty five, DOJ had a comprehensive
2:21
list of victims whose names would be redacted in any
2:25
release of information pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein. DOJ's first release
2:29
under the Act occurred on December nineteenth, twenty twenty five.
2:34
Despite victims collective belief that the agreed upon redactions would
2:37
be honored. That belief was misplaced. On December twentieth, twenty
2:42
twenty five, the Undersigned immediately notified DOJ of hundreds of
2:47
redaction failures, including unredacted names and dates of birth, and
2:51
the urgent need to redact a single document identifying more
2:55
than thirty victims. The Undersigned further advised DOJ what we
3:00
had received countless messages from women who this release is
3:04
actively harming, women who trusted me and trusted you to
3:08
ensure that this would not happen. Women who are in
3:11
direct contact with you and with your office for regarding
3:15
the prevention of disclosure of their names. These same women
3:19
have been up all night using DOJ's search bar to
3:22
identify and read every single document that was posted publicly
3:26
identifying them, despite being promised by your office that this
3:30
would never happen. Throughout January, the Undersign continue to engage
3:34
with the DOJ to address redaction failures and privacy violations,
3:39
with the expectation that such failures would not recur. Or
3:43
at a minimum, would be promptly corrected. That expectation was
3:47
shattered on January thirtieth, twenty twenty six, when DOJ committed
3:52
what may be the single most egregious violation of victim
3:55
privacy in one day in United States history. Within the
3:58
past forty eight hours, the Undersign alone has reported thousands
4:02
of redaction failure on behalf of nearly one hundred individual
4:06
survivors whose lives have been turned upside down by the
4:09
DOJ's latest release. DOJ's letters to Judge Berman, dated January
4:15
thirtieth and January thirty first, twenty twenty six, bear no
4:18
resemblance to what actually occurred. DOJ claims to agree with
4:23
the court that protecting victim identifying information should be paramount
4:28
and asserts that it undertook a rigorous victim oriented approach.
4:32
DOJ further represents that more than five hundred attorneys and
4:36
reviewers participated, including over two hundred from SDNY, with the
4:41
objective of identifying and producing material while redacting information that
4:46
would identify victims. There is no conceivable degree of institutional
4:51
and competence sufficient to explain the scale, consistency, and persistence
4:55
of the failures. That occurred, particularly where this sole task
4:59
was ordered by the court and repeatedly emphasized by DOJ,
5:03
was simple redact known victim names before publication. By the
5:08
way of example only, on January thirtieth, twenty twenty six,
5:13
DOJ published one documents in which minor victim one had
5:17
her name revealed twenty times in a single document. After
5:21
reporting the violation, DOJ redacted her name three additional times,
5:24
leaving seventeen instances still unredacted as of this filing. In
5:30
email listing thirty two minor child victims with only one
5:33
name redacted and thirty one left visible despite DOJ's possession
5:38
of those names. FBI three h two victim statements with
5:41
full first and last names unredacted, including for minor victims.
5:47
Four handwritten FBI interview notes with minor victims full names
5:50
unredacted at the top and throughout. Five documents containing victims
5:56
names alongside dates of birth, bank information, driver life's numbers,
6:00
email addresses or home addresses. Documents where victim's names are
6:06
redacted in some places but not others within the same document.
6:10
Seven documents where redactions are pencil thin, revealing the complete
6:15
name and email addresses, beneath eight documents where photographs are
6:20
properly redacted in one instance and appear fully unredacted nearby
6:25
nine hundreds of documents exposing the names of four women
6:29
who had been in near constant communication with DOJ since
6:33
December requesting protection. DOJ cannot plausibly characterize this as an error, negligence,
6:40
or bureaucratic failure. The task was straightforward, take the list
6:45
of known victims and redact those names everywhere they appear.
6:50
When DOJ believed it was ready to publish and needed
6:52
only to type the victim's name into its own search function,
6:56
any resulting hit should have been redacted before publication. Had
7:01
DOJ done that, the harm would have been avoided. Instead,
7:05
the DOJ left its public search tool active and placed
7:09
the burden on victims to search for and discover their
7:12
own exposure after the damage had already occurred. Even after
7:17
DOJ was notified of unredacted disclosure. DOJ required victims to
7:21
provide individual document links rather than conducting name based searches itself.
7:27
In multiple instances, DOJ has redacted only the specific links
7:32
provided while leaving dozens of additional search results unredacted. For instance,
7:38
when we attached twenty one links to an email and
7:41
indicated there were fifty one additional search results where victims
7:45
names was online redacted. DOJ only made redactions to the
7:49
twenty one documents, inexplicably refusing to redact the remaining fifty one.
7:54
The undersigned cannot continue this impossible task alone. Victim communication
8:00
have escalated from concern to suffering and fear for personal safety.
8:04
The following sentiments, shared verbatim, have been expressed by at
8:08
least twenty clients. Chanine Oh number one, there's a vendetta
8:11
happening in my home country. I'm getting threats and name calling,
8:15
saying that they hope I get justice for all the
8:17
girls I have used for prostitution. I didn't take any
8:21
girl to fly to Jeffrey. Ever. They're saying I worked
8:23
with some men, but I don't know them, and I'm
8:26
afraid Chaine do No. Number two. Unfortunately, it seems that
8:30
all my emails are unredacted, and quite a few articles
8:33
have already been published about me. There are hundreds of
8:36
threads containing my personal information shared by the DOJ, including
8:41
even my home address, and it's likely that this reporter
8:44
could extract more content and publish it in the future.
8:48
I have already received distressing messages via email, a messenger
8:52
that stigmatize me, even though none of my emails harmed anyone.
8:56
I'm scared what's to happen to me next? Chanine Do
8:59
number three. It's so wrong on so many levels. Not
9:03
only it exposes victims to potential abuse or blackmail, but
9:07
it can ruin families or damage our careers. I'm horrified,
9:13
Jane do number four. Here many newspapers and websites are
9:16
publishing everything about us, including pictures, and I'm getting discussing
9:20
private messages and a flood of followers on social accounts.
9:24
How is this possible in my home country, as in
9:27
the entire EU, there's a strict privacy law. I'm shocked.
9:31
I didn't expect such violation of our privacy. Jane Do five.
9:36
I have never come forward. I'm now being harassed by
9:38
the media and others. This is devastating to my life.
9:42
Please pull my name down immediately, as every minute that
9:46
these documents with my name up it causes more harm
9:49
to me. Please, I'm begging you to delete my name.
9:52
I can only imagine the devastation your errors are causing
9:56
to so many other victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Wasn't the
9:59
only job to redact victim names? Hasn't every person with
10:03
authority promised repeatedly that victims have nothing to worry about
10:07
because our names will be redacted. Has in the entire
10:10
delay of producing documents been allegedly because you have been
10:14
redacting names, Jane do six, The release of this information
10:18
is not only profoundly distressing and re traumatizing, but it
10:22
also places me and my child at potential risk. I
10:26
am struggling to understand how such an egregious failure to
10:29
redact occurred, particularly given the sensitive nature of the material
10:34
and the foreseeable risk associated with their public disclosure. The
10:39
situation has reopened trauma I have worked diligently to overcome,
10:43
and it has done so in a manner that feels
10:45
both careless and dangerous. Jane do seven, my name in
10:50
personal information, including my full address, have not been redacted
10:53
yet on the files already released. To the contrary, more files,
10:57
including my personal information and even a photo of mine,
11:00
have been released. I'm especially in a life threatening situation
11:04
because I live overseas in my home country, where I
11:07
receive many death threats because of Epstein. The press makes
11:11
up crazy stories and shows me as a legitimate target
11:14
for others to attack me physically and in the press.
11:18
My life is in eminent danger as long as you
11:21
keep on releasing more files and info about me, not
11:24
remove and redact the ones already released. This is life
11:28
threatening situation for me. Please take my police seriously, Jane
11:32
number eight. It's been twenty four hours and I'm getting
11:36
death threats whilst knowing nothing is being done. You even
11:40
have the audacity to release my private banking info and
11:43
I'm now trying to shut down my cards and accounts.
11:46
This kind of vicious attack on a victim at the
11:48
hands of the Department of Justice is an abomination. I
11:52
demand you immediately remove these fifty one entries as were
11:56
required by the law. It's no longer ethical, moral, or
11:59
responsible to attempt to remedy these violations through DOJ's tortuously
12:05
tedious game. This was never a complex undertaking. DJ has
12:10
possessed the names of victims that it promised to redact
12:13
for months. A simple name search would have prevented this entirely,
12:17
Yet even now after forty eight hours, is seeking additional
12:21
redaction thousands of pages remain unredacted in the public domain.
12:26
The process of applying proper redactions should take DOJ hours,
12:30
not days or months. Simply type in a victim name
12:34
to the search bar, and if there are any results,
12:36
then apply redactions before publishing. DOJ has proven incapable or
12:41
unwilling to effectuate that basic task. Accordingly, we seek immediate
12:47
injunctive relief on behalf of the victims, and respectfully requests
12:51
that the Court order one an immediate takedown of the
12:55
DOJ website hosting Epstein material. Two a comprehensive name based
13:00
search of all hosted documents using the victim list. Three
13:04
a proper redaction of all references to victims first, last,
13:08
or full names. For appointment of an independent special master
13:13
to oversee redaction and republication. Five reservation of jurisdiction for sanctions,
13:19
including contempt and monetary relief. Done correctly and with competent
13:24
supervision and intention. The entirety of the documents could be
13:28
republished with proper redactions within a day of taking them down.
13:34
For the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, every hour matters. The
13:37
harm is ongoing and irreversible. The Court is the last
13:41
line of defense for victims who are promised protection and
13:44
instead were exposed. Judicial intervention is not merely appropriate, it's essential.
13:51
Respectfully submitted Edwards Henderson, PLLC. All of the information that
13:57
goes with this episode can be found in the description
14:00
box