Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Epstein Survivors And Their Memorandum Seeking to Amend Lawsuit Against USVI Officials (Part 1) (11/8/26)

Transcript

Epstein Survivors And Their Memorandum Seeking to Amend Lawsuit Against USVI Officials (Part 1) (11/8/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: In this episode we're going to continue on taking a
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: look at the survivor's lawsuit that has been filed against
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: the United States Virgin Islands. And this time we're getting
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: a look at the Memorandum of Law in support of
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend pursuant to FRCP R. 15
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: A and 3 and for discovery addressed to jurisdiction and venue.
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: Case number? 1.23-CV-10301-AS Preliminary Statement. Plaintiffs respectfully submit this memorandum
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: of law in support of their cross-motion to amend the
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: first amended complaint and to deem the proposed second amended complaint,
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: which is intended to correct and clarify any inconsistencies and
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: to cure any deficiencies cited by defendants timely filed. Further,
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: in the event that the court deems the SAC insufficiently specific,
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs request leave to conduct discovery addressed to jurisdiction and
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: venue in this case, given the notoriously non-public nature of
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: defendants' actions and Epstein's sex trafficking enterprise. The Operative Facts
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: This is a significant case brought by sexual abuse survivors
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: seeking to hold the USVI and other individuals responsible for
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: their role in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking ring. The
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: problem is that much of the evidence concerning jurisdiction is
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: not publicly available, and defendants will not provide it so
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs do not have it. There can be no dispute,
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: but the defendants, and in particular the USVI, are in
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: near-exclusive possession of the evidence concerning this court's jurisdiction over them, venue,
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: and even the underlying claims. To the extent that plaintiffs
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: have proffered allegations supporting jurisdiction and venue, it largely arises
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: or derives from the little evidence adduced and unredacted to
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: the public in the actions brought by the USVI against
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: its co-conspirator J.P. Morgan. Indeed, the limited disclosure in the
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: USVI's lawsuit against J.P. Morgan, USVI v. J.P. Morgan, 22-CV-10904,
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: was notorious in part because the evidence supporting the allegations
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: was maintained and in the most guarded manner. A very
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: broad protective order was entered into which allowed the parties
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: to redact inter alia any information of a personal or
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: intimate nature concerning any individual. Exhibit B. Given the broad
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: scope of the protective order, the unsealed document shed little
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: light on the underpinnings of the claims. For example, the
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: flight logs which identified those traveling and furtherance of the
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: Enterprise are only partially disclosed. More importantly, many of the
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: individuals deposed in the USVI's earlier actions are parties to
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: this case, but their deposition transcripts are heavily redacted. For example,
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: Congresswoman Plaskett and Cecile DeJong were deposed in that action,
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: yet only excerpts of those transcripts are available for public viewing. Also,
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: and clearly relevant to jurisdiction, are the banking records which
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: are entirely redacted in the USVI's earlier action. Those records
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: were pivotal to the sex trafficking enterprise and are pivotal
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: to the plaintiff's claims. The summary judgment papers in the
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: USVI's earlier actions are filed entirely pursuant to the protective order.
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: These documents, which would summarize the evidence adduced during discovery
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: that supports the claims or contradicts them, are shielded from
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: public view. Notably, the action was resolved before the court
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: issued an opinion resolving these motions. Thus, plaintiffs do not
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: have even the benefit of an order addressing the evidence.
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: The USVI's participation in the enterprise was confirmed after J.P.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: Morgan asserted the affirmative defense of unclean hands and contributory
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: negligence in the USVI versus J.P. Morgan action. On May 8, 2023,
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: the USVI moved to strike these affirmative defenses, which prompted J.P.
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: Morgan to oppose the motion citing evidence adduced during discovery.
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: See Exhibits C and D, respectively. J.P. Morgan's papers, which
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: were heavily redacted, contained sufficient evidence that was proffered to
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: establish that the USVI was complicit in Epstein's sex trafficking
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: enterprise and that payments were directed by defendants in this
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: case from Epstein's New York City bank accounts to the USVI.
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: Plaintiffs thus began the process of exploring the litigation and
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: filing a complaint before the Adult Survivors Act window closed
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: on November 23, 2023. Certainly in this case, defendants have
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: not volunteered to any information or evidence affirmatively disproving jurisdiction, venue,
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: or the claims. They simply pointed to alleged gaps in
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's pleadings, knowing that the USVI has thus fully prevented
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs from discovering the evidence in the earlier lawsuit that
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: would facilitate litigation and resolution of this one. The USVI
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: has also refused to turn over these documents, which raises
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: questions about what it contained therein. Consequently, plaintiffs have moved
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: in the USVI's action for an order permitting them to
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: intervene and to secure access to the disclosure pursuant to
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: the same protective order in USVI v. JPMorgan Exhibit E.
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: Such disclosure would conserve resources while continuing to preserve the
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: confidences in that action. Plaintiffs, who are the real victims
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: of the sex trafficking enterprise, should not be denied access
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: to the very evidence that would prove plaintiffs' claims in
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: this suit. The Argument. Point 1. This court may exercise
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: its broad discretion and grant leave to amend. Plaintiffs should
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: be granted leave to amend the FAC pursuant to FedR
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: Civ P-15A to address the arguments raised by defendants in
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: their motions and to clarify certain allegations. Exhibit A. Generally,
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: leave to amend should be freely given, and a pro
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: se litigant in particular should be afforded every reasonable opportunity
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: to demonstrate that he has a valid claim. Indeed, as
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: recently held by this court, even when granting a motion
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: to dismiss, leave to amend at least once should normally
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: be granted as a matter of course. Leave should not
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: be denied unless there is evidence of undue delay, bad faith,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: undue prejudice to the non-movement or futility. Kavanaugh v. Ford
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: Motor Company, 2014, WL2048571, Eastern District of New York. While
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: leave to amend a complaint may be denied when amendment
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: would be futile, Talker v. Philip Morris Company, 470F. 3D481, 491
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: Second Circuit, 2006. the standard for proving futility is quite high.
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: A complaint is futile when, as a matter of law,
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: any proposed amendment would fail to cure prior deficiencies. Where
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: the deficiencies are substantive rather merely than consequences or inartful, pleading,
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: re-pleading would be futile and leave to amend should be denied.
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: Lewis v. Experian, Inc., 2024, WL1308705, at 11.00, Eastern District
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: of New York, March 27th, 2024. Leave to amend is
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: not warranted where it is clear from the face of
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: the complaint that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: that a claim cannot be stated as a matter of law.
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: Hardy v. United States 501 F.S.U.P.P. 3D 152 162 Eastern
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: District of New York, 2020. The district court has broad
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: discretion over whether to grant or deny the motion to amend. However,
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: appearing for the denial is an abuse of discretion and
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: inconsistent with the spirit of the federal rules. That motions
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: to amend complaints be liberally granted absent a good reason
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: to the contrary, allowing disputes to be resolved upon the merits.
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: rather than on the basis of procedural technicalities. Although the
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: decision whether to grant leave to amend is within the
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: discretion of the district court, refusal to grant leave must
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: be based on a valid ground. where the possibility exists
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: that the defect can be cured and there is no
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: prejudice to the defendant, leave to amend at least once
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: should normally be granted as a matter of course. Plaintiffs
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: submit that leave to amend should be granted to address
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: defendant's concerns is raised in their four motions to dismiss. Moreover,
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs proposed SAC alleges a civil RICO violation, which is
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: grounded upon additional facts adduced by plaintiffs from the very
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: limited information that's publicly available to them. There is absolutely
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: no evidence in the instant matter of undue delay, bad faith,
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: or undue prejudice to defendants by the requested amendment. As
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: set forth in plaintiff's opposition, there is a meritous basis
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: for jurisdiction over defendants and the causes of action have
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: been pleaded with even greater specificity. This despite defendants' efforts
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: to prevent evidence pertaining to defendants' involvement in the sex
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: trafficking enterprise from ever seeing the light of day. This case,
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: where a government is charged with facilitating, an international sex
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: trafficking enterprise that was enjoyed by the most powerful men
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: in the world without so much as a question from
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: law enforcement officers over more than a decade. It's hardly
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: surprising that the victims of the enterprise had difficulty in
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: discovering evidence establishing their claims. Further, as discovery has not
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: yet commenced and defendants have yet to answer the complaint,
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: defendants cannot demonstrate prejudice will result from plaintiffs being granted
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: leave to amend the complaint at this juncture. For these
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: reasons and those explained below, plaintiffs respectfully ask this court
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: to grant this motion in its entirety. Assuming our guendo
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: that the court deems the SAC deficient, plaintiffs ask that
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: the court deny leave to amend without prejudice to address
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: any concerns this court may have about the sufficiency of
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: the pleading. All right, we're going to wrap up this
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: episode right here. And in the next episode, we're going
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: to finish this bad boy off. And we're going to
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: pick up with point two. This court should exercise its
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: broad discretion and and direct discovery concerning the scope and
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: extent of defendants' activities in New York. All right, we're
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: going to wrap this bad boy up right here. And
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: in the next episode, we're going to finish it off
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: by picking up with point two. This court should exercise
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: its broad discretion and direct discovery concerning the scope and
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: extent of defendants' activities in New York. All of the
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: the description box.