Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 7)

Transcript

The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 7) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: where we left off with Brad Edwards and the CVRA
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Affid David. With regard to factor three, the degree to
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: which governmental self evaluation and consequent program improvement will be
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: chilled by disclosure, this is a lawsuit to force the
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: compliance by the government with its CVRA obligation. Accordingly, the
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: government's program of providing victims rights will be directly improved
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: if the victims are able to enforce their rights in
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: this lawsuit. With regard to factor four, whether the information
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: sought as factual data or a summary, many of the
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: items that the victims seek are factual summaries. An example
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: of this is found at page eighteen of the first
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: Privilege log with regard to box number three P zero
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: one one seven seven eight to P zero one one
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: seven eight eight. The entry reads file folder entitled six
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: twelve oh nine Victim Notificationation Log containing chart with victim
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: contact information and attorney notes regarding dates and types of contacts.
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: This would include, for example, dates of contacts with Jane
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: Do number one and Jane Do number two, which would
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: be purely factual information. With regard to factor five, whether
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: the party seeking the discovery is an actual or potential
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: defendant in any criminal proceeding, either pending or reasonably likely
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: to follow from the incident. In the question, Jane one
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: and Jane do two are plainly victims of a crime,
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: not criminal defendants. Indeed, as the court is aware, it's
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: the criminal defendant, Jeffrey Epstein who has undertaken several limited
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: intervention efforts to try and block disclosure of information to
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: the victims. With regard to the factor six, whether the
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: police investigation has been completed, the investigation at Epstein was
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: completed years ago, and the government has not produced in
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: its privileged log any information indicating recent investigative activity. With
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: regard to factor whether any inter department disciplinary proceedings have
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: arisen or may arise from the investigation, it appears that
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: OPR investigation has arisen as a direct result of the
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: victim's efforts in the case. However, it does not appear
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: that release of any information to the victims would hamper
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: any disciplinary proceedings, indeed, to the extent that the victims
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: are able to obtain information about the case and find
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: information about misconduct, they can provide the information to the
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: government and other disciplinary entities as appropriate. With regard to
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: factor eight, whether the plaintiff suit is non frivolous and
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: broaden good faith, it should be clear at this juncture
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: of a five year long case that the victims have
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: substantial claim that has brought in good faith. With regard
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: to factor nine, whether the information sought is available through
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: other discovery or from other sources. As recounted throughout this AffA, David,
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: the victims have no other way to obtain the information
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: at issue in this privileged debate, as it involves information
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: internal to the Justice Department. With regard to factor ten,
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: the importance of information sought to the plaintiff's case, the
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: information that the victims are seeking is highly important to
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: their case. Indeed, without adequate proof, the court is indicated
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: that it may have to deny the victim's petition. Throughout
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: this Avid David I have provided numerous examples and explanations
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: of why the victims need the information that they're requesting.
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: The documents to which the government is asserting investigative privilege,
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: for example, bear directly on the government's alleged estoppel defense,
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: which victims need to complete evidentiary record to dispute work
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: product doctrine. A work product claim can be defeated by
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: showing of substantial need and undue hardship to obtain the
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: material in other ways. In this Avid, David, I have
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: tried to articulate the specific and compelling need for all
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: the materials that victims are seeking. I will not repeat
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: all of those assertions here, but simply note that I
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: stand ready to provide any additional information that the court
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: may require to determine the compelling need that the victims
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: have for the materials they have requested, as well as
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: the undue hardship, if not actual impossibility of obtaining the materials.
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: In other ways, any balancing of considerations tips decisively in
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: the victim's favor. As one example, the victims have a
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: compelling need for the materials that OPR collected as part
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: of its investigation. Because Justice Department attorneys are generally required
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: to talk to OPR investigators, OPR was apparently able to
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: investigate the claim of misconduct related to the Epstein case
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: by getting statements from the attorneys involved. These interviews appear
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: to be recorded in materials found at page fourteen of
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: the Supplemental Privilege log D two sixteen one with regard
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: to Supplemental box number three p DASH zero one three
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: nine five six two p DASH zero one three eight
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: four six a total of fourteen pages. Judging from the entry,
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: these notes would be factual statements from Justice Department prosecutors
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: about how the Epstein case was handled and whether any
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: misconduct occurred during the handling of the case. Those are
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: central issues in the case. There's no other way for
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: the victims to obtain information about these subjects because the
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: Justice Department has declined to provide information on the subject.
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: The victims have established a substantial need for the material
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: there are requesting in the previous paragraphs of this Avid
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: David that review requests by request their document Production Request
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: numbers one through twenty five and Supplemental Request number one
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: as Another example of why the victims have established a
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: compelling need for the materials is the fact that the
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: Court has indicated that it will be considering an estoppel
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: argument raised by the government as a defense in the case.
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: The Court has noted that this argument implicates a fact
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: sensitive equitable defense which must be considered in the historical
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: factual context of the entire interface between EPSTEIN, the relevant
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: prosecutorial authorities, and the federal offense victims, including an assessment
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between EPSTEIN and
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: the pendency of negotiation between EPSTEIN and federal authorities until
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: after the fact and presentation of the non prosecution agreement.
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: The materials to which the government is asserting work product
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: protection go directly to that interface between the victims, the government,
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: and EPSTEIN. The victims have no other way of showing
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: what that interface is. The government will not be harmed
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: if the materials are provided to the victims grand jury information.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: The victims legal pleading has explained why the government has
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: not properly asserted any grand jury secrecy to the documents
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: at issue. In addition, many of the government's grand jury
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: privilege assertions appear to broadly cover both grand jury and
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: non grand jury information. Even if the court allows the
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: government to assert some form of grand jury privilege, it
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: should require the government to sever grand jury material from
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: non grand jury material. An illustration of this problem comes
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: from page twelve of the first privilege log with regard
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: to box number two p DASH zero zero eight six
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: one six to p DASH zero zero eight six eighty six.
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: The entry reads file folder entitled FBI Summary Charts containing
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: chart prepared at direction of AUSA, containing victim names, identifying information,
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: summary of activity, and other information relevant to the indictment.
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: This does not appear to be a document that was
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: ever presented to the grand jury or that directly discloses
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: grand jury preceding. Moreover, to the extent that it involves
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: some kind of limited disclosure of grand jury proceedings, that
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: limited disclosure could be redacted, and the other information provided
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: to the victims, it does not appear that any of
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: the all edge grand jury materials that the government is
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: asserting privilege involve ongoing grand jury issues. Moreover, it does
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: not appear that disclosing any of the materials would tip
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: off a potential target to a government investigation. Of course,
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein and his associates are well aware of the
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: government's investigation into their crimes against young girls for sexual purposes.
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: The government has not explained any harm that would come
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: from releasing the documents to the victims. If the government
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: raises any such harm, I respectfully request an opportunity to
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: provide additional information on that alleged harm privacy rights of
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: other victims. Chaine Do number one and Jaine No. Number
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: two do not seek confidential or identifying information about any
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: other victim. To clarify that fact, on July thirty first,
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: twenty thirteen, I sent a letter to the government stating
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: in part that to avoid any interference with any privacy
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: rights of victims who are not parties to this litigation,
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: Chaine don'tumbs uber one and Jane Do number two are
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: not seeking any identifying information about other victims in any
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: of the documents that Jane Do number one or Jane
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: Do number two have requested from the government that they produce.
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: The government should not produce the names of other victims
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: or other identifying information, eg. Address or a telephone number,
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: but should instead redact that information. I declare, under penalty
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: of perjury pursuant to US Code twenty eight, Section seventeen
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: forty six, that the foregoing is true and correct to
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this sixteenth
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: day of August twenty thirteen, and this document was signed
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: by Brad Edwards All right, So that finishes up the
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: affid David of Brad Edwards when it comes to the CVRA.
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: And now with this new dump, we have a lot
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: of court records to dive into and the grand jury material,
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: especially because we've never seen that, right, so I want
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: to make sure that we get a handle on that
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: as well. So over the next couple of days, we're
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: going to be diving deep into that grand jury material,
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: and that way everybody gets to see for themselves what
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: we've been saying for all these years that the fix
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: was in and this has been a cover up since
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: the start. All of the information that goes with this
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.