Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Judge Preska And The Crack In The Dam Of Sealed Documents (5/10/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Judge Preska And The Crack In The Dam Of Sealed Documents (5/10/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:00
Speaker 1: We have some news out of Judge Presca's courtroom, and
0:04
it looks like it is exactly as we expected. It's
0:07
going to be a long process for these documents to
0:12
be unsealed. Now. Presca already stated previously that she was
0:17
going to do this in a rolling fashion, and she
0:21
has now laid out the groundwork for the two sides
0:25
and how things are going to proceed as far as
0:30
documents being unsealed. Now, there are a lot of things
0:34
that she had to take into account, right, the fact
0:37
that some people are going to be named and they
0:40
have to be made aware that they're going to be named,
0:43
you know, just a whole bunch of legal stuff. So
0:47
it's going to take some time for this to happen.
0:50
The article we're going to read tonight from Law and
0:53
Crime will give us a better idea on just exactly
0:57
what that process is going to be. Well, as you
1:01
all know, I like to use long crime whenever we
1:04
can when it comes to this sort of legal type situation,
1:08
considering that's what they do.
1:10
Speaker 2: They always, this is what they report on.
1:12
Speaker 1: This is their bread and butter, and they have done
1:15
good work here on the Epstein case. So let's jump
1:18
into the article and see if Law and Crime can
1:22
add a little bit of meat to the bone and
1:24
put a little context in this for US judge reveals
1:29
process for releasing for releasing more secret Jeffrey Epstein files,
1:34
this is going to take a while. The author of
1:37
this article is Colin Kombacher. A federal court in New
1:42
York City determined the categories of people whose names will
1:45
appear in the latest tranch of materials related to Jeffrey
1:49
Epstein and how they will be able to object. The
1:52
process is complicated and time consuming. Yeah, Unfortunately, just about
1:58
anything that goes on in federal court especially is going
2:02
to be time consuming and complicated. And like usual, I
2:08
am not a lawyer, right, so I'm just muddling my
2:10
way through this stuff just like you. And that's why,
2:13
again I use Law and Crime and not some other
2:18
website where you just get a basic idea of what's
2:21
going on. At least they give you a little bit
2:22
of context here, and Colin is somebody who obviously knows
2:27
what they're talking about, so it makes it a little
2:29
easier to understand, right. So that's what we're going to
2:33
try and do. But again, I most certainly am not
2:36
a lawyer, and some of this stuff just makes your
2:39
head spin and your eyes roll back in your head. Right,
2:42
just all the legalies nonsense. US District Judge for the
2:47
Southern District of New York, Loretta Presca, outline those categories
2:52
in a five page order released Thursday afternoon. The names
2:56
will include A persons who produced or a discovery based
3:01
upon the representation or understanding that the discovery would be
3:06
subject to the protective order previously issued in this action.
3:10
All right, So that sounds like whoever gave a discovery
3:16
deposition and thought that it was going to be concealed
3:22
under the protective order, they're going to be notified that
3:25
their name is going to be released in these unsealed documents.
3:32
B Persons who are identified as having allegedly engaged in
3:36
sexual acts with Virginia Roberts or other alleged victims, or
3:41
allegedly facilitated such acts.
3:44
Speaker 2: All right.
3:44
Speaker 1: So that portion is people who are having the finger
3:50
pointed at them by Virginia or other survivors, naming them
3:55
directly as people who took part in the crimes or who.
3:59
Speaker 2: Helps facilitate those crimes.
4:02
Speaker 1: So those people who are named in the documents that
4:06
are going to be released, must also be made aware
4:10
that their names are mentioned and that they are in
4:14
jeopardy of having them their information put on blast. So
4:20
they will be notified and then they will be given I.
4:24
Speaker 2: Think two weeks. I believe two weeks.
4:26
Speaker 1: I'm sure it'll tell us in this article. I believe
4:28
they have two weeks to answer the charges or answer
4:32
the fact that their information is involved in these documents
4:38
that are being unsealed. See persons whose intimate, sexual or
4:45
private conduct is described.
4:46
Speaker 2: In the sealed materials.
4:48
Speaker 1: So obviously anyone who talks about any intimate situation they
4:53
were involved in in regards to the Jeffrey Epstein criminal enterprise,
4:57
those people will also be identif and not identified, but
5:02
they will be contacted and they will be told that
5:08
their names are going to be coming out as well,
5:10
and if they object, then now is the time to
5:13
do so. D Persons who are alleged to have been
5:19
victimized by Epstein and Gilain Maxwell. Again, same situation. If
5:24
those names come up in documents that are going to
5:27
be unsealed, then they must be contacted first them and
5:31
their lawyers and told that their names are going to
5:35
be brought up in these documents and they'll have a
5:38
chance to object to that. The slate of names is
5:43
being sourced from filings made by attorney for both Roberts
5:47
and Maxwell. Each side presumes that the people on their
5:51
perspective lists are likely to suffer privacy, reputational or other
5:56
damage when and if their names are revealed in the
6:00
Epstein files. So this is where it gets a bit confusing, right,
6:05
So both sides are saying that certain names shouldn't be
6:14
released without those people being told first because they could
6:19
suffer privacy, reputational or other damages. Now, for me, I
6:25
think the most interesting part is, and I guess for
6:27
everybody probably is what those names are, who those people are,
6:31
and if they object to their names being revealed in
6:36
these documents that get unsealed, then I'm sure that there
6:40
will be some sort of process for the judge to
6:42
decide if she is going to keep their names private
6:47
with redactions or if she will go through and just
6:52
release the documents as is. I guess that will be
6:55
up to PRESCA and it will be at her discretion.
7:00
Positive about that, but I believe that is how it works.
7:05
Because the original parties robertson Maxwell did not agree on
7:10
one or more non parties to be included in the list.
7:13
The Court has resolved all such disagreements and shall issue
7:18
to the original parties a court approved non parties list,
7:22
which shall be sealed. The order notes explaining that each
7:26
non party will be identified by his or her name,
7:30
which correlates to a unique a pseudonym identifier, i e.
7:35
Do number one, Dough number two, and DO number three.
7:39
So it looks like Virginia's lawyers and Maxwell's lawyers couldn't
7:46
come to an agreement on one or more of the
7:49
non parties that should be included in the list. So
7:51
the court stepped in and they have resolved those disagreements,
7:55
and now the court is going to issue the original
7:59
party with the non party's list. So again, this is
8:03
confusing stuff, right. This is definitely the kind of situation
8:08
where we have to stay on top of it because
8:10
it's a lot for those of us who are not
8:13
lawyers to you know, you know, manage to wait our
8:18
way through because there's just, I mean a bunch going
8:22
on here, right. So, but basically what is going on
8:25
is the court had to step in because the lawyers
8:28
couldn't come to an agreement and now the Court is
8:31
going to facilitate the process. Presca plans to review several
8:37
sealed filings at a time in order to facilitate the
8:40
review on a rolling basis and in a manageable fashion
8:44
that will take stock of each name as it appears
8:47
in the secret Epstein files. Well, that's not really new.
8:50
We knew that Judge Presca planned on doing this on
8:53
a rolling basis, that she planned on doing it in increments.
9:00
I have one tranch of documents released, go through the next,
9:04
make sure everything's legit, release that trench. And that's the
9:08
way she has said from the beginning that this was
9:11
going to occur. But now with the Court having to
9:16
facilitate all of this as well, it should get pretty
9:19
interesting and it's probably going to be a bit of
9:21
a drawn out process. But again, when it comes to
9:25
the federal court system, I expected nothing less. The order
9:30
notes how this will work in real time. For example,
9:33
for dough number one, the court would review each sealed
9:37
item that mentions dough number one, and would do the
9:39
same for dose number two, number three, etc. This will
9:44
allow the Court more easily to manage and review any
9:47
objections from non parties. So again, remember this doesn't mean
9:53
that their names are going to be redacted and nobody's
9:56
going to know who they are. They have a chance
9:58
to object to the their names being released in these documents,
10:03
and then it will be up to Judge Presca ultimately
10:06
to decide one way or the other. Robertson Maxwell will
10:11
be alerted via judicial minute order notifications that any given
10:17
person stands to have their name revealed in any given
10:20
set of documents. Both Roberts and Maxwell's attorneys will then
10:25
be tasked with confidentially altering each of the people named
10:29
in the materials, So if somebody has to get their
10:36
name redacted, the court will let the attorneys know so
10:41
that they can take the steps that are needed to
10:44
be taken to make sure that things remain as confidential
10:49
as the protective order demands that they remain. Service shall
10:55
be affected via first class certified mail return receipt requested.
10:59
The order notes after service the party causing the service,
11:04
So the party who is sending the mail a certificate
11:09
of service stating the Dayton method of service and identifying
11:12
the non party by his rehearse pseudonym identifier, so obviously
11:19
not by name by pseudonym identifier that's the key. It's
11:23
about privacy here, is what's going on. It's to make
11:27
sure that people's privacy is respected in both areas, to
11:32
make sure that people who are mentioned within these documents
11:36
have their chance to object. And there is a good
11:42
chance that a lot of these people will object, right,
11:46
I mean, you would think, and then it moves on
11:49
to the next step where PRESCA ultimately will decide. Various
11:55
timelines begin to toll once a named person has served
11:58
notice of their presence in the Epstein files. Within fourteen
12:02
days of service of the non party notice, a non
12:05
party identified by his or her pseudonym, may submit to
12:09
the court or request for excerpts of the sealed materials
12:13
pertaining to him or her. The order notes given a
12:17
named person two weeks from the date of service to
12:20
request context about why they were included in the sealed materials,
12:25
all right, So they have basically a month when they
12:30
get noted, when they get noticed that they're going to
12:32
be mentioned in this and then it gives them the
12:36
two weeks from the date of the service to request context.
12:41
So once they get served, once they get this information,
12:48
they have that two weeks from the date that they
12:51
are served to request all the information that's involved that
12:56
has to do with them and why they were included
12:59
in the sealed materials. Upon receiving the excerpts, those people
13:06
will then be granted an additional two week period to
13:09
file objections. All right, So that's a month, right, So
13:13
that's how it's That's what it's gonna be like. So
13:15
I would guess that something like this will happen. We'll
13:19
see a tranch of documents dumped one month, then we'll
13:22
have a month or two off, a tranch dumped, a
13:25
month or two off, a tranch dumped a month or
13:27
two off, until there are none left. That is the
13:29
way I think it's going to break. But again I
13:33
don't have any inside information. That's just speculation on my part.
13:39
That's already one month from notice of being served that
13:42
they're mentioned in the Epstein files to mount a case
13:45
against the public ever knowing of their affiliation with the
13:49
Epstein saga. So that's where it gets dicey, Right, these
13:52
people are going to have a chance to keep their
13:55
names off the record. That cannot occur. I mean, there
13:58
is no way that that should ever occur.
14:03
Speaker 2: At this point.
14:03
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear no redactions. I don't want
14:06
none of that BS, none of it at all, because
14:10
at this point, if you're named in those documents, my friend,
14:16
you should not have been associating with Jeffrey Epstein.
14:18
Speaker 2: And if you're close.
14:19
Speaker 1: Enough to be named in these documents, well you were
14:23
probably pretty close to Epstein and Maxwell. After filing their
14:30
initial objection, there are three additional seven day periods that
14:35
allow one attorneys for Robertson Maxwell to object to that objection,
14:40
two attorneys for the named people to file an opposition,
14:44
and three attorneys for Robertson Maxwell to file additional support
14:49
for their opposition. So it becomes even more convoluted, right
14:53
That's why I said a month or two and then
14:55
another dump, So you're looking at it could be another
14:58
three weeks right there. You're looking at about two months
15:02
of time between each one of these tranches of information
15:06
getting dumped, and that is after all of the legal wrangling.
15:10
But again, folks, I told you you have to set
15:13
yourself up and be prepared for this to occur, where
15:17
you know, this is a federal battle with high profile
15:20
people and lawyers, and there's going to be a lot
15:23
of wrangling. There's going to be a lot of dragging
15:25
of the feet. These people are going to try and
15:27
drag this out as long as possible. That's just what
15:31
they do. Those multiple timelines already stake out at least
15:37
two months worth of waiting for the next tranch of
15:39
files related to Epstein's alleged global sex trafficking empire for
15:44
the elite. But that's all essentially just the first step
15:48
in the process. Per Judge Presca's order. After objections, responses
15:54
and replies have been submitted, and any evidentiary hearing held,
15:58
the Court will enter or a minute order setting the
16:02
date and time it will decide in open court the
16:04
objections lodged as to each set of motions. Well, that
16:09
does sound like it could take a long time.
16:11
Speaker 2: I will say this.
16:12
Speaker 1: PRESCA has been pretty solid with keeping to a schedule
16:16
here and keeping things moving in a fourth right manner
16:20
because she has really unclogged things here, so I would
16:25
expect PRESCA not to take too long going over these documents.
16:29
After all of the objections have been turned in, appearance
16:34
by any of the parties or non parties is optional.
16:38
The court will determine whether each sealed item shall be
16:40
one unsealed in its entirety, two unsealed in redacted form,
16:46
or three kept under seal.
16:49
Speaker 2: Thereafter, the court.
16:50
Speaker 1: Will issue a notification of the next set of sealed
16:53
items to be decided. So again, look, let me just
16:57
prepare you folks out there for the fact that some
16:59
of the stuff might not end up breaking the way
17:03
we want it to.
17:04
Speaker 2: Break, right.
17:04
Speaker 1: We have to expect that, we have to expect that
17:07
these high profile lawyers are gonna catch some w's along
17:10
the way. They're going to get some victories along the way,
17:14
and there might be some pieces of this information that
17:17
are not brought to light right away. But there are
17:21
the appeal there's the appeals process, there are several other steps.
17:25
It doesn't mean that it will never be brought to light.
17:28
It just means that this time around, for whatever reason presca,
17:34
the judge has decided not to release it unredacted or
17:39
to keep it sealed completely. So just prepare yourself for
17:43
stuff like that to happen, because it's going to. In
17:47
other words, the names that will be revealed, if they
17:50
are revealed at all, shouldn't be expected anytime soon. And
17:55
for us here on the podcast, we knew that we
17:57
knew that we shouldn't expect more documents anytime soon. PRESCO
18:01
has been very clear about how she's going to go
18:04
about this, how these documents are going to roll out,
18:07
and how she plans on unsealing them, and how she
18:12
plans on having that process build.
18:16
Speaker 2: Because there are a.
18:18
Speaker 1: Lot of documents, right, a ton of documents, So I
18:21
think that the plan that she has is a good plan. Obviously,
18:25
all of this red tape is a bunch of bs.
18:29
But at the end of the day, you know, like
18:31
I always say, everybody's entitled to the same rules under
18:35
the law. At least that's the way it should be.
18:37
And if the law allows for this to be the case, well,
18:41
then the defendant, which is Gilan Maxwell in this case,
18:46
has every right to try and go down these roads.
18:50
It's up to the prosecution to make sure that she
18:54
is cut off at the knees every time she.
18:57
Speaker 2: Hits an intersection.
18:59
Speaker 1: And so far are so good for the prosecution in
19:02
the criminal case, right and in the civil case. PRESCA
19:05
has done a very good job here and I expect
19:08
her to continue to release these documents. Now. Again, I'm
19:13
not sure when it's going to happen, but in my opinion,
19:16
we will see a majority of these documents released, but
19:20
there will be some of them that will not see
19:23
the light of day. So make sure you're prepared for that.
19:27
You know, we talk about it all the time here
19:29
about how when you're dealing with the federal court system
19:32
and you're dealing with the federal government, it's a long process, right,
19:37
and you're in a federal case like this, and you
19:40
have high profile lawyers, Well, they're going to get a
19:44
couple of victories along the way, there is zero doubt
19:46
about it.
19:47
Speaker 2: So just be.
19:48
Speaker 1: Prepared for that, and you know, understand that this is
19:52
going to be a very long process. There are still
19:55
many ups and downs left on this roller coaster ride,
20:00
but I think that things are moving in the right direction,
20:03
and I think that the house of cards will most
20:06
certainly be tumbling down the second we see the next arrest.
20:12
All right, everybody, if you'd like to contact me, you
20:13
could do that at Bobby Capucci at ProtonMail dot com.
20:17
That's bo Bby c ap u Cci at ProtonMail dot com.
20:23
You can also find me on Twitter at Bobby Underscore c.
20:27
Speaker 2: Ap u Cci.
20:29
Speaker 1: All of the links that go with this episode can
20:32
be found in the description box.
20:34
Speaker 2: All right, one, we have two.
20:36
Speaker 1: Articles we're going to get into tonight, folks, And the
20:39
first article has to do with the defamation case between
20:42
Geelan Maxwell and Virginia Roberts and the ruling made by
20:46
the judge overseeing that case, Loretta Presca. And the second
20:50
article we're going to read is about our good buddy
20:53
Nicolas Darthaglioni and how his lawyer is now demanding that
21:00
there is a hearing and an investigation into the missing footage.
21:05
He wants to have a hearing and he wants to
21:07
know why that footage went missing. Can't blame the guy, right, Well,
21:11
we're going to get into both of those articles tonight.
21:14
We're going to read about both of those and we're
21:15
going to see what motivated Judge Presca into making her decision,
21:19
and we're going to see what the lawyer over here
21:21
and all our good buddy Nicholas Startaglioni's case has to say.
21:26
And you know, it's kind of kind of sucks that
21:31
Presca decided to not release the documents, but as you'll
21:35
see in the article, I'm sure she's They are going
21:39
to go into why she decided not to unseal those documents,
21:43
and also she talks about what could happen with those
21:46
documents in the future. So let's read that article first.
21:50
We'll jump into that one first, because I think that
21:52
one's a little bit more important. Right, We've been waiting
21:54
for this ruling, and I thought it was going to
21:56
be on the sixteenth, but I you know, guess not.
21:58
Today's the thirteenth, and that's when the ruling came down.
22:01
So let's hop into this article. This article is from
22:05
long crime dot com. The author is Jerry Lamb and
22:09
it was published January thirteenth, twenty twenty at four four pm.
22:14
Make sure you hit the article. Two, folks, it's always
22:16
a good idea to, you know, check out what they
22:18
have going on, pictures and all of that stuff as well.
22:21
And there's always helpful hyperlinks so you can follow, you know,
22:24
different things that were going on previously.
22:26
Speaker 2: In the case.
22:27
Speaker 1: So it's always a good idea to click on the
22:28
links as well. All right, to the article. A federal
22:32
judge in New York on Monday ruled that previously unreleased
22:36
documents concerning dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein would not be released
22:40
as part of a defamation dispute. Involving Epstein's alleged madam
22:44
Gelane Maxwell and alleged victim, Virginia Roberts. Now, we all
22:50
knew that this was a possibility, right, We all knew
22:52
that Maxwell's attorneys were working overtime to make sure that
22:55
this didn't occur. And I'm guessing that it didn't fit
22:59
the skip of what the judge saw as pertinent. Again,
23:03
another judge who doesn't see things that should be released
23:08
to the public as things that should be released to
23:10
the public.
23:11
Speaker 2: Right.
23:12
Speaker 1: Though the case ended in twenty fifteen, Roberts attorneys have
23:15
sought to unseal additional documents initially filed under seal, while
23:20
Maxwell's legal team argued that documents do not fall under
23:23
the definition of judicial documents and therefore are not subject
23:27
to the presumption of access by the public. In an
23:30
eleven page ruling, US District Judge Loretta A. Presca, who
23:34
in August ordered the release of more than two thousand
23:38
previously sealed documents, found that the remaining documents were not
23:42
judicial in nature and therefore not subject to the presumption
23:46
of public access. And I believe that that can be argued, folks,
23:50
This is not the end of the conversation by any means.
23:55
You know how these lawyers work. The lawyers for Virginia
23:57
Roberts will kick it into the next gear now, and
24:00
they'll kick it up to the next court, or they'll
24:03
have it before another judge, or they'll bring more evidence.
24:06
This is certainly not the last word we've heard of this,
24:09
but it's still it still sucks. I was hoping that
24:11
these documents would be released and we get what I love,
24:14
you know what I love to always talk about.
24:17
Speaker 2: We get a little bit.
24:17
Speaker 1: More context added, right, and some more names. In order
24:23
for a document to be considered judicial, it must be
24:26
somehow relevant to the exercise of federal courts and determining
24:29
actual controversies arising between adverse litigants. In this case, the
24:35
underlying litigation between Miss Roberts and Miss Maxwell has long
24:38
since settled. Presco wrote, Accordingly, all disputes regarding the underlying
24:44
merits of the action have been rendered moot by the settlement.
24:47
There is thus no live controversy to which the judicial
24:51
power can extend. The vast majority of the documents in
24:55
question were motions filed by Roberts that the trial court
24:58
judge did not rule on before the case settled. With
25:02
respect to motions left undecided by the trial judge, there
25:05
was never and now never can be a judicial decision
25:09
making process that would trigger the public's right to access
25:12
the undecided motions and the documents relevant to them, Presco wrote.
25:16
But Presco also stressed that her ruling was narrow in scope,
25:20
meaning it was tailored to the specific facts currently available
25:24
and could be subject to change. And what that means, folks,
25:28
is if more evidence comes forward, and with the fact
25:32
that Gilane Maxwell is under investigation as we speak, if
25:36
more evidence is presented, the court and Judge Presca could
25:40
change her mind. The Court is mindful of the fact
25:44
that there is a great deal of public intrigue surrounding
25:47
the unsealing of the documents at issue here. With that
25:50
in mind, the court emphasizes that this ruling is a
25:53
narrow one, she wrote, and that's big. She's saying that
25:57
it's by the slimmest of margins that these documents are
25:59
saying sealed for now, and if the evidence is presented
26:03
in the future, she is open to changing her mind
26:05
and unsealing those documents. Notwithstanding the fact that the undecided
26:11
motions and the papers associated with them are not judicial documents.
26:14
They may eventually be unsealed because they are in some
26:17
way relevant to the trial judge's actual decisions, which are
26:21
numerous that are certainly subject to the presumption of public access.
26:26
And if you click on this link that will be
26:29
in the description box, you'll be able to give it
26:32
a read. And it has the whole entire eleven page
26:35
ruling by the judge. So obviously, as I've stated several times,
26:41
and as you all are pretty aware, I'm certainly not
26:43
a lawyer, folks, right, But this does leave the door
26:46
open for this to move forward. Now they'll have to
26:51
provide more evidence to the court and specifically to Judge Presca,
26:55
But she has not made up her mind, and by
26:58
the it's only by the slimmest of margins that these
27:01
these files are staying sealed as of now, And that's
27:04
the way I'm interpreting it anyway. Like I said, I'm
27:07
not a lawyer. Obviously to me, that's what it looks like.
27:09
It looks like she hasn't truly made up her mind,
27:12
and the only reason that she's keeping them sealed at
27:14
this point is because the law is the law states
27:18
that she must do so, and if they brought if
27:21
they bring more evidence here, well I think that she'll
27:24
definitely change her mind and we could see a different
27:27
outcome in some sort of appeal to this ruling. All right,
27:33
Our next article is about Nicholas Tartaglioni. And this article
27:39
is from the Daily News. It's by John Anice and
27:43
it was published on January thirteenth, twenty twenty at eleven
27:47
nineteen pm. Lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein's cellmate wants hearing on
27:52
why video of first suicide attempt was destroyed. Yeah, it's
27:56
probably a good idea. I don't think it's a bad
27:58
idea for there to be a here about that. But again,
28:01
what are the investigators going to investigate the investigators?
28:05
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a joke.
28:07
Speaker 1: We need some I know, I'm beating a dead horse here,
28:10
of folks, we need some sort of commission. The lawyer
28:14
for Jeffrey Epstein's former cellmate wants to know who screwed
28:17
up when video of the billionaire perv's first suicide attempt
28:20
was destroyed and how the snapfo happened. Yeah, that's pretty
28:25
much what everybody wants to know. Who was in charge
28:28
of the chain of custody of the evidence, Who was
28:30
in charge of the evidence, Who was in charge of
28:32
the person who was in charge of the evidence, Where
28:34
was the guard the supervisor on duty when all of
28:37
this was occurring. Nobody checked on their employees for eight hours.
28:41
I don't know about you, folks, but if you've ever
28:43
been a supervisor or a boss, you know you can't
28:45
give your employees more than thirty or forty minutes on
28:47
the front line without checking on them to make sure
28:50
they're doing the right thing. I'm sure it's the same here,
28:52
right I'm sure if these guards have access to the
28:55
internet and they're hanging around and they think everything's just
28:58
gonna be just fine with jeffreyeps Epstein, well they should
29:01
probably be checked on every once in a while, don't
29:03
you think. Bruce Barkett, lawyer for quadruple murder suspect Nicholas Tartaglioni,
29:10
is calling for a hearing to get to the bottom
29:12
of the mind boggling drama surrounding the footage, including whether
29:16
anyone acted in bad faith on the federal government's part.
29:20
You think whether anyone acted in bad faith?
29:23
Speaker 2: Huh?
29:23
Speaker 1: You think this was an accident. You think it was
29:26
an accident that the wrong tier was being videotaped. You
29:29
really think that was an accident. You think all of
29:32
this stuff leading up to Jeffrey Epstein's death was just coincidence.
29:37
It was just circumstance. It just happened to happen, you know.
29:41
That's it. That's what they want you to believe. They
29:44
want you to believe that it was just all coincidence
29:47
and the problem was, well, the problem was the guards
29:51
had to work overtime, so they were extra tired, so
29:53
they weren't able to perform their duties. That's what they
29:56
want you to believe, when in reality, we've all seen
29:59
the big picture. Now we've had the curtain pulled back,
30:02
we have stared directly into the room, and we have
30:07
seen the deviousness, all right, So they can't put that
30:10
back in the box. Now that Pandora's boxes opened and
30:15
the things that have escaped can never be put back in.
30:19
At first, US attorney Jason Swergold said the footage hadn't
30:22
been preserved twenty preserved. Twenty four hours later, he reversed
30:26
himself and said the video had been archived last week. However,
30:31
prosecutor said mcc staff preserved footage from outside the wrong cell,
30:35
and that the footage was destroyed after all, declaring the
30:38
video no longer exists on the prison's backup system because
30:42
of technical errors. Prosecutors wrote technical errors. Were their technical
30:47
errors with any of the other prisoners on the line, No,
30:52
just Jeffrey Epstein.
30:52
Speaker 2: Huh.
30:53
Speaker 1: It just so happened that only the cameras that were
30:55
supposed to be trained on Jeffrey Epstein and on his
30:58
cell were the ones that mouth functioned it. Oh, it's
31:02
only Jeffrey Epstein's evidence that disappears. I wonder why, folks,
31:08
I wonder why do you think it was? Because he
31:10
was a great guy and everybody just loved having him around.
31:14
He was just such a swell fella. Everybody just wanted
31:17
to hang out with good old Jeffy Eppie. Or was
31:22
it that he was greasing everybody's pants and he was
31:26
making sure that he had his tentacles wrapped around everybody
31:30
that you could possibly imagine in a place of power,
31:35
that's how this man rolled. Aside from mentioning mcc staff,
31:40
the government has not provided the name of a single
31:42
individual responsible for the loss of the video. Barket Road
31:46
on Monday's court filing. Yeah, I've been saying that for
31:49
how long you got these two guards, the two prison
31:52
guards that were responsible for minding Epstein and checking on them.
31:56
We know everything about them, We got their names, where
31:59
they live, et cetera, et cetera. But the people that
32:02
were in charge of the chain of custody of the video, Nah,
32:05
we don't know anything about them.
32:07
Speaker 2: That's just staff. It's just staff.
32:10
Speaker 1: Really, what are you the oh man? It makes me
32:13
so mad, This makes me, This makes me so aggravated, folks,
32:16
so aggravated that they could be this inept And if
32:21
it's not ineptitude, right, if it's not ineptitude, then what
32:25
is it? Straight up malfeasance. Tartaglioni, a former briarcliff manor cop,
32:33
is accused of murdering four men in an Orange County
32:35
bar over a Mexican cartel link drug deal gone bad,
32:39
and burying their bodies on his sprawling animal rescue farm. Well,
32:44
kudos for the animal rescue stuff. You'll give you some
32:46
props for that, But the rest of your life you
32:48
seem to be like a pretty despicable human being, Sir.
32:52
He could face the death penalty if he's convicted of
32:54
the murders, and Barkett hopes the video will show he
32:56
acted admirably by alerting the correction officers in time to
33:00
save Epstein's life after the failed first suicide bid. Oh yeah,
33:05
I'm sure this guy is a pillar of the community, folks.
33:08
He was so worried about Jeffrey Epstein living that he
33:12
contacted the guards. You know, he stood up and was yelling, Hey,
33:16
Epstein's heard here, folks, Well, somebody come and help him.
33:20
Speaker 2: Stop it.
33:21
Speaker 1: All right, we all understand what occurred. This dude assaulted
33:24
Jeffrey Epstein. All right, that's what Epstein said. Epstein said
33:28
that he was assaulted. He didn't say he tried to
33:30
commit suicide, and then he was put on suicide watch
33:33
by the Keystone cops here at the MCC and somehow
33:37
he still ends up dead. We're not looking to point
33:41
fingers at anybody. We'd like to have a record of
33:43
what took place with the video, Barkett told The Daily
33:46
News Monday night. We want to be able to show
33:49
that incarcerated, he's still acting appropriately and doing the right thing.
33:53
As in Nicholas Tartaglione. Epstein hanged himself in a different
33:57
cell at the Trouble Jail August tenth, which he occupied alone,
34:00
Officials said. Barkett said he wants to know who the
34:03
Federal Bureau of Prison's lawyer, Adam Johnson spoke to when
34:07
he advised prison staff to preserve the video and what
34:10
was done in response. These are great questions. These are
34:13
great questions from mister Barkett, even though I believe his
34:16
client is a scumbag. I think mister Barkett is on
34:18
the right track here and he's asking the right questions.
34:22
He listed the string of questions he hopes to ask
34:24
at the hearing, including who actually view the footage prior
34:28
to its destruction? Are their protocols in place at MCC
34:31
with respect to evidence preservation? Were the digital records ever
34:35
actually checked for accuracy? Who was the MCC staff member
34:39
who initially confirmed that the video had been preserved? All
34:42
fantastic questions, all very good questions that all need answers.
34:48
Do you think we'll get those answers?
34:50
Speaker 2: Folks?
34:50
Speaker 1: Do you think the federal government will be forthcoming? Do
34:54
you think mister Barr is going to be forthcoming? Or
34:56
are we going to get some more yap about how
34:59
he's seen the footage and we we should believe him
35:00
because he's telling us that nothing happened. What. No, I
35:04
don't believe you. I don't believe any of them. I
35:07
don't believe any elected official at this point. I don't
35:10
believe any bureaucrat who has been appointed by elected officials.
35:14
And I certainly do not believe anything that Nicholas Tartaglione's
35:20
talking about. This dude's of a rogue cop who's on
35:23
the hook for body and four dudes in a drug
35:25
deal gone bad. And this is the guy that we're
35:28
relying on for evidence. You know what George R. R.
35:31
Martin would call someone like that, folks, George R. R.
35:34
Martin would call that an unreliable narrator. And that is
35:39
what Nicholas Tartaglioni is, an unreliable narrator. Really, though, the
35:45
real problem is, and the elephant in the room is
35:49
why in the the why in the world. Okay, in
35:53
the first place, was Jeffrey Epstein even in a cell
35:57
with that big guy, that big, roided out monster of
36:00
a man who is charged with four murders. You don't
36:03
put Jeffrey Epstein in with some sort of you know,
36:06
some embezzler or some computer criminal, and you send that
36:09
computer criminal or embezzler in there or white collar crime
36:12
person in there with the intent to try and work
36:15
Epstein for information. Instead, you put him in with a
36:18
guy face in four bodies. Why would you do that, unless,
36:22
of course, it would just be convenient for your problem
36:25
to go away by Nicholas Tartaglioni taking care of it. Now,
36:30
I'm not saying that that's you know that Tartaglioni was
36:32
definitely going to do that, but the optics do not
36:35
look good, folks, right, Why would you put Epstein in
36:37
this jail cell with a guy like Tartaglioni. This is
36:41
a man that obviously has no problem with violence, charged
36:44
with four murders and a drug deal gone bad, and
36:47
if he was willing to murder four people, I'm pretty
36:50
sure that it was not his first time. Okay, now
36:53
you have him in jail, and who's to say who's
36:56
reached out to him, Who's to say who he knows?
36:59
So why with the prison the jail think it's a
37:02
good idea for him to share a cell with Jeffrey Epstein.
37:08
Nobody can answer that question for me either. Why wouldn't
37:11
you have Epstein in with a with a guy like
37:13
the Mursky guy that we that we talked about a
37:16
few weeks back, the guy that was basically Epstein's quote
37:19
unquote companion, the old fella. Why wouldn't you have that
37:22
guy as Epstein's cell mate, and he's a known confident,
37:26
confidential informant as well, you have him work Epstein for information.
37:31
Instead you put him in with this Tartaglioni guy. And
37:33
you know that Epstein was shitting his pants, right. This
37:36
is a guy that comes from high crust. He's never
37:38
had a big grease monkey like this ready to choke
37:40
him out, a big ginzaloon dude like this right. There
37:44
ain't no way in hell he's ever been in a
37:46
jail cell, a small confined area where he can't get
37:48
away with a monster like Tartaglioni. That's a big that's
37:52
a big dude, folks, and willing to go to that
37:55
length of violence of killing four people in a drug
37:58
deal gone bad. I'm guessing Jeffrey Epstein was none too
38:00
plussed about being in there with him. And is it
38:02
too far of a stretch of the imagination to believe
38:05
that Tartaglioni assaulted Jeffrey Epstein in that prison cell. He
38:09
knows he's looking at life Tartaglioni, possibly the death sentence.
38:12
So if he assaults this child molester, he gets some
38:15
credibility when he goes and hits the main line, right,
38:17
when he hits the yard. He might be an ex cop,
38:20
but he was a dirty X cop and now he
38:22
not only is he a dirty X cop and he
38:24
has some street credibility that way. Well, he busted up
38:26
this chomo, right, Hey, I busted up Jeffrey Epstein.
38:29
Speaker 2: What up?
38:30
Speaker 1: So you know, prison's a whole different place, folks, And
38:33
the rules are different, the politics are different, everything is different.
38:37
So if you think Tartaglioni is above assaulting Epstein this
38:40
first time around, I got news for you.
38:43
Speaker 2: He is not. All right, folks.
38:46
Speaker 1: I'll be back tomorrow morning with the usual morning update,
38:50
daily drop, and we might even do another Evolution episode
38:54
tomorrow afternoon. I want to do a couple more leading
38:57
up to Santa Fe. A few more on Santa Fe.
39:00
That way, we have as much context as possible heading
39:03
into the trip. It is coming up real quick, folks,
39:06
and I cannot wait to be there. Make sure if
39:09
you're not subscribed as a subscriber on Speaker, our platform
39:13
while our podcast hosting site, make sure you subscribe there
39:17
so that when I'm in New Mexico, you don't miss
39:20
out on the live feeds as well, because I'm going
39:22
to be doing some of them as well. All Right, everybody,
39:25
I hope you have an amazing night, and I will
39:27
talk to you tomorrow. If you'd like to contact me,
39:30
you can do that at Bobby Kapucci at ProtonMail dot com.
39:33
That's Bobby c ap u Cci at ProtonMail dot com.
39:39
We were talking about how Denise George was granted access
39:43
to some sealed documents in the Gilain Maxwell Virginia Roberts
39:49
defamation case, and we talked about how that would impact
39:54
her investigation, Denise George's investigation that she has initiated within
39:59
the Virgin Islands. Well, this morning, we have an article
40:03
from Lawn Crime that's going to add a little more
40:05
context to that. The original article we read was from
40:09
the Miami Herald, but like always, I like to add
40:12
some context and prefer to use articles from lawn Crime
40:17
or other sources that deal strictly in these sort of issues.
40:23
So today we're going to revisit this whole situation with
40:28
the depositions and Denise George being granted access to them,
40:33
and we're going to get the perspective of Adam Classfeld.
40:39
This article is from lawncrime dot com the headline US
40:43
Virgin Islands can access sealed Jeffrey Epstein deposition and other
40:48
secret files. This article was authored by Adam Klassfeld. Now,
40:56
this is a pretty significant move, right, Like we talked
40:59
about in an the other segment when we were discussing
41:02
this topic, it's a pretty significant move for Denise George
41:06
to get access to these files as well. It's only
41:09
going to bolster her case, and she already has a
41:13
pretty strong case, folks. I mean, she has been dropping
41:17
subpoenas like pigeons drop poop. She is not playing around
41:21
and she is looking to get as many of these
41:25
people on record and get as much information as possible
41:29
in regards to Jeffrey Epstein and his behavior in the
41:33
Virgin Islands at the very least. Now, my questions has
41:37
been and will be what about her predecessors, what about
41:42
the people who were there before? Her. What about the
41:45
people who were working with Jeffrey Epstein, who were part
41:48
of the government. Are there going to be any sanctions
41:52
on them? Are they going to face any penalties? Because
41:56
they should, right if they were the ones who gave
41:59
Jeffrey Epstein these sweetheart deals, and even common folk on
42:03
the island, regular old citizens knew what Jeffrey Epstein was
42:07
up to. How are we to believe that these elected
42:10
officials or bureaucrats had no idea? So I think that
42:15
it would be nice to see Denise George go after
42:17
some of them as well, and at least get them
42:20
on record.
42:20
Speaker 2: Right.
42:22
Speaker 1: So, there is a lot going on in the Virgin Islands,
42:27
and we have these concurrent investigations running, and there is
42:32
a lot to get to. So whenever we can add
42:35
a little more context, especially when there's a bit of
42:38
a lull in the news, then you know, I like
42:41
to do that because the more we understand what's going on,
42:45
and the easier it is for us to put the
42:47
pieces together, the more chance we're going to be able
42:50
to see the big picture clearly and not be confused
42:54
by all sorts of nonsense. Right, and folks, there is
42:57
a lot of that you know, I get I'm tagged
43:02
on some feeds on Twitter sometimes and I see posts
43:05
from some people and I'm like, man, that's a big statement.
43:09
What kind of evidence do you have to back that up?
43:13
You see, you can't present things as fact without the
43:16
evidence to back that stuff up, right, So I try
43:20
to be very careful about what I present to you
43:22
as factual one hundred percent locked in and then what
43:27
I think is happening, and I try to be very
43:29
clear about that. And it seems like a lot of
43:32
people don't do that, Like, I don't know anyway for me,
43:38
unless we have some strong, circumstantial evidence at the very least,
43:43
I try to just steer clear of it, right. And
43:46
Now that doesn't mean I don't believe that, you know,
43:48
some of that stuff is true and legit, because I do.
43:52
But it's not about what I believe, it's about what
43:55
we can prove, right. So it's always important to add
43:59
as much context as possible and present you folks with
44:03
as much information as possible so you can make your
44:06
own choices and come to your own conclusions and form
44:09
your own opinions. That's what I love about this group
44:13
of listeners on this podcast. Folks, you get the information
44:19
and then you form your own opinions, right.
44:21
Speaker 2: You don't let.
44:22
Speaker 1: Nobody dog walk you or gaslight you. And I think
44:24
that's the most important part here because there is a
44:28
lot and when there is so much information, it's really
44:32
important to try and get it all into context, right.
44:35
And that is my goal when we talk about these stories,
44:38
to try and get them into proper context, so that
44:42
we can have an understanding and a sense of a
44:45
little bit of what's going on, right and pull the
44:48
shade back a little bit and get a better look,
44:51
a clearer look behind the curtain. So that's what we're
44:55
gonna do with this article this morning, and we're gonna
44:58
see what Adam class Field class Feld excuse me, has
45:02
to add to the story, because his commentary when it
45:07
comes to Guileann Maxwell and the way he breaks it
45:10
down has been very, very very good throughout this whole
45:15
entire case. So the US Virgin Islands can access Jeffrey
45:20
Epstein's sealed deposition and a secret list of other witnesses
45:24
put on the hot seat for its enforcement action against
45:27
the accused sex traffickers of state. A federal judge in
45:31
New York ruled on Wednesday, So we talked about this, right,
45:35
it's huge. The secret list of witnesses, I think is
45:38
a gigantic deal. Now, I'm sure that several of those
45:43
secret witnesses have already received subpoenas by Denise George, right,
45:50
Leon Black, Glen dub But I'm sure a couple of
45:52
those guys are part of this witness list, you would think,
45:57
right again, I don't have that information given to me
46:01
by anyone, any inside info of the story, but you
46:07
would think that on those lists would be a couple
46:10
of those people that have been named in the defamation
46:14
case and people who played a role within Jeffrey Epstein's
46:19
criminal enterprise. The United States Virgin Islands may use these
46:25
materials solely in connection with the USVIIS pending Virgin Islands
46:30
Criminally Influenced in Corrupt Organization Act enforcement action against the
46:35
estate of Jeffrey Epstein and several Epstein controlled entities. So again,
46:43
I think it's an incredibly awesome occurrence here in the
46:47
case that we even see this criminally influenced and Corrupt
46:51
Organizations Act enforcement in these articles, and the fact that
46:56
Denise George has initiated the SICCO investigation is a huge deal.
47:02
I think it provides precedent for it to move from
47:06
the criminal I mean, excuse me, from the civil realm
47:10
into the criminal realm. And with the precedent set and
47:14
there being a civilly motivated reco case going on, I
47:19
think that it will not be long before a criminal
47:23
reco case is announced. I am almost positive, one hundred
47:27
percent positive that they are pursuing this case behind the
47:30
scenes as a reco case, and I think once we
47:35
see one or two more arrests, then that's going to
47:37
open up the floodgates.
47:38
Speaker 2: Folks.
47:41
Speaker 1: US District Judge Loretta Presco wrote in a seventeen page
47:44
order advancing a probe where Epstein had a home on
47:48
what locals there called Pedophile Island. And I was talking
47:51
about that in the opening here of the podcast. How
47:55
even all the locals knew the deal?
47:57
Speaker 2: Right?
47:57
Speaker 1: The locals knew that this was Pedophile Island. You mean
48:01
to tell me that the politicians that set him up
48:04
with these tax havens, with these breaks, with these different
48:09
sorts of benefits down on the island, that they had
48:12
no idea what Jeffrey Epstein was up to. I'm sorry,
48:16
but I don't buy it. So I really think that
48:19
Denise George should be going after some of these people
48:21
and at the very least getting witness statements from them.
48:26
The US Territory moved to intervene in an open records
48:30
case involving Epstein's accused accomplice, co conspirator, general all around scusbag,
48:36
child abuser, and bipedal serpent, Gilaine Maxwell, and they're alleged
48:40
survivor Virginia Roberts, in which an effort to bring transparency
48:44
to the docket has been underway for more than a year.
48:49
And we know that that all started in Presco's court.
48:51
Speaker 2: Right.
48:52
Speaker 1: She got the ball moving, she got everything in motion,
48:54
and she's been pretty steadfast in releasing of these in
48:58
the releasing of these documents, hasn't been playing games, she
49:01
hasn't been getting bullied, and she's faced some high profile people.
49:05
Speaker 2: Right.
49:05
Speaker 1: We know that Alan Dershowitz isn't coming to the party
49:09
without some high profile attorneys. We know that Gilay Maxwell's
49:13
attorneys or high profile, and we know that PRESCA has
49:16
handled herself and them very well. One of the depositions
49:23
unsealed recently showed Epstein's former house manager, John Alessi, claiming
49:28
that Maxwell constantly took photos of topless young women visiting
49:33
Epstein's pool and kept them in an album. And you see,
49:36
this is an interesting thing here. The album stuff has
49:39
been something that I've been asking about and I've not
49:43
been able to find any proper answers for it. Where
49:47
is this album or these albums? Does the government have them?
49:51
Where they stash somewhere? Does Borgerson have them? Does the
49:57
CIA have them? Where are the albums? And I think
50:02
that would be a decent question to ask the prosecutors
50:06
at one of these you know, press conferences, if we
50:09
ever get to have one of them ever again. You know, look,
50:15
it's obvious that there were mountains of evidence as far
50:19
as Jeffrey Epstein and Gilain Maxwell's documentation of these topless
50:25
girls and other racy rated X type pictures of minors.
50:32
Speaker 2: We know that they exist.
50:33
Speaker 1: Now my question is where are they and are they
50:36
going to come into play during the trial? You would
50:38
think so, right, And if they go the route that
50:42
I think they're going to go and supersede the indictment
50:45
and add rico charges, then for sure that those those
50:50
albums and those pictures and the videos.
50:53
Speaker 2: All of that will be added to evidence.
50:57
Speaker 1: But again, I'm very uh, I don't really trust the
51:02
government and their procedures at this point. We see the
51:05
way they handle the whole entire Epstein ordeal. We see
51:08
what happened with their internal investigation to the Department of Justice.
51:12
So forgive me if I don't have too much faith
51:15
in them doing their jobs correctly. So while I will
51:21
continue to hope that they pursue this the right way,
51:25
I'm not gonna let my guard down and think that
51:27
the federal government is just magically going to do the
51:30
right thing. They have to be coaxed into it, right.
51:33
We have to keep on them, and we have to
51:35
let them know that this is important to the populace,
51:39
this is important to the citizenry, and this is important
51:42
to establishing a little bit of trust in the justice system.
51:45
Speaker 2: Once again, the.
51:48
Speaker 1: US Virgin Islands government wanted the files for an enforcement
51:52
action against Epstein's estate and several entities under his control
51:56
pending before a superior court there. And I think that
52:00
this puts Indike and Khan into a lot of jeopardy.
52:03
Speaker 2: Folks.
52:03
Speaker 1: That's an aspect that isn't being talked about a lot here,
52:06
But they have been named by their actual names by
52:11
Denise George in court documents and elsewhere as co conspirators
52:16
with Jeffrey Epstein and people who are under the scope
52:21
right there are people that are being looked at by
52:23
this investigations as co conspirators, not just enablers, not just employees,
52:29
but co conspirators. She has called them that, So Indike
52:33
and Connor in a lot of peril here, in my opinion,
52:37
the USVII asserts in its seco action that Epstein ran
52:42
a criminal sex trafficking operation in the Virgin Islands, wherein
52:46
he used his vast wealth and property holdings and a
52:49
deliberately opaque web of corporations and companies to transport young
52:54
women and girls to his privately owned islands, where they
52:57
were held captive and subject to severe an extensive sexual abuse.
53:02
Judge Prescas summarized, and now you see right there in
53:05
her summary, why I talk about the fence and files,
53:09
and we talk about the shell companies, et cetera, et cetera.
53:12
For those of you who might be new listeners and
53:14
you caught that Fence and Files episode and you were
53:16
wondering what the hell I was talking about in the
53:18
financial world, Well, It all ties in together very nicely here,
53:23
and it's been part of our ongoing narrative on the
53:26
podcast since pretty much the beginning. One of the first
53:29
shows was about Rico and about these sorts of these
53:33
criminal companies, these offshore companies, these shell companies, and how
53:38
they're used by people like Epstein. So that's why the
53:41
fence and files coming out when they did. It was
53:44
like perfect timing because we were able to add that
53:47
to our conversation and we were able to use it
53:50
to add a little bit of context to the overall
53:53
theme of how corrupt these rich people are and how
53:58
they use these sort of offshore companies to hide vast
54:03
amounts of wealth and to engage in criminal operations. Epstein
54:10
dodged deposition questions by repeatedly invoking his Fifth Amendment right
54:15
against self incrimination, and Maxwell argued that this was a
54:18
reason to deny the Virgin Islands access to that file. Yeah,
54:23
that's really a great reason. You know. Again, look, folks,
54:26
I've said it a million times, and it just it
54:30
becomes more apparent as the days go by. They realize
54:33
that they don't have a leg to stand on Maxwell's
54:36
defense team, and they know that she is not an
54:39
innocent person. So they continue to try and go hard
54:43
on these technicalities and loopholes, hoping that one of them pops,
54:47
hoping that one of them provides some relief for the
54:50
bipedal serpent. Disagreeing, Presca noted that the government can draw
54:57
an adverse inference from the fact in civil litigation. So
55:02
you see, this is why again, why we're reading this
55:05
article and adding to the original Miami Herald article, because
55:08
there's always little nuggets, right, Classfeld goes into a little
55:12
bit more detail here than we got from the Miami
55:16
Herald article. Second, the substance of the deposition questions may
55:23
on their own be fruitful a jumping off point for
55:26
the USVII is significant investigatory power, she added. So she
55:32
is saying that the substance of the deposition questions on
55:37
their own, not the answers, but the questions on their own,
55:41
can jump start and help the usvii's investigation. So Presca
55:46
is very, very forthright with how.
55:53
Speaker 2: She's putting this to them.
55:54
Speaker 1: Right, She's letting them know that their attacks on the
55:59
technicalities and trying to use these loopholes, she's going to
56:03
stymy them at every chance possible, because this is not
56:08
about the loopholes that you can find. This isn't about
56:11
your relationship with the prosecutors. This is about justice being served. Finally,
56:18
after decades of this bipedal serpent allegedly getting off on it.
56:25
The judge agreed, however, that the survivors may have privacy
56:29
interests that deserve protection, which is why she denied a
56:32
previous request to Harvard professor Alan I kept my underpants
56:37
on Dershowitz. Now she didn't let Dershowitz get any of this,
56:41
but she did give it to the Virgin Islands and
56:45
denise George, considering that they are an investigatory body, they
56:52
have power of subpoena, and they could be put under
56:57
sanctions by the court if they leak this information, whereas
57:02
those safeguards aren't in place when you're dealing with Deushowitz,
57:05
and you know for a fact, old boys going to
57:07
leak whatever information he has if he feels like it's
57:10
going to provide him a good look.
57:15
Speaker 2: Right. In order to make.
57:17
Speaker 1: Crystal clear to the USVII the significance of the privacy
57:21
interests here, the Court will will provide separately to the
57:25
USVI a copy of the sealed order, explaining why it
57:29
excluded from its prior production to mister Dershowitz materials related
57:33
to a certain non party DOE with particularly weighty privacy
57:38
interests in the sealed materials at issue in this case.
57:42
Her ruling states, so again, there is still a dough here,
57:46
a big fish, it would seem, who does not want
57:50
their name to be made public. And we see the
57:54
wrangling going back and forth, and hopefully moving forward we'll
57:57
find out who this person is who wants their name
58:00
kept secret. My guess is that it's Alan Dershowitz. He'll
58:04
say that, no, no way.
58:05
Speaker 2: It's not me. I want all of this stuff married public.
58:08
Speaker 1: But I have a sneaking suspicion it's Dershowitz. Do I
58:11
have any evidence to back that up? I don't, but
58:13
it would be my guess that it's Dershowitz. If not Dershowitz,
58:17
maybe Bill Clinton or perhaps Glenn Dubin.
58:20
Speaker 2: I don't know. One of those.
58:23
Speaker 1: Type of folks, though, is probably the person that is
58:27
trying to keep their name from the public sphere here.
58:30
The last thing they want is that sort of egg
58:32
on their face. Rumor and innuendo are one thing seeing
58:36
it on paper and taking a look at it for
58:39
yourself in a court document that is something else entirely.
58:45
If you'd like to contact me, you can do that
58:47
at Bobby Kapucci at ProtonMail dot com. That's Bobby c
58:52
ap u c CI at ProtonMail dot com. You can
58:56
also find me on Twitter at Bobby Underscoore or c
59:00
ap U c c I. All of the links that
59:04
go with this episode can be found in the description box.