Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Late 2007 Documents Show Continued Effort to Shield Epstein From Federal Exposure (Part 3) (10/22/26)

Transcript

Late 2007 Documents Show Continued Effort to Shield Epstein From Federal Exposure (Part 3) (10/22/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: back into the letter sent by Epstein's lawyers to Alex Acosta.
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: Redacted boasts about her marijuana use. Also on our MySpace
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: webpage can be found Redacted's admission of purchasing and using
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia. Specifically, Redacted states she can't wait
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: to buy some weed. I can't wait. Hold on. Let
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: me say that again. I can't wait to buy some weed.
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: I also want to get a vaporizer so I can
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: smoke in my room because apparently there are narcs everywhere.
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: Redacted also posted a photograph of a marijuana cigarette and
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: labeled it what heaven looks like to me. This information
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: and supporting documentation was provided by the defense to the
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: PBPD and was not included in the police report or
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: probable cause affidavit, although there is both a fleeting reference
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: in the police report to redacted's use of marijuana with
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: her boyfriend at 67, and in the probable cause affidavit
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: to redacted marijuana arrest at 10 and 11. Redacted, while
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: the police report and probable cause affidavit contain numerous assertions
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: intended to negate redacted's taped admission that she clearly told
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: Epstein she was 18, omitted from these documents in reference
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: to redacted's MySpace webpage, presented to the state attorney's office,
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: where in no connection to this case, she affirmatively represented
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: to the world that she was 18, thereby corroborating her
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: lie to Epstein. Also admitted is any reference to her
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: long history of run-ins with law enforcement. Among those are
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: multiple runaway complaints by her parents and her assignment to
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: a special high school for drug abusers. Redacted's MySpace webpage
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: states she drinks, uses drugs, gets into trouble, has beaten
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: someone up, shoplifts, has lost her virginity, earns $ 250, 000 and higher,
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: and contains naked and provocative photographs. The first image seen
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: on Redacted's MySpace webpage, the photo Redacted chose to represent her,
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: is that of a naked woman provocatively lying on the beach.
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: The illuminating webpage also contains Redacted's assertions that all of
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: her body parts, she loves her ass, she drinks to excess,
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: uses drugs, gets into trouble, has beaten someone up, has shoplifted, lots,
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: already lost her virginity, and came $ 250, 000 or higher. As
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: with the other impeaching information, this material, vital to determining credibility,
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: was provided by the defense to PBPD, but was never
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: included in the police report or probable cause affidavit. Redacted's
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: prior record, drugs, alcohol, running away from home. Redacted has
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: a history of running away, turning up missing from her
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: parents' various homes, or using drugs and alcohol, and of
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: associating with individuals of questionable judgment. For example, a Palm
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: Beach County Sheriff's Office report details only two days after
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: she returned to Florida to live with her father on
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: March 31, 2006, police were called to her home in
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: response to her father's report that she and her twin
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: sister were missing. The police report describes her as under
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: the influence of a narcotic as she could barely stand up,
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: eyes were bloodshot, and her pupils were dilated. It further
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: documents that redacted and her sister, had stayed out all
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: night and were returned home by a drug dealer. This
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: event coincided with Redacted having been found at an inappropriate
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: location by Georgia police in response to a call about
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: Redacted's disappearance. Although this information material to determining credibility was
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: provided by the defense and known to the PBPD, it
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: was never included in the police report or probable cause affidavit. Redacted,
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: while the police report and probable cause affidavit rely on
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: statements of redacted's father redacted his federal bank fraud conviction,
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: which defense investigators discovered and turned over to PBPD during
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: the course of the investigation was omitted. Redacted served 21
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: months in federal prison for his offenses. Redacted, while the
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: police report and probable cause affidavit rely on statements of
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: redacted and redacted's stepmother omitted redacted's state conviction for identity fraud.
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: This information uncovered by defense investigators was also turned over
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: to the PBPD during the course of the investigation. D.
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: In light of the compromised nature of the evidence, a
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: fulsome review should be conducted. These tainted and inaccurate reports
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: compromised the federal investigation. As you know, the PBD took
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: the unprecedented and highly unethical step of releasing these reports
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: to the media as well. These reports spread across the internet,
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: and were undoubtedly read by the other individuals who were
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: later interviewed by the FBI for giving Mr. Epstein massages.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: As we have shown, these reports contain multiple fabrications, omissions,
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: and outright misstatements of fact. Moreover, the evidence and the
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: allegations were undeniably misrepresented to the FBI, with no inclusion
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: of the evidence exposing the deficiencies of the proof, and
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: the exculpatory evidence upon which the state relied. Furthermore, it
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: should be noted that that many of these same individuals
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: were also interviewed by the FBI after their state interview,
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: but prior to Mr. Epstein's counsel providing the government with
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: the transcripts of the recorded interviews. The transcripts and tapes,
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: which we hope to share with you in person, will
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: likely present a very different view of those interviews taken afterwards. Therefore,
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: in the interest of truth, we ask you to review
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: the transcripts, compare them to the FBI reports upon which
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: the indictment was predicated, and then determine whether the FBI
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: summaries and the prosecution memorandum upon which the charging decisions
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: were made overstate Mr. Epstein's federal culpability. Concomitant to these requests,
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: we would ask that you determine whether the investigative team
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: ever provided these trustworthy tapes and transcripts to those in
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: your office who were being asked to authorize the prosecution
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: so that they could themselves assess the reliability of the
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: FBI interview reports against a verbatim record of the same
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: witness's prior statements. We believe that this request is fair
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: and would not be unduly burdensome. 2. The improper involvement
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: and conduct of federal authorities. As established above the state's
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: charging decision, of one count of the solicitation of prostitution
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: was hardly irrational or irregular. Indeed, redacted a Florida sex
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: prosecutor for 13 years concluded that the woman in question
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: were prostitutes and that there were no victims here. There
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: was no evidence of violence, force, drugs, alcohol, coercion, or
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: an abuse of a position of authority. Each and every
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: one of the alleged victims knew that to be expected
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: or what to be expected when they arrived at Mr.
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: Epstein's house and each were paid for her services. In fact, Mr.
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: Epstein's message book establishes that many of these women routinely
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: scheduled massage sessions with Epstein themselves without any prompting Redacted
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: also notes that many of these individuals worked either as
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: exotic dancers or in one of the many massage parlors
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: dotted across West Palm Beach. Redacted also specifically stated that
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: Redacted could not be trusted and was only interested in money.
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: She further found that it was inappropriate for Mr. Epstein
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: to register as a sex offender because she did not
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: believe that he constituted a threat to young girls and
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: because registration was had not been required in similar, even
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: more serious cases. Redacted thought and still believes that the
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: appropriate punishment is a term of probation. Yet the government
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: has devoted an extraordinary amount of its time and resources
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: to prosecute Mr. Epstein for conduct the state believes amounts
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: to a sex-for-money case. While we are loath to single
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: out for criticism the conduct of any particular professional, we
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: cannot escape the redacted, cumulated effect of the conduct of
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: Assistant United States Attorney Redacted, led your office to take
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: positions during the investigation and negotiations of this matter that
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: has led to unprecedented federal overreaching. In fact, Judge Herbert
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: Stern states, the federal authorities inappropriately involved themselves in the
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: investigation by the state authorities and employed highly irregular and
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: coercive tactics to override the judgment of state law enforcement
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: authorities as to the appropriate disposition of their case against
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: your client. See Judge Stern's letter of facts to you,
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: December 7th, 2007. A. The Petit policy should have precluded
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: federal involvement. As you know, prior to negotiating the terms
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: of the agreement, we requested that the government consider the
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: Petit policy and the problems associated with conducting a dual
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: and successive prosecution. We stressed to your office on a
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: number of occasions that we had reached the final negotiated
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: resolution with the state and were only being forced to
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: postpone the execution of that agreement for the sake of
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: the federal investigation. We made submissions and met with your
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: office to present analysis of the fact that federal prosecution
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: in this matter was in direct conflict with the requirements
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: of the Petit Policy. It was our contention and remains
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: our contention that federal prosecutors had never intervened in a
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: matter such as this one. And because there was no
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: deficiency in the criminal process that would otherwise require federal intervention,
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: the expressed terms of the Petit Policy precluded federal prosecution
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: regardless of the outcome of the state case. Since the
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: state investigation was thorough and in no way inadequate and
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: the concern implicated by the matter all involved local issues
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: and areas of traditional local concern, we urge your office
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: to contemplate whether a federal prosecution was appropriate. However, on
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: August 3, 2007, Redacted rejected a proposed A plea, which
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: included that Mr. Epstein serve two years as supervised custody
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: followed by two years of incarceration in a state prison,
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: with the option of eliminating incarceration upon successful completion of
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: the term of supervised custody, among other terms. Redacted stated
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: that the federal interest will not be vindicated in the
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: absence of a two-year term in state prison, see August 3,
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: 2007 letter. Such an articulation of the federal interest, we believe,
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: misunderstands the Petit policy on two grounds. First, the office's
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: position that the federal interest would not be vindicated in
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: the absence of a jail term for Mr. Epstein runs
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: contrary to Section 9-2.03.1d of the United States Attorney's Manual,
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: because this section requires the federal prosecutor to focus exclusively
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: on the quality or process of the prior prosecution, not
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: the sentencing outcomes. Second, the state plea agreement offered was
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: not manifestly inadequate. Under USAM Section 9.2.03.1d, indeed, the only
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: real difference between the state and federal plea proposal was
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: whether Mr. Epstein served the sentence in jail or community quarantine.
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: We formerly believed that our petite policy concerns were being
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: addressed or at least preserved, but we learned that only
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: after reaching a final compromise with your office as to
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: the terms of the agreement, and the very last minute
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: the language regarding the Petit Policy was removed from the
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: final version. The two following references to the Petit Policy
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: had been included in the draft prosecution agreement up until
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: September 24, 2007, the day the agreement was executed, at
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: which point they were eliminated by your office. It appearing
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: after an investigation of the offenses in Epstein's background that
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: the interest of the United States pursuant to the Petit
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: Policy will be served by the following procedure. Epstein understands
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: that the United States Attorney's Office has no authority to
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: require the State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: of this agreement. Epstein understands that it's his obligation to
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office to ensure compliance
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: the U.S. interest pursuant the Petit policy. We reiterate that
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: this case was at the heart of a local matter
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: that was being fully addressed by the state criminal justice system.
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: The state process resulted in an appropriate resolution of this
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: matter and would have vindicated any conceivable federal interest. Thus,
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: there was no substantial federal interest that justified a federal prosecution.
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: It's recently come to our attention that the CEOS chief
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: statements may be relevant to this matter. While we welcome
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: the opportunity to consider the statements, Our extensive research had
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: found only one federal action that was remotely similar to
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: the federal investigation for the prosecution of this matter, and
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: that case has since been distinguished as well. Alright folks,
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic we're going to pick
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.