Latest / Beyond The Horizon / The US Department Of Justice Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivor Lawsuit (Part 1) (11/3/26)

Transcript

The US Department Of Justice Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivor Lawsuit (Part 1) (11/3/26) · 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 docket diving and
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: we're going to start taking a look at the battle
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: that's being waged by Epstein survivors against the United States government.
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: Now this has to do with the lawsuit that was
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: filed against the FBI and the United States government overall
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: for the piss poor job that they've done when it
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: comes to Jeffrey Epstein. And we've already went over the complaint.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: So now we're going to take a look at the
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: government's reply and their motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint.
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: Case number 925-CV-808-80-DSL. Jane Doe 1 and the class versus
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: United States of America, the defendant. Defendants reply and support
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: a motion to dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint. Defendant United States
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney,
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: hereby files this reply in support of the United States
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: motion to dismiss plaintiff's fourth amended claim. Argument. Plaintiff's response
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: to defendant's motion attempts to persuade this court that it's
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: bound by its prior ruling pursuant to the law of
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: the case doctrine. Plaintiffs are incorrect. The law of the
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: case doctrine applies to courts of appeal decisions, not to
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: district court decisions. Further, the court previously dismissed the plaintiff's
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: prior complaints, which contain completely different legal theories. The FAC
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: is the first and only time the Undertaking Doctrine and
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: the Zone of Risk Doctrine have been alleged in the case,
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: and the court is therefore tasked with reviewing a wholly
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: new complaint, albeit with many of the same fatal flaws
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: as the previous complaint in the case. 1. Plaintiffs continuously
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: fail to meet the requirements of Rule 8. After multiple
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: rounds of amendments and robust discussion in defendant's motion, plaintiffs
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: continue to disregard the pleading requirements of Rule No. 8,
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: and the FAC should be dismissed on this basis. A.
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: Equitable Tolling Plaintiffs allege in the FAC that they meet
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: requirements for equitable tolling, yet fail to actually allege any
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: facts showing due diligence or how the government could have
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: possibly concealed the information necessary for them to timely bring
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: their claims. Rather, plaintiffs rely heavily on the prior decisions
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: of this court, which as mentioned above, have no binding
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: effect on the court at this juncture. Plaintiffs attempt to
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: convince the court they have met the reasonable diligence requirement,
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: but in doing so they confuse the issues. Plaintiffs argue
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: they plausibly allege reasonable diligence by alleging the FBI, concealed
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: Epstein sex trafficking venture, and its own investigation and evidence.
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: This argument goes to the second element of equitable tolling analysis,
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: the extraordinary circumstance requirement, not the due diligence requirement. And
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: as discussed in defendant's motion, reasonable diligence and extraordinary circumstance
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: requirements are not blended factors. They're separate elements, both of
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: which must be met before there can be equitable tolling.
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: Plaintiffs fail to even attempt to meet the pleading requirement
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: for the application of equitable tolling. There are no facts
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: alleged indicating any diligence on behalf of the plaintiffs, much
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: less reasonable diligence. The reason that the plaintiffs cannot make
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: a single allegation of due diligence is that even a
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: simple internet search would have uncovered a trove of articles, books, documentaries, blogs,
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: and public statements criticizing the FBI's alleged failures regarding Epstein,
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: thereby advising plaintiffs of their casual connection to their FTCA claims.
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: Much of the public information is cited within the FAC,
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: including the OPR investigation, FAC at page 34 and 35,
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: Judge Mara's opinion, FAC at page 34 or 35, Worst
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: failure in criminal justice system in modern times, FAC at
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: page 27 and 28, Julie Brown's investigation, FAC at pages
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: 27 and 32, Everyone heard about Jeffrey Epstein's enablers, few
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: listened to his victims, FAC at page 32, The Justice
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: Department probe ends with no action against prosecutors who oversaw
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: Epstein deal. FAC at page 40. Senator Sass November 12,
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: 2020 public statement that the government's investigation was a disgusting failure.
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: In view of the trove of publicly available information years
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: before the allegation of discovery of the casual connection, the
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: 52-page FAC fails to allege that a single act of
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: due diligence by a single one of the 34 plaintiffs,
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: resulting in no factual basis whatsoever to permit a finding
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: of equitable tolling. Further, as to the second element plaintiffs
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: are required to meet to be entitled to equitable tolling,
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs have not alleged any acts of concealment. Notably, the
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: supporting allegations must be specific and not conclusory. Cole v. Worden,
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: Georgia State Prison 768, F. 3D 1150-1158, 11th Circuit, 2014. See
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: also Carlson v. 1W Bank FSB, 2010 WL 412-3573-2, Southern
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: District of Florida, October 20, 2010. Plaintiff's conclusory assertion of
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: equitable tolling is insufficient. The complaint must allege facts sufficient
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: to support the contention that equitable tolling should apply. Where
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: there has been no showing of a basis for equitable
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: tolling in either the complaint or the response to a
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: motion to dismiss, courts have granted motions to dismiss claims
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: as time-barred. Plaintiffs state in conclusory fashion that the FBI
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: concealed Epstein's sex trafficking venture and its own investigation, but
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: such statements... entirely unsupported by a single factual allegation, do
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: not survive the equitable tolling analysis in the 11th Circuit.
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: Plaintiffs rely solely on the J.P. Morgan case filed in
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: 2022 for when they allegedly received notice of their claims,
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: yet do not provide a specific date on which they
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: became aware, nor what it was about, that case that
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: allegedly put them on notice. This is especially problematic given
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: the case that allegedly put the plaintiffs on notice was
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: a case about suspicious activity reports being sent to FinCEN
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: and the Department of Treasury, nothing involving notifications of FBI
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: nor DOJ. Notably, this was pointed out in defendant's motion
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: and plaintiff conveniently failed to address the issue in their response.
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: Because plaintiffs have failed to meet Rule 8 pleading standards
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: to properly allege facts, supporting their claim to equitable tolling
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: in the FAC, and also failed to advance any facts
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: or arguments that would legally be sufficient in their response
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: to defendant's motion, plaintiff's claims are time-barred and the court
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: lacks jurisdiction. The two-year statute of limitations to file administrative
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: claims expired years before plaintiff's claims began to be filed
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: in 2024. As such, this case must be dismissed. When
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: a district court considers a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds,
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: it may consider matters beyond the pleading in order to
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: determine whether it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Goodman v. Sipos, 259,
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: 11th Circuit, 2001. A district court may take judicial notice
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: of certain facts without converting a motion to dismiss into
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: a motion for summary judgment. C. Bryant v. Avado-Brands, 11th Circuit, 1999.
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: Public records are among the permissible facts that a district
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: court may consider. See Stahl v. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: 8th Circuit, 2003. The district court may take judicial notice
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: of public records and may thus consider them on a
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: motion to dismiss. That being the case, the public information
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: that was available to plaintiffs, had they done the slightest
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: due diligence, would include the docuseries Jeffrey Epstein, Filthy Rich.
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: which includes an in-depth interview of Maria Farmer and her
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: dissatisfaction with the FBI as detailed in the FAC, as
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: well as her prior appearances on news shows showcasing the
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: same dissatisfaction. The Filthy Rich docuseries spend significant portions criticizing
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: the federal government's failure to prosecute Epstein. Plaintiffs' conclusory claims
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: of ignorance of the casual connection now allowed is undone
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: by the public information cited in the FAC as well
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: as the other public information fully available to them. B.
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: Discretionary Function Exception Plaintiffs again argue that the court cannot
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: dismiss the case on the discretionary function exception because the
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: court previously found it was premature to consider at the
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: motion to dismiss stage. However, as discussed above, the court
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: is not bound by its previous findings pertaining to prior
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: complaints no longer at issue. The government has now provided
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: further support for dismissal on DFE grounds, and it has
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: distinguished the case previously relied upon by this court. The
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: government has also, for the first time, brought to the
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: court's attention Wilde and 11th Circuit decision establishing that the
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: decision not to prosecute Epstein was a constitutionally discretionary decision
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: vested with the U.S. attorney. Plaintiffs rely heavily on Douglas
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: for the argument that dismissal at the motion to dismiss
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: Stage is inappropriate. However, as already discussed, in defendant's motion,
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: Douglas is entirely distinguishable from this case. Plaintiffs bear the
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: burden to plead a plausible claim that falls outside of
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: the discretionary function exception. See Douglas 814 at 1276. They
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: have not done so. See generally FAC. Even in plaintiff's response,
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: they failed to point out any mandatory directive. Rather, they
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: cite permissive language from MIOGs and DIOGs that have already
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: been held to be permissive rather than mandatory and offer
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: mere conclusory statements that some speculative mandatory directive exists. Even
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: looking at the few specific sections of the MIOGs cited
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: by plaintiff, the sections are clearly permissive rather than mandatory.
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: This is not the language of a specific statutory or
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: regulatory directive, Gonzalez v. U.S. 9th Circuit, 2016. Further plaintiff's
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: assertion that they are entitled to discovery to determine whether
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: the FBI violated any other relevant policies or procedures runs
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: directly contrary to Rule 8 pleading requirements. The FBI policies
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: and procedures are public record, as clearly indicated by the FAC,
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: where several of the policies are cited. No amount of
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: discovery will turn the discretionary policies of the FBI into
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: mandatory ones. See Twombly 550 at 556, noting that the
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: motion to dismiss and general pleading standard of the federal
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: rules require a plaintiff to allege enough fact to raise
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to prove
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: the alleged crime. Finally, most of the references to the
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: FAC and plaintiff's response contain conclusory allegations that a mandatory
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: directive exists. without any specific citation or quotation to such
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: alleged mandatory directive. Notably, legal conclusions couched as factual allegations
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: are not permissible and need to be accepted as true
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: by this court. See Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550, 2007,
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: citing Papasan v. Elaine, 1986. On a motion to dismiss,
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: courts are not bound to accept as true a legal
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: conclusion couched as factual allegation. Legal conclusions without adequate factual
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: support are entitled to no assumption of truth. Womack v.
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: Carroll City, Georgia 2020 We need not accept as true
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's legal conclusions, including those couched as factual allegations. Hall v.
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: HSBC Mortgage Service 2014 Hall's assertions of causation and damages
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: amount only to conclusory statements the legal conclusions couched as
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: factual allegations and, as such, do not suffice to a
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: state claim. Trujillo v. Florida, 481, 2012. Trujillo's complaint contains
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: only legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, and the district
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: court was not bound to accept such legal conclusions. Alright folks,
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: next episode, we'll finish this bad boy off. All the
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: the description box.