Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The USVI And Their Motion To Intervene In The Maxwell/Epstein Estate Lawsuit (Part 3) (10/30/26)

Transcript

The USVI And Their Motion To Intervene In The Maxwell/Epstein Estate Lawsuit (Part 3) (10/30/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: In this episode we're going to pick right back up
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: where we left off with the USVI and their motion
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: to intervene in the beef between Glenn Maxwell and the
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Epstein estate. 3. The Epstein estate cannot adequately represent the
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: government's interests. Finally, there is no serious question that the
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: government's enforcement and investigatory interests under SECO are not adequately
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: represented by the current parties to this case, Ghislaine Maxwell,
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: the Epstein estate, and its co-executors. The Epstein estate and
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: its co-executors are defendants in the government's existing SECO action
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: involving Epstein and his associates' criminal sex trafficking and sexual
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: abuse conduct and show no inclination to be anything but
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: adversarial to the government's interests. They are refusing to comply
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: with discovery and are even seeking to prevent the government
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: from issuing subpoenas to key fact witnesses such as the
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: house managers for Little St. James, where Epstein and likely
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: Maxwell sexually abused girls and women in the Virgin Islands.
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: See the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. Indyke
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: et al. No. ST-20-CV-14, co-executors, opposition to government's motion to
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: issuance of letters rogatory. which was filed on the 17th
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: of June of 2020. Although the Epstein estate nominally has
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: an interest in preserving its own funds, as against Maxwell's
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: claim for identification, Maxwell's evident involvement in Epstein's alleged criminal
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: conduct makes her a critical fact witness with whom the
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: estate is very likely to try to cooperate. CF Teague,
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: 931 F2D at 262. there is a significant chance that
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: the tort defendants might be less vigorous than the Teague
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: interveners in defending their claim to be insured under the
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: ERC policy. That Maxwell and Epstein's estate are not truly
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: adversarial is demonstrated by the fact that they jointly moved
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: to stay the estate's pending motion to dismiss until a
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: date when its primary grounds for dismissal, the one-year time
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: bar from granting of letters of administration, under Virgin Island
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: Code 15 at 606A, will no longer apply. See Joint
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: Motion to State Proceedings, Filed 6-1, 2020. Maxwell, likewise, has
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: evaded and refused to accept service of the government SECO
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: subpoena for months before she was arrested by federal authorities
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: on charges identical to those under investigation. She, therefore, is
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: demonstrably adverse to the government with respect to both the
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: availability of the Epstein estate's funds and the conduct of
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: the government's investigation. The government, therefore, has no potential ally
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: in this action between likely tortfeasors as to its interest
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: in both uncovering and obtaining redress for the criminal conduct
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: of Epstein, Maxwell, and their associates. The conduct of both parties,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: Maxwell and Epstein's estate, demonstrates clearly that that both have
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: a far stronger interest in obstructing the government's investigation and
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: enforcement than they do in any claims as between themselves.
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: For all these reasons, the court should grant the government's
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: intervention as of right under Rule 24a. c. The government
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: also satisfies Rule 24b' s requirement for permissive intervention. Rule 24b
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: applies a substantially more relaxed standard for permissive intervention. since
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: the proposed intervener need not demonstrate the sort of interest
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: required for intervention as of right. Myers v. George, No. ST-12,
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: CV 394, 2017 WL 106-36962, at 3, Virgin Island Supreme Court,
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: April 24, 2017. The proposed intervener needed only to demonstrate
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: the proposed intervention is timely and and that the intervener's
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: claim shares a common question of law or effect with
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: the claims already in the case, CEG Hendricks Supra 2019
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: WL 918607-1. The government readily supplies both of these requirements. First,
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: the government's motion to intervene is timely. The court assesses
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: timeliness based on the length and delay in seeking intervention,
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: the prejudicial impact of delay on existing parties, prejudice to
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: the would-be intervener if intervention is denied and other factors
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: affecting fairness. Here, all of these factors favor permitting the
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: government to intervene. Maxwell filed this action less than four
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: months ago on March 12, 2020. During this time, defendants
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: have not yet answered the complaint. Instead, they filed a
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: motion to dismiss and shortly thereafter, in lieu of Maxwell
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: opposing the estate's motion, the estate and Maxwell moved jointly
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: to to stay the action until September 7th, 2020. See
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: joint motion to stay proceedings filed on 6-1-20. The government's
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: intervention thus will not disrupt or slow down active litigation.
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: By contrast, denial of intervention would be highly prejudicial to
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: the government for the reasons discussed above. First, the government's
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: SECO claims against defendants, its potential claims against Maxwell, and
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's claims against the defendants all present a common question
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: of law or fact. who is liable to pay a
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: judgment on the government's SECO claims against defendants and or
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: Maxwell for their involvement in or connection to the rape, abuse, exploitation,
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: and trafficking of young women and underage girls by Jeffrey
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: Epstein and his associates. In Security Insurance Company, Supra, the
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: Seventh Circuit addressed Federal Rule 24B' s identical requirement that there
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: be a common question of law or fact and found
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: that it was clearly met in this case. involving intervention
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: by a tort claimant in the tort defendant's coverage action. C-69-F3D-1381-CF,
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: also Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company versus National REO Management Incorporated, 205-FRD-16-DDC-2000. Thus,
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: while the insurance contract may not be an issue in
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: the underlying case in Superior Court, the factual similarities between
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: the two cases are enough to establish a common question
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: of fact. Specifically, both the present case and the underlying
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: case arise from alleged carbon monoxide emissions from a furnace
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: in the defendant's building that began on February 23, 1995.
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: In addition, neither case can be decided without determining the
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: source of the applicant's injuries. Accordingly, for purposes of Rule 24b,
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: the court finds a common question of of fact in
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: the present lawsuit and the underlying lawsuit in Superior Court. Second,
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: if Maxwell succeeds on her undocumented and suspect claims for
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: identification by the Epstein estate, that will threaten the availability
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: of estate funds to satisfy the government's potential judgment in
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: its SECO action. Second, since Maxwell has repeatedly and deliberately
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: evaded service of the government's investigatory subpoena during the past
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: four months, as she has resisted service in other civil
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: actions brought by Epstein and her victims, in the actions
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: in her only known connection to the Virgin Islands through
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: which the government can enforce its investigatory subpoena against her.
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: Denial of intervention, therefore, would harm the government's investigatory and
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: enforcement interests. For each of these reasons, the court should
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: hold that the government's motion is timely filed. Since the
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: government's motion is timely filed, and its actual and potential
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: SECO claims concerning Epstein's sex trafficking enterprise and Maxwell's involvement
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: in it present common questions of law and or fact
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: to those presented in this action for coverage as to
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: those claims, the court should grant the government's motion to
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: intervene and deem its SECO subpoena attached, as Exhibit B,
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: to be served on Maxwell. This will allow the government
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: to both ensure its interest in preventing the dissipation of
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: the Epstein estate's assets and to enforce its subpoena and
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: pursue potential and as appropriate independent claims against Maxwell. For
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: either or both of these reasons, the government may intervene
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: by leave pursuant to Rule 24b. Conclusion For all the
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: reasons set forth, the government's motion to intervene in this
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: action should be granted. respectfully submitted by Denise George. And
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: this was dated on July 10th, 2020. All right, folks. Well,
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: there is the U.S. Virgin Islands and their motion to intervene.
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: And this case is still ongoing, obviously. And the estate
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: and Ghislaine Maxwell are still trying to battle it out. Now,
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: as far as the U.S. Virgin Islands is concerned, they
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: got their bag already. So what do they care? But
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: the battle between Ghislaine Maxwell and the estate is still ongoing.
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: And to say that that back and forth has been
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: contentious would be putting it lightly. Alright everybody, that's going
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: to do it for this one. All of the information
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: that goes with this episode can be found in the
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: description box.