Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Judge Rakoff Makes A Ruling In The Survivors Suit Against USVI (Part 5-7) (9/12/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Judge Rakoff Makes A Ruling In The Survivors Suit Against USVI (Part 5-7) (9/12/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: In this episode we're picking up where we left off
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: with Judge Rakoff's opinion and order. D. TVPA Perpetrator Liability
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: Plaintiffs' allegations that defendants themselves perpetrated sex trafficking are another matter.
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: A direct perpetrator of sex trafficking is someone who knowingly recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, maintains, patronizes,
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: or solicits an underage person to engage in a commercial
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: sex act or does the same to an adult by
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: means of force, fraud, or coercion. U.S. Code 18, Section 1591,
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: A and 1. Plaintiffs' allegations do not adequately allege that
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: either J.P. Morgan or Deutsche Bank did so. D.B. Jane
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: Doe claims that Deutsche Bank's cash was part of the
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: recruitment of Jane Doe and other victims. P1' s memorandum in
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss at 21. The alleged
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: facts that Epstein used cash obtained from DB to recruit
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: his victims and that DB recklessly disregarded that he was
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: doing so might jointly render DB liable for participating in
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: Epstein's venture, see above, but they do not make DB
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: the recruiter. JPM Jane Doe's allegations are a little more
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: on point, but still not sufficient. JPM Jane Doe alleges
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: that JPMorgan directly perpetrated sex trafficking in two ways. First,
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: she alleges that a powerful financial executive at JPMorgan, later
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: identified as Jess Staley, sexually assaulted JPM Jane Doe. Second,
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: JPM Jane Doe alleges that JPMorgan's subsidiary, Highbridge, transported some
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking venture. But
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: even if Mr. Staley's actions are attributable to JPMorgan, those
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: actions do not support a perpetrator claim because the TVPA
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: does not impose liability for sexual assault per se. A
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: classic state crime, but also requires the additional elements described above.
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: See U.S. Code 18, Section 15, 91a and 1. And
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: JPM Jane Doe's complaint does not allege that JPMorgan knew
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: that the women and girls allegedly transported by Highbridge would
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, which
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: is likewise an essential element of a TVPA perpetrator claim.
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: See U.S. Code 18, Section 1591A. Since plaintiff's allegations do
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: not state all the elements of claims for perpetrating a
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: violation of the TVPA, defendants' motions to dismiss these claims
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: are granted. E. Aiding and abetting a violation of the TVPA.
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: JPM Jane Doe and DB Jane Doe also allege that
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank, even if they were not themselves perpetrators...
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein's violation of U.S. Code 18,
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: Section 1591A. They support this claim with the following train
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: of logic. First, Jeffrey Epstein violated U.S. Code 18, Section
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: 1591A through his direct acts of sex trafficking. Second, U.S.
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: Code 18, Section 2 makes anyone criminally punishable as a
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: principal if they aid or abet the commission of an
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: offense against the United States. Finally, 18 U.S. Code, Section
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: 1595A provides a civil remedy to victims of the TVPA.
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: It states an individual who is a victim of a
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: violation of this chapter may bring a civil action against
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: the perpetrator or whoever knowingly benefits financially or by receiving
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: anything of value from participation in a venture which the
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: person knew or should have known has engaged in an
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: act in violation of this chapter in an appropriate district
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: court of the United States. In other words, plaintiffs contend
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: that U.S. Code 18 Section 2, a criminal statute, is
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: incorporated within the civil remedy provision of the TVPA. Since
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: principals are subject to civil liability when they violate U.S.
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: Code 18, Section 1591A and U.S. Code 18, Section 2,
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: puts aiders and abettors in an equivalent criminal position to principals,
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs contend that aiders and abettors are subject to civil
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: liability under U.S. Code 18, Section 1595A. Plaintiffs' claims thus
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: hinge on a question of law. whether the civil remedy
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: provided by U.S. Code 18 Section 1595A enables sex trafficking
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: victims to pursue claims for aiding and abetting. The parties
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: take opposing positions. Defendants argue that Section 1595A' s civil remedy
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: does not apply because aiding and abetting liability is provided
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: by U.S. Code 18 Section 2, which is not within
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: this chapter, i.e. the TVPA U.S. Code 18 Section 1581.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: See Noble 335F. SUPP. 3D at 525 and 526, rejecting aiding and
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: abetting liability under the TVPA. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, contend that U.S.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: Code 18, Section 2, is incorporated within the TVPA. The
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: defendants are correct. The TVPA does not provide civil liability
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: for aiding and abetting. In general, aiding and abetting liability
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: should not be inferred when a statute does not expressly
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: provide for it. See Central Bank of Denver, N.A. vs.
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A. 511 U.S. 164-185-1994 It
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: is not plausible to interpret the statutory silence as tantamount
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: to an implicit congressional intent to impose Section 10b, aiding
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: and abetting liability. Moreover, neither the text nor the legislative
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: history of the TVPA indicates that Congress intended to provide
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: civil liability for aiding and abetting a violation of it.
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: In fact, some aspects of the TVPA's legislative history suggest
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: that Congress had the opposite intention. Congress specifically rejected defining
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: participation in a venture which would entail civil liability so
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: as to include aiding and abetting, compare, allow states and
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: victims to fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, Publication
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: L No. 115-164, Section 5, Statute 132, 1253-1255. 2018. Rejecting
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: definition of participation in a venture that included aides or abets.
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: With H.R. 1865, 115th Congress, as introduced in House of
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: April 3rd, 2017. Bill drafting proposing aides or abets in
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: definition of participation in a venture. A comparison to Rothstein v.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: UBS AG is instructive. See Rothstein v. UBS AG 708 F. 3D, 82,
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: 2nd Circuit, 2013. In Rothstein, the Second Circuit considered this
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: issue as presented by a similar statute, the Anti-Terrorism Act.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: The Anti-Terrorism Act, like the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, is
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: a largely criminal statute that also provides a civil remedy
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: for violations of it. See U.S. Code 18, Section 2333A,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: Providing a Private Right of Action. Also, like the Trafficking
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: Victims Protection Act, The civil remedy provision of the Anti-Terrorism
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: Act does not expressly provide liability for aiding or abetting,
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: but the Act is codified in Title 18 of the
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: United States Code, Section 2, of which makes any aider
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: or abettor punishable as a principle. In Rothstein, the Second
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: Circuit held that U.S. Code 18, Section 2333, does not
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: provide a right of action to assert claims for aiding
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: and abetting, Rothstein 708 F. 3d at 97 and 98. Rothstein's
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: holding was supported by two premises. The court noted Central
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: Bank's general presumption that aiding and abetting liability should not
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: be inferred from statutory silence, ID at 97. And the
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: court also noted that other provisions of the ATA sections
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: that surround its civil remedy provision do provide for aiding
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: and abetting liability, ID at 98. That context, the court found,
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: suggested that Congress affirmatively rejected aiding civil liability in for
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: aiding and abetting a violation of the ATA. So too
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: for the TVPA. There is a presumption that aiding and
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: abetting liability should not be read into Section 1595 Silence,
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: a presumption that is confirmed by its legislative history. Since
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: therefore the TVPA does not provide civil liability for aiding
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: and abetting under Section 2, plaintiff's aiding and abetting claims
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: are dismissed. F. Attempting to benefit from a TVPA violation.
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: Plaintiffs also allege that J.P. Morgan and D.B. attempted to
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: benefit from a TVPA violation. A defendant is liable for
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: attempting to violate the law only if they have the
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: specific intent to commit the underlying violation of the law.
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: But the complaints here do not plead facts that support
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: the inference that either J.P. Morgan or D.B., had this
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: specific intention. If taken as true, plaintiff's allegations do support
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: the inference that DB and JP Morgan intended to profit
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: from their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and that accomplishing that
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: objective required JP Morgan and DB to provide banking services
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: that allegedly they knew or recklessly disregarded supported Jeffrey Epstein's
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking venture. But the complaints do not support the
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: allegation that either JP Morgan or DB acted with specific
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: intent of benefiting from a sex trafficking venture. Thus, plaintiffs'
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: claims for attempting to violate the TVPA are dismissed. G.
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: Conspiracy to violate the TVPA Finally, plaintiffs allege that J.P.
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: Morgan and D.B. conspired with Epstein and others to violate
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: the TVPA. The gist of conspiracy is, of course, agreement.
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: United States v. Beech Nut Nutrition Corporation 871 F. 2D 1181
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: 1191 2nd Circuit 1989 to be liable each to must
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: have entered into a joint enterprise with consciousness of its
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: general nature and extent. United States v. Alessi, 638 F. 2D, 466, 473,
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: 2nd Circuit, 1980. Plaintiff's factual allegations do not support the
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: inference that either defendant made such an agreement. If the
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: allegations and the complaints are taken as true, the defendants
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: did indeed agree to provide banking services for Epstein and
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: his affiliated entities, and that they knew or recklessly disregarded
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: would assist in his sex trafficking venture. But that agreement
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: is different from an actual agreement to participate in a
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking venture. Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants covered
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: up Epstein's sex trafficking by willfully failing to file suspicious
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: activity reports. but plaintiffs do not plead any facts which
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: support the inference that the defendants did so pursuant to
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: an agreement with Epstein or others to further his sex
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: trafficking operation. Thus, plaintiff's conspiracy claims are dismissed. All right,
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: that's going to do it for this episode. In the
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to pick up with H. Rico.
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: getting right back to Judge Rakoff's opinion and order. H. Rico.
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: Having discussed plaintiff's TVPA claims, the court now turns to D.B.
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe's claim that D.B. violated Section 1962C of the
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Rico, U.S. Code 18,
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: Section 1961, and conspired to violate Rico in violation of
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: Section 1962D. There can be no liability under Section... 1962 C,
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: if the defendant did not participate in the conduct of
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: an enterprise. See DeFalcus v. Burness, 244 F. 3D- 286- 306, 2nd Circuit, 2001.
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: To state a civil claim under U.S. Code 18, 1962 C,
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: a plaintiff must allege that the defendant participated in 1.
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: conduct 2. of an enterprise 3. through a pattern 4.
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: of racketeering activity. Quoting Sedema, S.P.R.L., First, Imrex Company, 473 U.S. 479, 496, 1985.
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: To participate in a racketeering enterprise under the relevant provisions
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: of RICO, a defendant must direct the enterprise's affairs. Reeves v.
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 177, 180, 1983. While
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: a defendant need not play a predominant part in the
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: operation of the enterprise, it must exert some control over
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: it Dubai Islamic Bank vs. Citibank, NA-256, F.SUPP, 2D-158-164, SDNY-2003.
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: While DB Jane Doe does not precisely define the enterprise
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: that Deutsche Bank and Jeffrey Epstein allegedly formed, and this
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: itself would warrant dismissal of her RICO claims, her allegation
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: appears to be that DB participated in Jeffrey Epstein's sex
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: trafficking venture. If that is Jane Doe's allegation, Her substantive
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: civil RICO claim fails, for she has not alleged that D.B.
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: controlled or directed that venture in any way. D.B. Jane
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: Doe's RICO conspiracy claim likewise fails, for she has not
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: alleged any factual basis for a finding of a conscious
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: agreement among the defendants. D.B. Jane Doe has not pled
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: sufficient facts to support her allegation, that DB consciously agreed
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: to undertake racketeering activity in violation of Section 1962 with
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. Instead, at most, she alleges that Deutsche Bank
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: acted unlawfully as part of an implicit quid pro quo.
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: Deutsche Bank would conceal Epstein's sex trafficking venture in exchange
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: for Epstein's lucrative fees. Because DB Jane Doe fails to
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: plausibly allege that DB participated in In a violation of
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: Section 1962C, or that DB consciously agreed to participate in one,
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: DB's motion to dismiss DB Jane Doe's civil RICO claim
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: is granted. 1. SECO The USVI makes similar allegations against J.P. Morgan,
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: which fails for similar reasons. The USVI claims that J.P.
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: Morgan violated the Virgin Islands Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, SECO,
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: the Virgin Islands Territorial Law, analog to RICO. But the
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: USVI fails to plausibly allege two of the initial elements
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: of such a claim. That a criminal enterprise existed, and
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: that J.P. Morgan participated in it. The USVI alleges that J.P.
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: Morgan's association with Jeffrey Epstein was a de facto enterprise.
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: Any enterprise formed in this way, an association in fact enterprise,
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: must have three features. A common purpose, relationships among those
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: associated with the enterprise, and longevity to pursue the enterprise's purpose.
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: People v. McKenzie, 66, VI 3, 12, Supreme Court, 2017.
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: The USVI, however, has failed to support its allegation that J.P.
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: Morgan shared a common purpose with Jeffrey Epstein. The USVI
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: does not allege that J.P. Morgan shared the purpose of
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: trafficking or abusing Epstein's victims. Rather, the USVI alleges that
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: the purpose of J.P. Morgan's association with Epstein was simply
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: to make money. If the USVI's allegations are taken as true,
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: achieving that purpose did require JP Morgan to support Epstein's
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking venture, but neither human trafficking nor its consequences
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: were part of JP Morgan's purpose. JP Morgan would have
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: been just as happy for Epstein's victims to escape so
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: long as Epstein's fees continued to roll in. And even
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: if JP Morgan did form an enterprise with Jeffrey Epstein,
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: the facts in the complaint do not support the USVI's
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: allegation that JP Morgan participated in it. Like D.B. Jane Doe,
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: the USVI does not allege that J.P. Morgan conducted Epstein's
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking venture in any way. For that reason, and
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: because the USVI fails to plausibly allege an enterprise as well, J.P.
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: Morgan's motion to dismiss the USVI's SECO claim is granted. J.C.F.D.B.P.A.
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: The last statutory claim brought against the defendants is the
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: USVI's claim that J.P. Morgan violated the Virgin Consumer Fraud
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: and Deceptive Business Practices Act The USVI alleges that JP
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: Morgan gained an unfair advantage over other law-abiding banks by
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: supporting Epstein's sex trafficking venture, USVI FAC 130-36. In exchange
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: for JP Morgan's support, the USVI alleges Epstein provided JP
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: Morgan with referrals of high-value business opportunities, ID at 135.
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: The USVI's pleadings are threadbare. The USVI does not say
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: which banks in particular were denied the high-value business opportunities
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: that J.P. Morgan allegedly obtained. It does not describe any
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: connection between those banks and the Virgin Islands. And it
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: does not say that these banks actually did comply with
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: their legal obligations with respect to similarly situated customers, which
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: is an essential aspect of the USVI's unfairness claim. Thus,
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: the USVI's allegations fall well short of making its CFPBDPA
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: claim plausible, and JPMorgan's motion to dismiss this claim is granted. K.
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: Negligence JPM Jane Doe and DB Jane Doe and also
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: assert several New York state law tort claims against JPMorgan
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: and DB. Their first set of such claims allege that
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: JPMorgan and DB were negligent. They allege that the banks
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: failed to exercise reasonable care. to prevent physical harm, and
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: that the banks failed to exercise reasonable care as banking
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: institutions providing non-routine banking services. Under New York law, and
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: as under the law of virtually every state, there are
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: three elements of negligence. 1. Duty owed by the defendant
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: to the plaintiff. 2. A breach thereof. 3. Injury approximately
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: resulting therefrom. Solomon Example Solomon v. City of New York
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: 489 NE 2D 1294 NY 1985 The parties contest the
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: first and third elements, duty and proximate causation. J.P. Morgan
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: and Deutsche Bank say that they owed no duty to
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe. According to the banks, they had no duty
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: to prevent Jeffrey Epstein from harming either Jane Doe, nor
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: did they acquire any duty to care from their banking
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: relationship with Epstein. C.R.E. Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2011
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: 714 F. 3D 118 126 Second Circuit 2013 Banks and other
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: financial institutions do not owe non-customers a duty to protect
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: them from the intentional torts of their customers. But J.P.
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: Morgan and D.B., like everyone else, owed both Jane Does
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: the ordinary duty of reasonable care. This duty can extend
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: to actions undertaken by third parties. Restatement, Third of Torts,
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: Physical and Emotional Harm, Section 19 The conduct of a
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: defendant can lack reasonable care insofar as it foreseeably combines
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: with or permits the improper conduct of the plaintiff or
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: a third party. Ford v. Grand Union Company, 197, N.E., 266, 268,
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: and 269. N.Y., 1935. Defendant owes a duty to avoid
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: injuries to others by forces set in motion by the defendant.
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: Banks are not exempt from this duty. C. L. Maliak v.
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: Bank of China, L.T.D., 110 AD 3D 192 206 New
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: York Appeals Division 2013. We do not find case law
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: to support the argument that a bank can never be
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: held liable to non-customers. Idea 206. A tortfeasor's compliance with
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: relevant laws and regulations will not insulate it from liability
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: if it fails to act objectively reasonably. And this duty
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: applies when banks provide non-routine services. See Idea 207. Although
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: New York does not generally recognize a duty on the
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: part of banks to non-customers, that does not mean that
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: New York policy would prohibit recovery of under the alleged
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: facts have proven. Since JPM Jane Doe and DB Jane
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: Doe do indeed allege that JP Morgan and DB helped
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: set in motion Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking venture by providing
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: the cash that fueled it, they plausibly assert that JP
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: Morgan and DB owed a duty to them. JP Morgan
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: and DB also contend that their first conduct is not
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: a proximate cause of Jane Doe's injury. When an alleged
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: injury is caused by an intervening criminal act such as
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: sexual abuse, The defendant's conduct is a proximate cause only
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: when that intervening act is a natural and foreseeable consequence
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: of a circumstance created by the defendant. Proximate cause will
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: be found lacking where the original negligent act merely furnished
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: the occasion for an unrelated act to cause injuries not
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: ordinarily anticipated. I.D. at 1238 And the banks assert, rehearsing
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: arguments considered above, that they neither knew nor should have
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: known that their services contributed to the abuse of the
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: Jane Does. For the reasons already discussed above, however, JPM
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe and DB Jane Doe allege that JP Morgan
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: and DB should have known that their banking services sustained
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking venture. Indeed, they go further and
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: adequately allege that the defendants actually knew this or at
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: least recklessly disregarded what was plainly to be seen. Such
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: constructive knowledge plausibly makes harm to plaintiffs and other victims
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: of Epstein sex trafficking a natural and foreseeable consequence of
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: the actions of JPMorgan and DB. Thus, the court finds
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: that JPM, Jane Doe, and DB, Jane Doe, plausibly allege
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: both that JPMorgan and DB owed a duty to them
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: and that the banks proximately caused harm to them by
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: breaching that duty. Thus, the court denies defendants' motions to
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: dismiss plaintiffs' negligence claims. All right, we're going to wrap
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: up this episode right here. And in the next episode,
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up the whole document. And that's
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: going to start with section L, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up, everyone? And
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: getting right back to Judge Rakoff's opinion and order. And
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: we're going to finish that bad boy up. L, Intentional
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: Infliction of Emotional Distress. JPM Jane Doe and D.B. Jane
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: Doe also allege that JPMorgan and D.B. intentionally inflicted emotional
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: distress upon them. The elements of such a claim under
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: here applicable New York law are 1. Extreme and outrageous conduct, 2.
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: The intent to cause, or the disregard of a substantial
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: likelihood of causing severe emotional distress, 3. Causation, and 4.
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: Severe emotional distress. At the outset, the court notes that
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: this cause of action is highly disfavored and almost never successful.
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: That is especially so when, as here, the plaintiff asserts
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: a negligence claim. Since almost all conduct that amounts to
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: the intentional infliction of emotional distress also constitutes negligence, IIED
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: claims are routinely dismissed for their redundancy with negligence claims.
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: CEG Wolkstein v. Morgenstern, 275 A.D., 2D-635-637, New York Appeals Division,
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: 1st Apartment, 2000. Generally, a cause of action for infliction
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: of emotional distress is not allowed if essentially duplicative of
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: tort or contract cause of action. Samuel et al. v.
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: Rockefeller University, 2022, WL 2916784 at 2, NY Supreme Court,
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: July 25, 2022. dismissing IIED claims as duplicative of negligence claim.
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: So it is with the Jane Doe's IIED claims, if
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: the conduct of JPMorgan and DB was extreme and outrageous
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: and was intended to cause or was made with reckless
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: disregard for severe emotional distress and in fact caused severe
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: emotional distress, JPMorgan and DB were thereby also liable for negligence.
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: This alone is likely sufficient grounds for dismissal. Additionally, the
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs failed to allege that J.P. Morgan and D.B. intentionally
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: directed their conduct at them. Martin v. Citibank, N.A. 762, F. 2D 212-220,
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: 2nd Circuit, 1985. The conduct must also be intentionally directed
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: at the plaintiffs. None of the plaintiffs' allegations support the
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: inference that either J.P. Morgan or D.B. directed their conduct
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: at J.P.M., Jane Doe, or D.B. Jane Doe specifically. Instead, they...
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: all alleged to have financed Jeffrey Epstein, who then harmed JPM,
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe, DB, Jane Doe, and others. While the plaintiff's
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: harm might have been a foreseeable consequence of defendants' actions,
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: the allegations in the complaints do not support the inference
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: that it was specifically directed towards them. For both of
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: these reasons, plaintiff's IIED claims are dismissed. M. Aiding and
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: Abetting Battery Last, JPM, Jane Doe, and D.B. Jane Doe
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: alleged that JPMorgan and D.B. aided and abetted the battery
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: of them. They claim that Jeffrey Epstein and his associates
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: sexually abused them, acts that amounted to battery, and that
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: the defendants supported those wrongs. Under the New York law,
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: there are three elements of aiding and abetting battery. One,
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: a wrongful act producing an injury. Two, the defendant's awareness
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: of a role as part of an overall illegal or
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: tortious activity at the time he provided the assistance, and three,
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: the defendant's knowing and substantial assistance in the principal violation.
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: The defendants focus on this last element, whether they provided
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: knowing and substantial assistance to those Who battered the Jane Does? Knowledge,
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: for these purposes, is actual knowledge. Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A., 459, F. 3D, 273, 292,
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: 2nd Circuit, 2006. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank v. Winnick, 406, F.S.U.P.P., 2D, 247, 253, N. 4, SDNY, 2005.
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: The weight of the case law cited above defines knowledge
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: in the context of an aiding and abetting claim as
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: actual knowledge. New York common law, which controls the analysis here,
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: has not adopted a constructive knowledge standard for imposing aiding
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: and abetting liability. Rather, New York courts and federal courts
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: in this district have required actual knowledge. Steinberg v. Goldstein,
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: 279 NYS 240-242, Appeals Division 1967. Substantial assistance, meanwhile, requires
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: committing some overt act, either by words or conduct, in
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: furtherance of the battery of plaintiff. McKiernan v. Vaccaro, 91
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: NYS 3D 478-481, Appeals Division 2019. Lindsay v. Lockwood, 625, NYS. 2D 393-397,
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court, 1994. That, in turn, requires intentional or deliberate
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: acts directed at causing harm, which would rise to the
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: level of actionable conduct in relation to the subject assault.
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: Shea v. Cornell University, 192, AD 2D 857-858, 596, NYS
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: 2D 502-503, 1993. As explained above, the complaints are devoid
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: of facts which support the allegation that the acts of J.P.
• 28:31
  Speaker 1: Morgan and D.B. were specifically and intentionally directed at causing
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: harm to the Jane Does. Thus, the defendant's motions to
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: dismiss plaintiff's claims for aiding and abetting battery are granted. 3.
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: The Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby reconfirms
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: its rulings in its bottom-line order of March 20, 2023,
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: defendant's motions to dismiss plaintiff's are therefore granted in part
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: and denied in part, as specified below. With respect to
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe v. D.B. et al. 22-CV-10018, the courts grant
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: defendant's motion to dismiss with respects to counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: and 10 of the First Amended Complaint. The court denies
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: defendant's motions with respect to counts 1, 6, 11, and
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: 12 of the First Amended Complaint. Thus, for clarity, the
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: following claims asserted by Plaintiff Jane Doe against defendant D.B., D.B.A.G.
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: New York Branch, and D.B. Trust Company Americas remain as
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: part of the case. 1. The claim that defendants knowingly
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: benefited from participating in a sex trafficking venture in violation
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: of U.S. Code 18, Section 1591, A and 2. 2.
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: The claim that defendants obstructed enforcement of the Trafficking Victims
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: Protection Act in violation of U.S. Code 18, Section 1591, D. 3.
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: The claim that defendants negligently failed to exercise reasonable care
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: to prevent physical harm. 4. The claim that defendants negligently
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: failed to exercise reasonable care as a banking institution providing
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: non-routine banking. All other claims are dismissed. With respect to
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. 22-10019, the court
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: grants defendants motion to dismiss with respect to counts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8,
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: and 9 of the first amended complaint. The court denies
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: defendant's motions with respect to counts 3, 4, 5, and
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: 10 of the first amended complaint. Thus, for clarity, the
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: following claims asserted by plaintiff Jane Doe against defendant J.P.
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., remain as part of the case. 1.
• 30:49
  Speaker 1: The claim that defendant negligently failed to exercise reasonable care
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: to prevent physical harm. 2. The claim that defendant negligently
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: failed to exercise reasonable care as a banking institution providing
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: non-routine banking. Three, the claim that the defendant knowingly benefited
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: from participating in a sex trafficking venture in violation of U.S.
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: Code 18, Section 1591A and 2. And four, the claim
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: that defendant obstructed enforcement of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: in violation of U.S. Code 18, Section 1591D. All other
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: claims are dismissed. With respect to the government of the
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: United States Virgin Islands, Versus JPMorgan Chase, NA 22-CV 10904,
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: the court grants the defendant's motion to dismiss with respects
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: to counts 2, 3, and 4 of the First Amended Complaint.
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: The court denies the defendant's motion with respect to count
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: 1 of the First Amended Complaint. Thus, for clarity, the
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: claim of plaintiff, the government of the United States Virgin Islands,
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: that defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, knowingly benefited from participating
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: in a sex trafficking venture, in violation of U.S. Code 18,
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: Section 1591A and 2, remains as part of the case.
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: All other claims are dismissed. So ordered by Judge Jed Rakoff,
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: and this was signed and dated on May 1st of 2023.
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, so that's going to do it not
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: only for this episode, but for the whole entire order
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: and opinion given by Judge Rakoff. So that gives us
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: a little more clarity on as to where things might
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: be going when it comes to the USVI and the
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: lawsuit filed against the survivors, because the blueprint has already
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: been put out now. So if the survivors just follow
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: this blueprint, my guess is that eventually they're going to
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: hit pay dirt. And guess what? They deserve every single
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: dollar that they might get. Alright, so that might be
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: the end of this one, but as you can imagine,
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: we have plenty more to get to. All of the
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: the description box. What's up everyone and welcome back to
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: the Epstein Chronicles. Jess Daly and Jeffrey Epstein were obviously
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: a lot closer than Jess Daly wants to let on.
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: And as we learn more information from this lawsuit, as
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: far as some of the details, as far as those
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: emails and the conversations that they were having, it fills
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: in a lot of the blanks. And it confirms a
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: lot of the rumor out there about Jess Daly and
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And now we're learning that
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: not only were they having these weird-ass conversations using code
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: word and all kinds of other goofy stuff, Epstein allegedly
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: sent Jess Daly a photo of a young woman in
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: a sexually suggestive pose. And that's according to Judge Rakoff himself.
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: And he also released a 54-page filing explaining why he
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: made the rulings that he made. And over the course
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: of the next few days, we're going to dive a
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: little deeper into those court rulings and into some of
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: those filings and pick out some of the more interesting
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: parts to talk about here on the podcast. But before
• 34:10
  Speaker 1: we get there, Law and Crime has an article out
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: and this article is talking about the photo of that
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: was allegedly sent to Jeff Staley by Jeffrey Epstein. So
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: let's get this quick update and let's see where we're at. Headline,
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein sent ex-senior JPMorgan exec photo of young woman
• 34:31
  Speaker 1: in sexually suggestive pose, the judge says. This article was
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: authored by Adam Klasfeld. Then top JPMorgan Chase executive, Jeff Staley, said,
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: allegedly abused some of Jeffrey Epstein's victims and received a
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: sexually suggestive photograph of one young woman from the now
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: deceased pedophile a judge indicated in a ruling. And again,
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: this isn't innuendo. This isn't some knucklehead sitting on Twitter
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: just talking nonsense. This is what the judge who's overseeing
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: this case had to say. And this is all part
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: of why he's letting this ruling move forward. He finds
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: merit in what these survivors, what these victims have to say.
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: And considering everything we know about the relationship between Jeff
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: Staley and Jeffrey Epstein, I don't know how as a
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: judge or anyone in a position of power, how you
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: wouldn't be interested in learning more and having this progress
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: to a point where we're at discovery, where people are
• 35:32
  Speaker 1: being deposed and to where things are getting aired out
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: in open court. Because we all know that transparency is
• 35:39
  Speaker 1: the best medicine here. And we also know that that's
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: the reason why nothing has ever really been transparent when
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: we're talking about Epstein. If the false narrative surrounding Epstein
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: ever broke down and the regular old Joe found out
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: the real story, forget it. Because people, for the most part,
• 35:58
  Speaker 1: only know a part of the story as far as
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: Epstein's concerned. They only know the little tidbits that have
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: been on TV. or that have been in documentaries like
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: Filthy Rich, the average person doesn't understand the levels of
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: the corruption surrounding this dude, or how deeply he was
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: entrenched at basically every level of power, from the local,
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: municipality level, all the way up to the White House,
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: where he was visiting 17 times. Released on Monday afternoon,
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: Senior U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff's 54-page opinion, end order,
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: explains why he advanced claims alleging that JP Morgan and
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: Deutsche Bank knowingly profited from Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking scheme.
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: Rakoff revealed new details about the bank and its former
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: executives in explaining his reasoning. And I have to tell you,
• 36:53
  Speaker 1: I was on the fence about Judge Rakoff and his
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: decisions and if he was going to let this move forward.
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: I'm honestly surprised that we're at the point we're at
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: because it's very rare. That an institution like J.P. Morgan
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: or people like Jeff Staley or Jamie Dimon are held
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: accountable for anything. Usually people like this will get a
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: fine and they'll keep it moving. And there's never any
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: real accountability or anybody really facing serious consequences. And that's
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: because these institutions have so much money that they're able
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: to just pay their way out of any trouble they
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: ever find themselves in. And this is how it's been
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: historically for the banks forever. The financial sector is able
• 37:37
  Speaker 1: to do basically whatever they want because who do you
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: think is funding all of your favorite politicians? Do you
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: think they got to Washington, D.C. on your $ 20 donation?
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: They absolutely did not. They got there by all of
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: their handlers and by all of their bag boys working
• 37:54
  Speaker 1: in the financial sector who are giving them money hand
• 37:57
  Speaker 1: over fist. And then when they give them that money, well,
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: They expect something in return, right? This isn't charity. This
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: isn't altruism. This is nothing more than pay-to-play politics. We'll
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: give you the money to get elected, then you, as
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: the lawmaker, will make sure that we have favorable laws
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: on the books so that we can maneuver and continue
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: to get rich by pilfering the wealth of everybody else.
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: The most prominent among these bankers is Staley, who later
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: moved on to become the CEO of Barclays Bank before
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: resigning amid scrutiny of his Epstein ties. JP Morgan has
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: tried to shift the blame to Staley in a separate
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: lawsuit claiming that their former executive disguised his Epstein ties
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: for personal reasons. Jane Doe, the anonymous woman suing JP
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: Morgan in a proposed class action, claimed in a deposition
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: that Staley sexually abused her. So look, we're not talking
• 38:53
  Speaker 1: about just financial enabling here, right? Because we all know
• 38:57
  Speaker 1: that there's levels to this. And while Staley has always
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: been rumored to be really close with Epstein, we had
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: never really seen any public accusations about Staley being involved
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: in the actual abuse. Now, behind the scenes, that's a
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: whole different story. Rumors have been rampant for a very
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: long time that not only Jeff Staley, but other people
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: involved with Jeffrey Epstein financially took part in this abuse.
• 39:23
  Speaker 1: And we have had several names, prominent names thrown out there,
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: by Virginia Roberts and others, but how many girls behind
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: the scenes, women who have never come forward, were abused
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: by Jeffrey Epstein and his gross ass pals and still
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: to this day haven't come forward with those allegations? My
• 39:41
  Speaker 1: guess is that's in the hundreds and that's not even hyperbole.
• 39:45
  Speaker 1: We're talking about decades of abuse. where this man continuously
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: did what he was doing. You don't take a break
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: from this. This behavior was Epstein's thing. It wasn't something
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: he could turn on and off. This is how he
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: rolled all the time. So how many hundreds, thousands of
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: women are out there that we have never even heard from?
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: Women in war-torn countries? Women in places of great poverty?
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: It's a wide-known fact that Jeffrey Epstein loved to use
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: places like Eastern Europe to find women to abuse. So
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: how many are out there that we have never heard from?
• 40:19
  Speaker 1: Rakoff's ruling suggests that she's not his only accuser. The
• 40:23
  Speaker 1: judge noted that the women in the class alleged that Mr.
• 40:27
  Speaker 1: Staley himself abused some of Epstein's survivors, including JPM Jane
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: Doe herself, abbreviating JP Morgan. So that's what they're calling
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe in the JP Morgan suit. JP Jane Doe.
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: So that's what he's referring to her as in his ruling.
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: And as we go through these stories, these articles, I'm
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: sure that's what he's going to be referring to Jane
• 40:51
  Speaker 1: Doe as from here on out. And like I said
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: in the last episode, there are certainly some hints as
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: to who Jane Doe is. But until that name is announced,
• 41:01
  Speaker 1: if it's ever announced, I'm not going to jump in
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: here and really dive too deep and try and unfurl
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: who that person is. They filed this lawsuit in an
• 41:10
  Speaker 1: anonymous fashion. for a reason, right? But I will say
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: that they didn't do a great job in masking the
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: person's identity if you're following along with the story and
• 41:21
  Speaker 1: you're looking at the allegations in the lawsuit and certain
• 41:24
  Speaker 1: facts that they point out. JPM Jane Doe claims that
• 41:30
  Speaker 1: one of Epstein's friends, whom she later identified as Mr. Staley,
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: used aggressive force in a sexual assault of her and
• 41:37
  Speaker 1: informed JPM Jane Doe that he had Epstein's permission to
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: do what he wanted to her, the ruling states. In
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: a separate lawsuit, the Virgin Islands government unsealed eye-opening details
• 41:49
  Speaker 1: about Staley and Epstein's relationship. The Attorney General's office there
• 41:54
  Speaker 1: claims that Epstein exchanged approximately 1,200 emails with Staley's work
• 41:59
  Speaker 1: email address between 2008 and 2012. They didn't even set
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: up like burner accounts or anything. They were so brazen
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: and not worried that they were ever going to face
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: any kind of scrutiny that they were like, we'll just
• 42:12
  Speaker 1: have these conversations out in the open on your work
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: email account. And thankfully they did, because if they didn't,
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: we might not have ever seen any of the contents
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: of those emails. These communications show a close personal relationship
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: and profound friendship between the two men and even suggests
• 42:32
  Speaker 1: that Staley may have been involved In the Epstein sex
• 42:36
  Speaker 1: trafficking operation, the Virgin Islands lawsuit states heavy words, right?
• 42:41
  Speaker 1: And again, we're not talking about somebody making allegations from
• 42:44
  Speaker 1: the peanut gallery. This is the attorney general's office of
• 42:48
  Speaker 1: the U.S. Virgin Islands. So these are serious accusations and
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: the judge is certainly treating them as such. In December 2009,
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: well after Epstein's conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor,
• 43:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein allegedly sent Staley two emails, each showing a photograph
• 43:07
  Speaker 1: of a young woman. Those images are redacted entirely in
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: the Virgin Islands complaint, but Judge Rakoff describes one of
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: them in his ruling. One of them, dated December 5, 2009,
• 43:20
  Speaker 1: attached a picture of a young woman in a sexually
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: suggestive pose, the judge said. The ruling notes that another
• 43:27
  Speaker 1: email from December 20th, 2009 consisted entirely of a picture
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: of a young woman. So who are these young women?
• 43:35
  Speaker 1: And are they people that have been previously known as accusers?
• 43:39
  Speaker 1: We probably will never know. I'm just asking that as
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: a rhetorical question at this point. Staley's attorney didn't immediately
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: respond to an email requesting comment. I mean, what do
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: you say to something like that as the attorney? No
• 43:53
  Speaker 1: comment's probably the right way to go. You have the
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: judge coming out here and making what can only be
• 43:58
  Speaker 1: called inflammatory remarks in his ruling, and certainly not remarks
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: that are friendly to Jeff Staley or to JP Morgan.
• 44:06
  Speaker 1: So it's going to be very, very interesting to watch
• 44:09
  Speaker 1: this all unfold and to see what happens come trial
• 44:12
  Speaker 1: time in October. So until then, we'll continue to add
• 44:16
  Speaker 1: pieces to the puzzle until a full HD picture appears.
• 44:22
  Speaker 1: All right, everybody, that's going to do it for this one.
• 44:24
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with the episode can
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box.