Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / New Mexico And The Epstein Related Lawsuit Filed Against The DOJ (Part 6) (10/17/26)

Transcript

New Mexico And The Epstein Related Lawsuit Filed Against The DOJ (Part 6) (10/17/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 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 in to New Mexico's lawsuit filed against Todd Blanche
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: and the DOJ. U.S. DOJ has ignored factors its own
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: TUI regulations require it to consider. Notably absent from all
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: of U.S. DOJ's responses and non-responses to NMDOJ's TUI requests
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: is any consideration of the factors Its own TUI regulations
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: require it to apply in deciding whether to disclose, pursuant
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: to 28 CFR 16.26c, if disclosure is necessary to pursue
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: a civil or criminal prosecution or affirmative relief, such as
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: an injunction, consideration shall be given to 1. The seriousness
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: of the violation or crime involved, the past history of
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: criminal record of the violator or accused, the importance of
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: relief sought, the importance of the legal issues presented, and
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: other matters brought to the attention of the deputy or
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: associate attorney general. USDOJ's own court filings underscore the seriousness
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: of Epstein and his associates' crimes. Over the course of
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: many years, Jeffrey Epstein sexually exploited and abused dozens of girls.
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: Sealed indictment, SDNY, July 2, 2019. Maxwell assisted, facilitated, and
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls, among other things,
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: helping Epstein recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: Maxwell and Epstein to be under the age of 18.
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: The victims were as young as 14 years old when
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: they were groomed and abused by Maxwell and Epstein, both
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: of whom knew that certain victims were in fact under
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: the age of 18. At sentencing, USDOJ relied on the
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: nature and seriousness of the offense, the harm to the victims,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: the need to promote respect for the law. To seek
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: a sentence for Maxwell of $ 360, 000 to 660 months imprisonment, i.e.
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: 30 to 55 years. Government Sentencing Memo, Maxwell, Docket 670.
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: It's difficult to overstate the magnitude of Maxwell's crimes and
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: the harm she caused. By this point, it's hard to
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: imagine that Mr. Blanche, either as Deputy Attorney General or
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: now as Acting Attorney General, fails to appreciate the seriousness
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: of these matters. He claimed to understand, in his recent
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: Senate confirmation hearings, and he recently acceded to the demand
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: of the United States Senator to meet personally with survivors
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: of Epstein and his associates' crimes. There can be no
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: question that this is a particularly heinous circumstance. Regarding the
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: importance of the relief sought and legal issues presented, an
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: MDOJ is one of the few jurisdictions remaining that is
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: in a position to seek justice for survivors, and there's
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: no indication that despite persistent references to criminal conduct in
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: New Mexico, the true nature and extent of crimes committed
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: within the state, have been meaningfully investigated. USDOJ did not
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: articulate and lacks any basis grounds in agency regulation that
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: supports its refusal to disclose the information requested in NMDOJ's
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: TUI request. USDOJ's denial of NMDOJ's TUI request is arbitrary, capricious,
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: and abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: law in violation of U.S. Code 5 Section 706-2A. Count No. 2.
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: Administrative Procedure Act, U.S. Code 5, Section 706-1. Unlawfully Withheld
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: and Unreasonably Delayed Agency Action. The State re-alleges and incorporates
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: by reference the allegations set forth above, as if fully
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: set forth herein, to the extent that the Court concludes
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: that the U.S. DOJ's refusal to provide an MDOJ access
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: to unredacted materials responsive to its TUI request does not
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: constitute final agency action on which the state is entitled
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: to relief, the state seeks relief under the APA for
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. The APA provides
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: that a reviewing court shall compel agency action unlawfully withheld
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: or unreasonably delayed, U.S. Code 5, Section 706.1. USDOJ's TUI
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: regulation requires officials to evaluate TUI requests to determine whether
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: whether to authorize disclosure under the factors set forth in
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: those regulations. Whereas here, investigatory records compiled for law enforcement
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: purposes are requested. If disclosure is necessary to pursue a
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: criminal prosecution, the deputy or associate attorney general is to
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: review the request and direct release if the administration of
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: justice requires disclosure. Here in particular, the administration of justice
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: requires disclosure because NMDOJ reasonably relied on on USDOJ's assurances
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: that USDOJ would share investigative material if NMDOJ complied with
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: USDOJ's request to stand down its investigation in 2019. The
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: time for USDOJ to provide that promised cooperation has passed,
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: but USDOJ continues refusing to share information while publicly insisting
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: that cooperation is forthcoming. To the extent the Acting Attorney
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: General or his deputies or associates have not yet reviewed
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: and responded to NMDOJ's TUI request, this is a consummate
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: failure to act or refusal to act. By failing to
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: provide the agency's response to NMDOJ's TUI request, USDOJ has
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: unlawfully withheld agency action that its own regulations require USDOJ
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: to take. Alternatively, USDOJ's failure to respond to NMDOJ's TUI
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: request constitutes an unreasonable delay in agency action. An MDOJ's
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: initial request to USDOJ for access to unredacted relevant material
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: requested a response by March 27, 2026, 14 days following
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: the date on the letter. A 14-day timeline is ordinary
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: and customary for criminal investigations. Indeed, federal grand jury subpoenas
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: typically require compliance within 14 days, not merely a response.
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: And USDOJ does not need to search for, identify, collate,
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: and produce material that are within the EFTA release in
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: redacted form. To facilitate the NMDOJ's access and use of
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: relevant EFTA material, USDOJ need only utilize the existing system
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: for which it already permits members of Congress to review
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: those records. Subject to the reasonable safeguards, NMDOJ has invited
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: to ensure further protection of the information. In light of
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: the EFTA's broad disclosures mandate, and USDOJ's own representation of
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: full compliance, there's no reason why providing the remaining responsive
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: material would present any substantive obstacle. Nevertheless, it's been over
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: three months since NMDOJ submitted its formal TUI request, and
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: over four and a half months since NMDOJ's initial request
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: to USDOJ for access to unredacted, relevant material. As set
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: forth above, USDOJ adopted an authoritative and categorical policy or
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: a practice to refuse to share investigative information with New
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: Mexico authorities concerning Zorro Ranch and potential allegations of human
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: trafficking and widespread sexual abuse of young women and minors,
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: hampering the state's ability to investigate and prosecute these matters.
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: The policy or practice is evidenced by, among other things,
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: USDOJ's final definitive refusal to share evidence for use without
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: providing a case-specific justification. These refusals were communicated to the
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: state after assurances from 2019, and now again that USDOJ
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: would provide materials in support of NMDOJ's investigation. USDOJ's action
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: also exceeded the authority conferred by the Federal Housekeeping Act,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: which permits agencies to establish procedure governing the disclosure of records,
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: but does not authorize agencies to withhold information or decline
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: to evaluate disclosure requests, absent a lawful basis. USDOJ failed
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: to specify its reasoning for denying NMDOJ's TUI request and
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: offered nothing more than a boilerplate language and buzzwords to
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: conclude sharing information with another law enforcement agency would be
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: inappropriate here. That explanation cannot justify USDOJ's radical departure from
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: the ordinary norms of state-federal cooperation. USDOJ's inconsistent stance on
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: providing information initially indicating it would provide the requested material
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: then later denying that request after months of unresponsiveness, is
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: an unreasonable delay. This delay is further unreasonable in light
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: of USDOJ's initial 2019 request for NMDOJ to cease investigation
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: into Epstein, Maxwell, and or Epstein's web in New Mexico,
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: and commitment to share investigative material in lieu of New
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: Mexico conducting its own investigation. USDOJ's refusal to to share
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: documents constitutes an unexplainable deviation from the ordinary and customary
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: practices breaking down critical trust relationships between state and federal
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: law enforcement agencies. In addition to being arbitrary, capricious, and
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: an abuse of discretion and contrary to law, USDOJ has
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: unlawfully withheld or reasonably delayed agency action required by law
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: in response to the state's TUI request. The states entitled
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: to relief compelling such action under U.S. Code 5 Section 706.1.
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: Prayer for Relief. Wherefore, Plaintiff, State of New Mexico, respectfully
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: requests that this Court, A, declare that the complete denial
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: by defendant, United States Department of Justice, of plaintiff's State
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: of New Mexico's TUI request constitutes final agency action subject
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act U.S. Code 5,
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Section 702, 704, and 706. B. Declare that defendant United
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: States Department of Justice denial of plaintiff's State of New
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: Mexico TUI request was arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: or otherwise not in accordance with law. in violation of U.S.
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: Code 5, Section 706-2A. C. Declare that the extent defendant
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: United States Department of Justice denial of plaintiff State of
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: New Mexico to a request was in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority,
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: or limitations, such denial is unlawful under U.S. Code 5,
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: Section 706-2C. D. Declare that to the extent defendant United
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: States of America and Department of Justice fail to observe
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: procedure were acquired by law, including its own TUI regulations,
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: in denying plaintiff state of New Mexico's request, such denial
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: is unlawful under U.S. Code 5, Section 706-2D. E. Direct defendant,
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: United States Department of Justice, to set aside its denial
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: of plaintiff state of New Mexico's TUI request and to
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: evaluate the request in accordance with requirements of the Administrative
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: Procedure Act and its own TUI regulations. F. Compel defendant
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: United States Department of Justice to take all agency action
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: required by law in response to plaintiff's State of New
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: Mexico's TUI request, including but not limited to producing the
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: requested information or records to the extent required by the
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: Administrative Procedure Act. G. Award plaintiff State of New Mexico
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: its costs of suit as permitted by law. H. Grant
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: such and other further relief as the court deems just
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: and proper. This document was signed... by Raul Torres, the
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: New Mexico Attorney General, and it was dated August 5th, 2026.
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.