Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Jeffrey Epstein And His Attempt To Secure Bail In 2019 (Part 2) (5/22/26)

Transcript

Jeffrey Epstein And His Attempt To Secure Bail In 2019 (Part 2) (5/22/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 0:06
  where we left off with the Jeffrey Epstein Bell Request.
• 0:10
  One applicable law echoing and reinforcing the presumption of innocence
• 0:15
  our justice systems bedrock. There is a strong presumption against
• 0:19
  pre trial detention United States versus Hansen d DC two
• 0:23
  thousand and nine. A person facing trial generally must be
• 0:27
  released so long as some condition or a combination of
• 0:30
  conditions can reasonably assure the appearance of the person as
• 0:34
  required and the safety of any other person and the community.
• 0:38
  US Code eighteen, Section thirty one forty two C. Only
• 0:43
  in rare circumstances should release be denied. United States versus
• 0:47
  Mote Meti, seven sixty seven ft two d. Ninth Circuit,
• 0:51
  nineteen eighty five. Any doubts as to the propriety of
• 0:55
  release are resolved in the defendant's favor see US Verse
• 0:59
  ten A dot supp nineteen ninety two, Northern District of California.
• 1:06
  Though the Bell REFORMAC contains a rebuttable presumption in favor
• 1:09
  of detention based on the crimes charged, the presumption shifts
• 1:13
  only the burden of production, not persuasion. See United States
• 1:17
  versus more Tier seven eighty two, F dot two, D
• 1:20
  eleven forty one eleven forty four, Second Circuit, nineteen eighty six. Accordingly,
• 1:26
  the statutory demand on defendants is fairly easily met. United
• 1:30
  States versus. Conway number four eleven seven zero seven five six,
• 1:36
  Northern District, California, August third, twenty eleven. To rebut the presumption,
• 1:41
  a defendant need only show that the specific nature of
• 1:44
  the crimes charged, or that's something about their individual circumstances
• 1:48
  suggests that what is true in general is not true
• 1:52
  in the particular case. United States versus Domingues seven eighty
• 1:56
  three F dot two D seven oh two seven oh
• 1:59
  seven Sevans Circuit, nineteen eighty six. Quoting US versus Jessup,
• 2:04
  First Circuit, nineteen eighty five. The quantum of evidence required
• 2:08
  to rebut presumption is not high. US verus Thompson at two, Maryland,
• 2:14
  January seventeenth, twenty eighteen. Any evidence favorable to a defendant
• 2:19
  that comes within a category listed in section thirty one
• 2:22
  forty two G can affect the operation of the presumption,
• 2:26
  including evidence of their marital, family and employment status, ties
• 2:31
  to the role in the community, clean criminal record, and
• 2:34
  other types of evidence encompassed in section thirty one forty
• 2:37
  two G three Domingez seven eighty three at seven oh seven.
• 2:42
  Clean record plus socioeconomic stability sufficed to rebut presumption. In short,
• 2:48
  evidence that the defendant is unlikely to flee or commit
• 2:51
  crimes rebuts the presumption, forcing the government to persuade the
• 2:55
  court that the tension is warranted. See Conway twenty eleven Wa. L.
• 3:00
  Three four to two, one three to two one at five,
• 3:03
  Section fifteen ninety one defendant release pending trial while not
• 3:07
  disappearing entirely. The presumption thus recedes to one factor among
• 3:12
  many in determining whether there are sufficient conditions to reasonably
• 3:16
  assure both presence and safety see Martyr seven eighty two,
• 3:21
  eleven forty four. See also United States Versus Order eight
• 3:25
  Circuit nineteen eighty five. Reasonably assured doesn't mean guarantee. Even
• 3:31
  in a presumption case, then the government retains the ultimate
• 3:34
  burden of persuasion by a clear and convincing evidence that
• 3:38
  the defendant presents a danger to the community and by
• 3:41
  a preponderance that he poses a flight risk. US Verus
• 3:45
  English six twenty nine, Second Circuit twenty eleven two. Mister
• 3:50
  Epstein's fourteen year record of law abiding behavior robuts any
• 3:54
  presumption in favor of pre trial detention. In this case,
• 3:58
  any danger presumption at tending the section fifteen ninety one
• 4:01
  charges of vaporates against mister Epstein's meticulous obedience from two
• 4:07
  thousand and five to date to both the law commands
• 4:11
  and his rigorous registration and reporting obligations as a convicted
• 4:15
  sex offender. The indictment does not allege that mister Epstein
• 4:19
  committed any crime in the fourteen year interval between the
• 4:22
  end of the alleged conduct and the initiation of the case.
• 4:26
  The dangerousness prong of the Bell Reform Act is predictive,
• 4:30
  asking whether it's likely that mister Epstein will re offend
• 4:34
  if released. A spotless fourteen year record of walking the
• 4:37
  straight and narrow, complimented by an exemplary ten year history
• 4:41
  of diligent sex offender registration and reporting is compelling proof
• 4:46
  he was able once the prior investigation commenced to conform
• 4:50
  his conduct to the laws dictates. The time lag between
• 4:54
  the offenses charged and today is particularly compelling in terms
• 4:58
  of a prediction future danger when viewed in the context
• 5:02
  of the unparalleled global media attention the case has garnered,
• 5:06
  including the creation of a website by the government requesting
• 5:10
  witnesses claiming abuse to come forward. Accordingly, any danger that
• 5:14
  mister Epstein may have once posed to the community has
• 5:17
  long since abated. At the very least, this enormous gap
• 5:21
  in time precludes a finding by clear and convincing evidence
• 5:25
  that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the community's safety.
• 5:29
  The rebuttable presumption of a risk of flight is negated
• 5:33
  by the evidence that the government had stated it believed
• 5:36
  it could prosecute mister Epstein for the very same conduct
• 5:39
  for which he was immunized a bit in a second jurisdiction,
• 5:43
  despite the protection conferred upon him under the NPA. Mister
• 5:47
  Epstein's continuous presence in the United States, even while he
• 5:51
  had a residence out of the country, reinforces the point
• 5:54
  as detailed below. Mister Epstein understood the NPA is a
• 5:57
  global resolution of any charge arising from the alleged conduct
• 6:01
  that issue here, including conduct in New York. Indeed, the
• 6:05
  government in a southern district of Florida filing that was
• 6:10
  unsealed and became public in July of twenty thirteen specifically
• 6:14
  noted that a number of districts outside the Southern District
• 6:17
  of Florida e g. The Southern District of New York
• 6:20
  and District of Jersey shared jurisdiction and venue with the
• 6:23
  Southern District of Florida over potential federal criminal charges based
• 6:27
  on the alleged sexual acts committed by Epstein against the petitioners.
• 6:32
  Epstein is the subject to potential prosecution for such acts
• 6:36
  in those districts Exhibit two Jane Doe one and Jane
• 6:39
  Doe two. The government went so far as to invite
• 6:43
  the alleged victims to contact the United States Attorney Office
• 6:47
  in those districts and seek to confer with government attorneys
• 6:51
  in those offices about investigating and potentially prosecuting Epstein based
• 6:56
  on the alleged federal crimes committed against them. The Florida
• 7:00
  US Attorney's Office even offered to share the evidence gathered
• 7:04
  in its investigation with prosecutors and grand juries and other
• 7:08
  relevant jurisdictions. The defense strongly disagrees with the premise that
• 7:13
  the government can offer and execute an immunity or non
• 7:17
  prosecution agreement with a citizen in the location of one
• 7:21
  of two venues where an interstate telephone call or flight
• 7:24
  from any form or wire or mail communication occurs, and
• 7:29
  then circumvent the consequences of that immunity grant by having
• 7:32
  the very same prosecution office promote and motivate a prosecution
• 7:36
  by another office at the second venue of what, in
• 7:40
  fact was a single criminal transaction. What is significant for
• 7:44
  Bell purposes is that, notwithstanding this notice of the government's
• 7:48
  legal position and his knowledge of the substantial penalties that
• 7:52
  he would face if charged and convicted, mister Epstein made
• 7:56
  no attempt to flee the approximately six years preceding as arrest.
• 8:00
  During that time, as noted by the government, he engaged
• 8:03
  in substantial international travel, always returning to his residences in
• 8:08
  the United States. Mister Epstein never sought to obtain dual
• 8:11
  citizenship or took any other steps indicative of an intent
• 8:15
  to flee. This fact significantly undermines the government's contention and
• 8:20
  regarding his risk of flight, and indicates mister Epstein's good
• 8:23
  faith in tent to contest the charges pending against them.
• 8:27
  On September twenty fourth, two thousand and seven, after a
• 8:31
  year long investigation, the Department of Justice, through the US
• 8:34
  Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, entered into an
• 8:37
  MPa with mister Epstein. The NPA immunized mister Epstein from
• 8:42
  five distinct potential federal charges that may have been committed
• 8:46
  by Epstein from in or around two thousand and one
• 8:49
  through in or around September of two thousand and seven.
• 8:53
  Exhibit one MPa at one and two. One of the
• 8:57
  federal charges was eighteen US Code Section fifteen ninety one,
• 9:01
  the statue charged in the SDNY case. The time period
• 9:05
  covered by the NPA subsumes the entire time period charged
• 9:09
  in this ENSDNY case. The USAO SDFL acknowledged in the
• 9:14
  NPA that the very premise of mister Epstein to enter
• 9:17
  into it was to resolve globally a state and federal
• 9:21
  criminal liability idea. Too. Senior officials at the Department of
• 9:25
  Justice reviewed the NPA and either authorized or helped negotiate
• 9:29
  the resolution of the matter. And just to insert real quick,
• 9:33
  remember how I always tell you that alex Acosta was
• 9:36
  the fall guy. It tells you it right here. Senior
• 9:39
  officials at the DOJ negotiated this, and they were the
• 9:43
  ones who signed off on it. What you think alex
• 9:46
  Acosta was a senior official at the DOJ at the time,
• 9:50
  he wasn't. The NPA required mister Epstein to plead guilty
• 9:54
  to state felony charge Florida State Statute Section seven ninety
• 9:58
  six dot seven, then pending in the State of Florida,
• 10:02
  and to an additional state felony charge not previously charged
• 10:06
  or acquired by the state of violating Florida State Statute
• 10:10
  seven ninety six dot three, a charge requiring registration as
• 10:14
  a sex offender. Mister Epstein complied with all his obligations
• 10:18
  under the NPA. Contrary to the government's argument, the NPA
• 10:23
  was not limited to a list of several dozen victims
• 10:26
  identified in the prior investigation government bell letter at six
• 10:30
  and seven. Indeed, the NPA contains no list of several
• 10:34
  dozen victims, and regardless, the NPA immunized mister Epstein from
• 10:38
  prosecution for the offenses set out on pages one and
• 10:42
  two of this agreement allegedly committed between two thousand and
• 10:46
  one and two thousand and seven, as well as any
• 10:49
  offenses that arose from the federal grand jury investigation. Moreover,
• 10:54
  the government's interpretation that the NPA pertained exclusively to the
• 10:58
  SDFL investigation and did not purport to bind any other
• 11:02
  officer district will be the subject of a major dispute
• 11:05
  in the case. This is especially so because mister Epstein's
• 11:09
  alleged conduct at his Palm Beach residence features prominently in
• 11:14
  the conspiracy count count one fourteen through nineteen and is
• 11:17
  incorporated by reference in the substantiative charge Count two at
• 11:22
  twenty three. Beyond that, mister Epstein intends to raise and
• 11:26
  litigate significant due process issues about the Department of Justice
• 11:29
  conduct in the case. Namely, there is irrefutable evidence from
• 11:34
  the pending CVRA litigation in the Southern District of Florida that,
• 11:38
  after mister Epstein had fully complied with his obligations under
• 11:41
  the NPA, the USAOSDFL affirmatively encouraged alleged victims to pursue
• 11:48
  prosecution of mister Epstein and other districts in violation of
• 11:51
  the DOJ's commitment to a global resolution. The United States
• 11:56
  Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, along with supervisors
• 12:00
  in line prosecutors from the USAO SDFL correspondent on multiple
• 12:05
  occasions with and personally conferred with alleged victims and their
• 12:09
  lawyers to entertain discussions about the alleged victim's desire to
• 12:13
  have mister Epstein prosecuted on federal charges. Further, the Southern
• 12:18
  District of New York is likely relying upon physical evidence
• 12:21
  seized in connection with the prior investigation. See Government Bell
• 12:26
  letter at six discussing corroborating evidence, including contemporaneous notes, messages,
• 12:31
  and call records. In short, there will be evidence that
• 12:36
  the current New York case is not truly independent of
• 12:38
  the prior immunized conduct. The evidence will show that mister
• 12:43
  Epstein's reasonable expectation that the NPA would resolve globally mister
• 12:47
  Epstein's state and federal criminal liability in exchange for mister
• 12:51
  Epstein's compliance with the duties and obligations in the NPA,
• 12:55
  which he fully performed, has been unconstitutionally undermined by the
• 13:00
  government's efforts to minimize the potential consequences of a CVRA
• 13:05
  conferral violation, one that neither the government nor defense believes occurred,
• 13:10
  but that was found to have occurred in the CVR litigation,
• 13:14
  which is pending a decision on remedies by returning an
• 13:18
  inextricably intertwined second federal prosecution, just as the district Court
• 13:23
  in Florida is receiving submission on remedy. Finally, the government
• 13:28
  fails to consider the doctrine of pre indictment delay inasmuch
• 13:32
  as the Statute of Limitations does not fully define a
• 13:35
  defendant's rights with the respect of delays that occurred prior
• 13:39
  to the indictment see generally United States vers. Marion, nineteen
• 13:43
  seventy one. Here, the delay of fourteen years from the
• 13:47
  last alleged act and twelve years since mister Epstein signed
• 13:51
  the NPA are extraordinary. If the government is correct that
• 13:54
  the NPA does not and never did, preclude a prosecution
• 13:58
  in this district, then the government will have to explain
• 14:01
  why it purposefully delayed a prosecution of someone like mister Arapstein,
• 14:05
  who registered as a sex offender ten years ago and
• 14:08
  was certainly no stranger law enforcement. There is no legitimate
• 14:11
  explanation for the delay. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap
• 14:16
  up right here, and in the next episode we're gonna
• 14:18
  pick up where we left off and that's what Part three.
• 14:21
  The government fails to meet its burden of proving that
• 14:24
  no combination of conditions will assure mister Epstein's appearance and
• 14:28
  public safety. All of the information that goes with this
• 14:31
  episode can be found in the description box