Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The USVI And Their Motion For Partial Summary Judgement Against JPMorgan (Part 5) (9/20/26)

Transcript

The USVI And Their Motion For Partial Summary Judgement Against JPMorgan (Part 5) (9/20/26) · 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 picking up where we left off
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: with the USVI's motion for a partial summary judgment against J.P. Morgan.
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: Part 4. J.P. Morgan's equitable and fault-shifting defenses do not
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: apply to the government's TVPA, Perrin's Patriot claims. This in
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: an action by the government of the Virgin Islands to
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: vindicate public rights. While J.P. Morgan seeks to shift focus
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: away from its own failings and point blame on the government,
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: such equitable or fault-shifting defenses are legally barred. CEG City
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: of New York vs. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. 314
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: FRD 348 357 SDNY 2016 When acting in a capacity
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: to enforce public rights and in the public interest, government
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: entities are not subject to all equitable defenses, such as
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: latches or estoppel, that could ordinarily be invoked against a
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: private actor. Quoting State of New York v. UPS Inc.,
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: 160 F.S.U.P.P. 3D, 629-640, SDNY, 2016, at 359. Contention that
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: all government plaintiffs were negligent in their discretionary tax enforcement
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: is impermissible where the government seeks to vindicate the public
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: interest via enforcement of a public statutory right. The court, therefore,
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: should grant summary judgment for the government on J.P. Morgan's
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: affirmative defense, number five, six, unclean hands, seven, latches, and eight,
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: comparative and contributory negligence or fault. answer in affirmative defenses
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: because they seek to do precisely what the law prohibits,
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: shift fault to the government, plaintiff bringing suit to vindicate
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: the public rights. J.P. Morgan's attempts to distract from its
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: violations of the TVPA described above by claiming that the
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: government should have done more is particularly galling. The government
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: must comply with constitutional and legal principles that protect all
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: individuals by ensuring that investigations cannot proceed without concrete evidence.
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: JP Morgan had that evidence, in spades, in its own files.
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: The government did not. JP Morgan knowingly handled virtually every
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: financial transaction Epstein needed to operate a sex trafficking venture,
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: from the millions in cash withdrawals and payments to co-conspirators, recruiters,
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: and victims, to the millions in payments to lawyers and
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: publicists for the ongoing cover-up. JP Morgan had virtually... Every
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: financial detail of Epstein's venture, from payments to young women
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: in Lithuania and Russia, to transfers for the purchase of
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: a helicopter by Maxwell, to a revoked credit card for
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: an alleged recruiter who talked to the police in real
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: time and kept virtually all of it, and thus its
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: own outsized role under wraps until Epstein was dead and gone.
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: Supra Part 1 The government cause of action against J.P.
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: Morgan arise under the TVPA's parents' patriae provision for state
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: attorneys general, which provides that where the attorney general of
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: a state has reason to believe that an interest of
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: the residents of that state has been threatened or adversely
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: affected by any person who violates Section 1591, the attorney
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: general of the state, as parents' patriae, may bring a
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: civil action against such person on behalf of the residents
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: of the state, in an appropriate district court of the
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: United States to obtain appropriate relief. U.S. Code 18, Section 1595D.
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: The TVPA makes clear that a state attorney general plaintiff
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: brings suit not as a private litigant on behalf of itself,
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: but as parents' patrii, i.e. the sovereign, on behalf of
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: the residents of the state to obtain appropriate relief for
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: an interest of those residents that has been or is
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: threatened or adversely affected by J.P. Morgan's prohibited conduct. In
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: denying J.P. Morgan's motion to dismiss, the court confirmed this
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: plain reading of the TVPA. The court found that the
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: government satisfies the elements of Perrin's patriotic standing, including that
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: it alleges an injury to a quasi-sovereign interest that affects
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: a sufficiently substantial segment of its population. Order at 17.
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: The court explained that the government asserted interest in protecting
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: residents from the harmful effects of criminal sex trafficking enterprises
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: flourishing in the island's directly parallels the interests that Puerto
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: Rico successfully asserted in SNAP. At 18, cleaned up. Having
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: found that the government alleges a quasi-sovereign interest and is
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: vindicating public rights, the court now should hold that J.P.
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: Morgan's equitable and fault-shifting defenses do not apply as a
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: matter of law. The government's TVPA claims under Section 1595D
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: is one exclusively pursued by state governments and not by
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: private parties, just as under the CCTA in FedEx and UPS.
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: The TVPA makes it clear by predicating a state's claim
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: upon its showing that an interest of the residents of
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: that state has been or is threatened or adversely affected
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: by any person who violates Section 1591, U.S. Code 18,
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: Section 1595D. The dismissal opinion makes it clear still that
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: the government is acting in a public enforcement capacity by
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: holding the government alleges an injury to a quasi-sovereign interest
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: and seeks relief to the territory's injury that would be
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: unavailable to individual plaintiffs. Order at 18. Since the government
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: is enforcing the TVPA in its capacity as a sovereign,
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: not as a privately interested litigant, J.P. Morgan's equitable and
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: false-shifting defenses are barred as a matter of law and
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: discovery has not shown otherwise. J.P. Morgan has generally cited
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: three issues forming the basis of its false-shifting affirmative defenses. One,
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: Epstein's registration as a sex offender. Two, the Virgin Islands
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: Economic Development Commission, EDC's provision of tax benefits to Epstein's
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: companies under a federally authorized tax benefit program. And three,
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: actions taken by Cecile de Jong, whom Epstein employed. As
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: explained below, J.P. Morgan said, Claims of a government-wide conspiracy
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: to protect Epstein are both legally unsound and factually unsupported.
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: The defense based on these allegations cannot survive summary judgment. A. J.P.
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: Morgan's defenses are barred as applied to sex offender registry issues. J.P.
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: Morgan argues that the government's purportedly improper enforcement of sex
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: offender registry requirements with respect to Epstein supports its equitable
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: and or fault-shifting defenses. This argument is without basis. I.
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: The government's investigations or monitoring of Epstein cannot form the
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: basis of viable affirmative defenses. J.P. Morgan essentially argues that
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: the government should have more aggressively investigated Epstein or monitored
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: his whereabouts. But that argument suffers from a fatal flaw.
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: Even as the convicted sex offender, Epstein possessed constitutional rights
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: that the government was required to respect. Nothing, however, granted
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein a constitutional right to conduct business with J.P. Morgan
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: or to be free from J.P. Morgan's scrutiny. J.P. Morgan's
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: attempts to equate its own compliance failures with the government's
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: actions have no legal basis and thus amount to little
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: more than a brazen attempt to distract from its own
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: regulatory failings. The officials within the Virgin Islands government responsible
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: for sex offender registration and monitoring are not responsible for
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: Epstein's crimes. the laws required Epstein to register, which he did,
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: and to provide notification of travel overseas. But the government
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: could not enter his island or conduct searches without concrete
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: evidence that crimes were being committed. All witnesses confirm that
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: the government never received such evidence. J.P. Morgan has attempted
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: to point to news articles or complaints filed by anonymous
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: victims in other states as evidence that the Virgin Islands
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: government failed to pursue. But those documents do not and
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: cannot underpin a government investigation The government cannot search Epstein's
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: property without a warrant, which can only be issued upon
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: probable cause. Newspaper reports or anonymous statements do not constitute
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: sufficient basis for probable cause because mere journalistic prose is
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: not the kind of underlying factual data upon which a
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: magistrate can exercise appropriate judgment. Donovan v. Fed Clearing Die
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: Casting Company, 655 F. 2D, 793-797, 7th Circuit, 1981. We need
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: not belabor the point with all newspaper reports are not
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: of sufficient reliability to form the basis of Fourth Amendment
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: probable cause determination. These cases are consistent with the undisputed
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: witness testimony confirming that the Department of Justice could not
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: initiate investigations or pursue warrants based upon these type of
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: hearsay statements. As witnesses confirmed absent an actual complaint from
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: a victim, or eyewitness evidence brought to the Department of
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: Justice's attention, the Department could not initiate investigations. J.P. Morgan's
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: complaints concerning the adequacy of address verification checks fare no better.
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: No provision in the law requires the Virgin Islands to
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: perform such checks, which are done to confirm that registrant
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: resides at the address provided to the government. The checks
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: were performed roughly annually in conjunction with the U.S. Marshals
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: and other federal partners. The applicable law required address checks
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: to verify that an offender is living where they reported.
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: They do not, however, authorize entry into private property or
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: dispense with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The government
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: officials may not enter a sex offender's property or conduct
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: a search absent consent or a warrant based on probable cause.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: That protection is the reason that in certain years the U.S.
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: Marshals and Virgin Islands officials did not proceed beyond Epstein's dock.
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: If an offender refused entry, the government officials performing the
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: check did not possess authorization to enter. One Virgin Island
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: witness testified that she conferred with the federal government concerning
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: this practice and was told that it was similar to
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: a situation where a landowner has placed a gate at
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: the border to his property. The officials were not permitted
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: to proceed beyond that gate without a warrant. Nor was
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: it improper or unusual for the government to confirm addresses
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: at a sex offender's place of employment, as was done
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: one year with Epstein. All right, we're going to wrap
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: up this episode right here. And in the next episode,
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: we're going to finish this bad boy off. All of
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: in the description box.