Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The USVI And Their Motion To Exclude JP Morgan's Expert Witnesses (Part 2) (10/31/26)

Transcript

The USVI And Their Motion To Exclude JP Morgan's Expert Witnesses (Part 2) (10/31/26) · 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
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: with the USVI and their request to keep expert opinion
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: from JP Morgan out of the case. B. Dr. Melman
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: Orozco lacks expertise regarding financial regulations and standards. Dr. Melman
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: Orozco readily concedes that she is not an expert in
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: banking regulations or the Bank Secrecy Act and that prior
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: to this case, She has not even consulted with or
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: testified on behalf of any financial institution regarding human trafficking.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: She testified everything related to financial services guidelines and regulations
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: that is not my area of expertise. In fact, prior
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: to this case, Dr. Melman Orozco admits she had never
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: heard of a SAR or a currency transaction report. Nonetheless,
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: despite having no relevant experience or expertise, Dr. Mel Menorosco
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: opines that JPMorgan complied with banking regulations and standards. For example,
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: she states in her report that JPMorgan redacted. She offers
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: the conclusory opinion that based on my expertise on human trafficking,
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: the policies, procedures, and internal controls used by JPMC were
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: consistent with those employed by others in the financial services industry. Dr.
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: Mel Menorosco also offers law enforcement opinions that are outside
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: her expertise and unsupported by literature. She downplays the importance
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: of J.P. Morgan redacted. For example, she opines that redacted
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: would not have had a statistically significant effect on the
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: prevalence of sex trafficking or the identification of victims or
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: offenders generally or on the identification of Epstein's victims or
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: to intervention or prevention to Epstein's crimes. She also claims
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: there's no evidence to suggest that Epstein's crimes would have
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: been prevented if J.P. Morgan had redacted. Rule 702 mandates
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: that experts stay within the reasonable confines of their subject
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: area and cannot render expert opinion on an entirely different
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: field or discipline. In other words, an expert qualified in
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: one subject matter does not thereby become an expert for
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: all purposes. By her own admission, Dr. Melman Orozco has
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: no education, training, or experience regarding banking regulations and standards.
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: She also lacks any expertise on law enforcement utilization of
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: redacted and CTRs and did not even speak with anyone
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: in law enforcement when forming her opinions. She should not
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: be permitted to offer opinions relating to banking regulations and
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: industry standards, including the importance of SARs and CTRs to
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: government enforcement actions, as those areas are, by her own admission,
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: outside the scope of her proposed expertise. C. Dr. Melman-Orosco
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: offers opinions that contradict the plain language of the TVPA. Dr.
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: Melman-Orosco offers two opinions that contradict the TVPA and therefore
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: will not help the fact finder to understand the evidence
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: or to determine a fact and issue. FEDAR Evidence 702
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: Courts typically exclude opinions that are contrary to the law
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: because they are not helpful and likely to confuse a jury. Dr.
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco offers at least two such inadmissible opinions. First, Dr.
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco opines, not all minors involved in the commercial
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: sex industry are trafficked, some minors engage in survival sex,
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: and some minors are not induced but rather engage in
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: commercial sex for money. This opinion directly contradicts the TVPA's
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: and the fact that she offers it further confirms that Dr.
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco's inadequate knowledge and experience regarding human trafficking. Section
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: 1591 of the TVPA, titled Sex Trafficking of Children or
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: by Force, Fraud, or Coercion, Define sex trafficking to include
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: circumstances where means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion,
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: or any combination of such means will be used to
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: or that the person has not attained the age of
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: 18 years and will be caused to engage in a
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: commercial sex act. U.S. Code 18, Section 1591A. Thus, under
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: the TVPA, minors cannot consent or otherwise voluntarily engage in
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: commercial sex, a fact Dr. Melman-Orozco admitted in her deposition.
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: The opinion should be excluded. Second, Dr. Melman-Orozco misstates the
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: standard for holding companies liable for sex trafficking under the TVPA.
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: She claims establishing actual or constructive knowledge in a third-party
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: liability case involving a TVPRA claim would require at a
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: minimum the availability of an evidence-based and reliable indica. She
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: testified it was her personal opinion that businesses should not
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: be held to a higher standard than law enforcement, but
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: when pressed, she could not identify the standard she believed
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: applied to law enforcement. When asked whether there were any
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: circumstances under which he believed a bank should be held
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: liable under the TVPA, Dr. Melman Orozco struggled to provide
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: the narrowest of scenarios. I don't know of any cases
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: off the top of my head, but a fact pattern
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: that I would potentially imagine or can conceptualize is there
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: was an overt disclosure by a trafficker to a teller
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: saying that I'm involved with trafficking. My girls are going
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: to be depositing cash into an account. I don't want
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: any record of that. Can you look the other way
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: and allow them to? and don't take their identification documents,
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: and this particular teller takes the cash and deposits it
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: in accordance and receives additional money for that, and maybe
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: several other tellers are made aware of it, as well
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: as the bank manager, and they're all sort of engaged
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: in this conspiracy to look the other way and receive
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: additional funding to look the other way while this person is,
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: you know, putting their money into a particular bank account
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: and maybe giving them advice on how to launder that money,
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: or kind of what the caps are, on when they
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: would be discovered. Contrary to Dr. Millman or Roscoe's personal opinion,
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: the TVPA allows victims of sex trafficking and state attorneys
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: generals to enforce the TVPA against the perpetrator or whoever
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: knowingly benefits or attempts to conspire to benefit financially or
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: which that person knew or should have known has engaged
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: in an act in the violation of the TVPA. U.S.
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: Code 18, Section 1595A and D. J.P. Morgan has not provided,
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: and the government is not aware of, any court that
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: interpreted the TVPA knowledge requirement as narrowly as Dr. Melman
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: Orozco suggests. Moreover, at least one court in the Southern
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: District has struck expert opinions expressly, policy preferences, like Dr.
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco's, because personal opinions about what the law is
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: or should be invade the province of the court to
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: instruct the jury on the law. The court should exclude
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: this opinion as well. D. Dr. Melman Orozco's opinions regarding
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: secondary exploitation and misidentification are irrelevant and unfounded. Dr. Melman
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: Orozco offers opinions about secondary exploitation and misidentification that are
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: completely irrelevant to any issue in this case. Under Rule 702,
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: the threshold question is whether the proffered expert testimony is relevant.
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: Irrelevant expert testimony fails the helpfulness requirement of Rule 702
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: and should not be admitted. Dr. Mel Manorosco opines that
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking claims, especially those made by third parties against
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: third parties, are at a high risk of secondary exploiting
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: the victims or the topic of trafficking by proffering non-victims
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: as trafficking survivors or blaming unwitting third parties for failed
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: interventions by law enforcement. This opinion has no relevance to
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: the issue of In this case, and is little more
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: than a thinly veiled attempt to impugn the government's witnesses
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: and motives for bringing this law enforcement action, both of
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: which are improper subjects for expert testimony and not relevant
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: to any claim or defense. In addition to being irrelevant,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: these opinions also are not based on a reliable methodology
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: as required for scientific expert testimony. Secondary exploitation is a
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: theory created by Dr. Melman Orozco for litigation that does
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: not appear to be reflected in in academic literature or analysis.
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: In fact, she has already voluntarily withdrawn an opinion based
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: on this theory in another case. Dr. Melman-Orozco's primary objective
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: in putting forth this opinion appears to be to attack
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's lawyers. She notes in her reports that one Epstein
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: survivor publicly accused attorney Brad Edwards, a plaintiff's attorney who
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: represented victims in a related case against J.P. Morgan, of
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: actions consistent with secondary exploitation. When questioned about this statement
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: at her deposition, Dr. Melman Orozco coyly claimed she does
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: not have any opinion about Brad Edwards and simply repeated
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: the opinion of an alleged victim of Epstein. She also
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: admitted she may discuss plaintiff's lawyers feeding on trafficking cases
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: for the litigation advantages it offers in her upcoming book. Further, Dr.
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco could not articulate a standard for determining when
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: someone was engaged in secondary exploitation, which is a key
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: requirement of Daubert. When asked how someone could determine that Dr.
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco herself was not engaged in secondary exploitation, she
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: offered the following highly subjective standard, I would just welcome
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: them to look at my body of work and who
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: I am as a person. For all these reasons, Dr.
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco's opinions regarding secondary exploitation should be stricken. Dr.
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco also opines that sex trafficking victims are frequently
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: misidentified and and that misidentification can lead to minors being
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: erroneously criminalized or denied services and businesses being exposed to
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: liability for civil rights violations and defamation. In support of
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: her opinion, Dr. Melman Orozco cites to news articles about
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: airlines falsely accusing customers of human trafficking, but this opinion
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: is untethered to any evidence in this litigation. Dr. Melman
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: Orozco confirmed that she is not offering any opinions about
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: whether Epstein's victims have been misidentified. Thus, the opinion is
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: irrelevant to any fact at issue in this case and
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: should be excluded as well. All right, we're going to
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: wrap up right here. And in the next episode, we're
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: going to pick up with two. The court should strike
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: the proposed expert opinions of Joseph Fonseca. All of the
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: the description box.