Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Judge Marra’s Epstein Opinion and the CVRA Wall (Part 2)

Transcript

Judge Marra’s Epstein Opinion and the CVRA Wall (Part 2) · 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 get right
• 0:05
  back to it and finish off Judge Mara's order. When
• 0:09
  it comes to the CVR a request for injunction, petitioners
• 0:14
  requests at the court issue an injunction requiring the US
• 0:17
  Attorney's Office in the Southern District in Florida to make
• 0:20
  its best effort to protect the CVR rights of mister
• 0:23
  Epstein's victims, to confer with Jane do one and Jane
• 0:26
  do two and other Epstein victims who request it, and
• 0:29
  to provide them with accurate and timely notice of future
• 0:32
  case events. The Court denies the request for the issuance
• 0:36
  of such injunctive relief. Petitioners only show passed exposure to
• 0:40
  illegal conduct and do not show continuing present adverse effects.
• 0:45
  City of Los Angeles Verse for sixty one US ninety
• 0:48
  five one oh two. In discussing standing to seeking injunctive relief,
• 0:52
  the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• 0:55
  has explained the doctrine in the following way. Because injunctions
• 0:59
  regularly future conduct, a party has standing to seek conjunctive
• 1:03
  relief only if the party alleges and ultimately proves a
• 1:07
  real and immediate as opposed to a merely conjectural or
• 1:10
  hypothetical threat a future injury. Logically, a prospective remedy will
• 1:15
  provide no relief for an injury that is and likely
• 1:18
  will remain entirely in the past. Although past wrongs or
• 1:21
  evidence bearing on whether there is a real and immediate
• 1:24
  threat of repeated injury, past exposure to a legal conduct
• 1:28
  does not in itself show a present case or a
• 1:31
  controversy regarding injunctive relief if unaccompanied by a continuing present
• 1:36
  adverse effect Church City, Verus, Huntsville, nineteen ninety four. At
• 1:42
  this point, as to mister Epstein, there are no present
• 1:44
  or future cvr A rights of victims to protect as
• 1:49
  to any alleged co conspirators. The United States has agreed
• 1:52
  to confer with the victims regarding its decision relative to
• 1:55
  mister Epstein's case. It is further willing to participate in
• 1:58
  a forum where the victims may express how their interaction
• 2:02
  with mister Epstein and his alleged co conspirators affected them.
• 2:06
  The government has also agreed to provide training to its
• 2:08
  prosecutors regarding the rights of victims under the CVRA. The
• 2:13
  Court has no reason to doubt the government's representations to
• 2:15
  the Court and no reason to believe that it will
• 2:18
  not follow through with these commitments. Hence, the Court concludes
• 2:22
  that there is no real and immediate threat of repeated
• 2:24
  violations of the CVRA, and that any injury that occurred
• 2:28
  in this case will remain entirely in the past. Thus,
• 2:31
  the Court finds that the granting of injunctive relief is
• 2:34
  not warranted in this case. Meeting with former US attorney
• 2:39
  and court hearing. The Court has no jurisdiction over Alexander Acosta,
• 2:43
  the former US attorney, who is now a private citizen. Therefore,
• 2:47
  the Court denies petitioner's request that it order mister Acosta
• 2:51
  to appear at a meeting with the victims. Given that
• 2:54
  the government has agreed to arrange a meeting with government
• 2:57
  representatives for petitioners, the Court will not enter in order
• 3:01
  directing this meeting. As indicated previously, the Court presumes and
• 3:05
  fully expects that the government will honor its representation and
• 3:09
  it will conduct this meeting. The Court also declines to
• 3:12
  conduct a court sanctioned proceeding to allow mister Epstein's victims
• 3:16
  an opportunity to address the Court on these topics. First,
• 3:19
  it is a matter of public knowledge that the United
• 3:22
  States District judge who was presiding over the criminal case
• 3:25
  brought against mister Epstein in the Southern District of New York,
• 3:28
  already provided that opportunity to mister Epstein's victims. Second, now
• 3:33
  that mister Epstein is deceased, any investigation regarding his criminal
• 3:36
  culpability has ended to the extent any investigations are continuing
• 3:41
  as to mister Epstein's alleged co conspirators. This Court and
• 3:44
  play no role in these investigations or their resolution, and
• 3:48
  the victims will have their opportunity to express their views
• 3:51
  to the US Attorney's Office and other representatives of the
• 3:55
  US Department of Justice, who will have the ultimate say
• 3:57
  on how those investigations proceed. Production of documents. The parties
• 4:02
  have already engaged in discovery, and the Court has previously
• 4:05
  made rulings concerning privilege and work product. The finding by
• 4:09
  the Court of a violation of the CVRA does not
• 4:12
  avoid its finding on the privileged material. These privileged documents
• 4:16
  include those relating to the government's decision to enter into
• 4:19
  the NPA with Epstein. To the extent the petitioners seek
• 4:23
  production of FBI files relating to its investigation of mister
• 4:27
  Epstein and his alleged co conspirators is also a matter
• 4:30
  of public knowledge, and there is an ongoing investigation by
• 4:33
  the Department of Justice relative to those individuals. The FBI's documents,
• 4:38
  to the extent they were not otherwise protected by attorney
• 4:41
  client or work product privileges, in all likelihood, are relevant
• 4:45
  to that ongoing investigation. The court's ordering of production of
• 4:49
  those documents could adversely affect and interfere with that ongoing investigation. Thus,
• 4:54
  the Court will not order their production. Furthermore, to the
• 4:58
  extent petitioners seek to remedy based on their argument that
• 5:01
  the court never ruled on whether the government violated the
• 5:04
  petitioner's right to be treated with fairness and to receive
• 5:07
  notice of court proceedings, the Court rejects this theory. These
• 5:12
  rights all flow from the rights to confer and were
• 5:14
  encompassed in the court's ruling finding a violation of the CVRA. Thus,
• 5:19
  there's no basis for further production of documents. Lastly, with
• 5:24
  respect to petitioner's argument that they are entitled to grand
• 5:26
  jury records to obtain information as to why there was
• 5:29
  no prosecution of mister Epstein. The Court denies this request.
• 5:34
  The traditional rule of grand jury secrecy may be set
• 5:37
  aside under certain circumstances, as set forth by Rule six
• 5:40
  Z of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The party
• 5:44
  seeking disclosure of the grand jury material must show a
• 5:47
  compelling and particularized need for the disclosure. Furthermore, the private
• 5:51
  party must show circumstances had created certain difficulties peculiar to
• 5:56
  the case, which would be alleviated by access to specific
• 6:00
  grand jury material without doing disproportion and harm to the
• 6:03
  purposes of secrecy embodied in the grand jury process. Here,
• 6:08
  petitioners have not shown that they will suffer an injustice
• 6:12
  if they are denied access to grand jury material, nor
• 6:15
  have petitioners shown that access to these materials is compelling
• 6:18
  or particularized or their asserted interests under the CVRA. Additionally,
• 6:24
  those materials may be relevant to an ongoing investigation relating
• 6:28
  the alleged co conspirators, the disclosure of which would interfere
• 6:31
  with the investigation. Therefore, the court denies petitioners' access to
• 6:35
  the material over which grand jury secrecy applies under Rule
• 6:39
  six E of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Educational Remedies.
• 6:45
  Petitioners seek in order requiring a course of training for
• 6:48
  employees in the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District
• 6:51
  of Florida about the CVRA. The government does not oppose
• 6:56
  providing such training. Once again, the Court presumes and fully
• 6:59
  expects the go government will honor its representation that it
• 7:02
  will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and
• 7:06
  the proper treatment of crime victims. Thus, the Court finds
• 7:10
  the issuance of such order not necessary or warranted under
• 7:13
  the facts of the case, and once again fully believes
• 7:15
  and expects the government will honor its representation. Monetary sanctions, restitution,
• 7:21
  and attorney fees. The parties agree that the CVRA does
• 7:25
  not authorize a cause of action for damages. Petitioners seek sanctions,
• 7:29
  claiming that sanctions are a traditional means for enforcing rights
• 7:33
  for failure to comply with the law. Courts have inherent
• 7:37
  power to impose sanctions based on the court's need to
• 7:39
  manage its own affairs so as to achieve the orderly
• 7:43
  and expeditious disposition of the case. The power, however, is
• 7:49
  to manage and address actions that have taken place while
• 7:52
  litigation is pending before the court, not to address actions
• 7:55
  taken prior to the litigation. See Woods versus Barnett Bank
• 7:59
  of of Fort Lauderdale, eleventh Circuit nineteen eighty five. See
• 8:03
  also Lamb Construction versus Nebraska Power Hub nineteen ninety seven.
• 8:08
  Also see Towerridge Incorporated versus Tow Incorporated nineteen ninety seven.
• 8:13
  In contrast, remedies serve to address or wrong that occurred
• 8:16
  prior to the litigation. Notably, the cases cited by petitioner
• 8:20
  in support of the imposition of sanctions involved conduct that
• 8:24
  arose during the course of litigation, and not conduct engaged
• 8:28
  in prior to the institution of the lawsuit. Here, petitioner
• 8:33
  seeks sanctions as punishment for the government violating the CVRA,
• 8:37
  which is conduct that occurred prior to the institution of
• 8:40
  this lawsuit authorized remedies, not sanctions or therefore the appropriate
• 8:45
  conduit for such relief. Petitioners also seek an award of restitution.
• 8:49
  Petitioner's request is improper for several reasons. First, it essentially
• 8:54
  is a request for money damages from the government, which
• 8:57
  is not allowed under the CVRA. Second, although petitioners claim
• 9:01
  the CVRA permits the right to a full and timely restitution,
• 9:05
  under the CVRA, restitution is limited only to those circumstances
• 9:10
  provided in law. Hence, petitioners would have to point to
• 9:13
  a specific statute that authorizes an award of restitution. The
• 9:17
  Court also rejects petitioner's requests for attorney fees to the
• 9:21
  extent Petitioners seek fees by claiming the government acted in
• 9:24
  bad faith or vexatiously. The Court rejects that position. While
• 9:28
  the Court concluded that the government violated the CVRA, the
• 9:31
  Court did not and does not find that the government
• 9:34
  acted in bad faith throughout this litigation, nor does the
• 9:37
  Court find any basis to draw such a conclusion on
• 9:40
  the record before it. Although unsuccessful on the merits of
• 9:43
  the issue of whether there was a violation of the CVRA,
• 9:47
  the government asserted legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout its litigation. Thus,
• 9:52
  there is no basis to grant petitioners' attorney fees as
• 9:55
  a sanction, nor is there a basis to grant petitioners
• 9:58
  attorney fees because ggation efforts directly benefited others. This theory
• 10:03
  relies upon a line of cases that permits the allowance
• 10:06
  of attorney fees out of a fund which created, increased,
• 10:10
  or was preserved by an attorney service, and for which
• 10:14
  equity courts historically permitted compensation for the attorney's successful efforts.
• 10:19
  This theory is simply inapplicable to the facts of this case.
• 10:23
  For these reasons, the Court denies Petitioner's request for attorney
• 10:26
  fees motion to strike. The Court denies Petitioner's motion to strike.
• 10:31
  The legal arguments made by mister Epstein's attorneys simply provide
• 10:34
  the current state of the law that the Court is
• 10:37
  obligated to follow. Whether or not mister Epstein's attorneys provided
• 10:40
  the Court with a memorandum of law conclusion. This order
• 10:44
  brings an end to the lengthy and contentious litigation. Recent
• 10:47
  events have rendered the most significant issue that was pending
• 10:51
  before the court, namely, whether the government's violation of petitioners'
• 10:54
  rights under the CVRA invalidated the NPA moot. Other reliefs
• 10:59
  sought by petitioners was either beyond the jurisdiction of the
• 11:02
  court to grant unavailable under the law, or in the
• 11:05
  exercise of the court's discretion and under all the circumstances
• 11:09
  of the case, unnecessary or unwarranted. So, despite petitioners having
• 11:14
  demonstrated the government violated their rights under the CVRA, in
• 11:18
  the end, they are not receiving much, if any, of
• 11:21
  the relief they sought. They may take solace, however, in
• 11:24
  the fact that this litigation has brought national attention to
• 11:28
  the Crime Victims Rights Act and the importance of victims
• 11:32
  in the criminal justice system. It also resulted in the
• 11:35
  United States Department of Justice acknowledging its shortcomings in dealing
• 11:39
  with crime victims and its promise to better train its
• 11:42
  prosecutors regarding the rights of victims under the CVRA in
• 11:46
  the future. And rulings which were rendered during the course
• 11:50
  of this litigation likely played some role, however small, it
• 11:53
  may have been, in the initiation of criminal charges against
• 11:56
  Epstein in the Southern District of New York, and that
• 11:59
  office cantinuing investigation of others who may have been complicit
• 12:03
  with them. In view of all the four going it's
• 12:06
  hereby ordered and adjudged as follows. One the Clerk shall
• 12:10
  unseal docket entries one nineteen and one thirty four two,
• 12:14
  Jane DO one and Jane DO two's motion to strike
• 12:16
  response to Rule twenty five notice is denied. Three. This
• 12:21
  order shall constitute a judgment for purposes of Fedar civp.
• 12:24
  Fifty eight four. The Clerk will close the case, and
• 12:28
  all pending motions are denied as moot, done and ordered
• 12:31
  in Chambers of West pom Beach, pom Beach County, Florida,
• 12:34
  the sixteenth, this day of September twenty nineteen, signed by
• 12:39
  Kenneth Marra, United States District Judge. All of the information
• 12:43
  that goes with this episode can be found in the
• 12:46
  description box.