Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Governor John de Jongh's Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivors Lawsuit (Part 1)

Transcript

Governor John de Jongh's Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivors Lawsuit (Part 1) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:03
  In this episode, we're going to continue taking a look
• 0:06
  at the USVII and their defense of the lawsuit that's
• 0:11
  been brought against them by the Epstein survivors. And to
• 0:15
  do that, we're going to take a look at the
• 0:17
  memorandum of law in support of defendant Governor John Dejeong
• 0:21
  Junior's motion to dismiss, transfer, and or strike one the
• 0:25
  FAC's insufficient, vague group pleading as to defendants, plaintiffs, dates,
• 0:31
  and locations. The first domended complaint is forty eight pages
• 0:35
  long and consists of two hundred and twenty five paragraphs.
• 0:38
  Defendant Governor John Dejeong is specifically mentioned by name in
• 0:42
  only five paragraphs all defendants. The FAC otherwise lumps all
• 0:48
  allegations against all defendants as a group, as discussed Herein
• 0:52
  such nonspecific group pleadings fail to establish inter alia, subject matter, jurisdiction,
• 0:58
  personal jurisdiction, venue, and timelines. The FAC makes some thirty
• 1:02
  eight references to co conspirators, which the FAC defines as
• 1:06
  a wide network, including the USVII and many government officials
• 1:11
  and staff. As defined by the FAC, a co conspirator
• 1:15
  could be a defendant, or it could be anyone else
• 1:17
  in the wide network. When the FAC broadly references co conspirators,
• 1:22
  it's not necessarily alleging anything against any particular defendant. The
• 1:27
  FAC also makes approximately sixty nine references to victims, but
• 1:31
  the FAC defines Epstein's victims as young women and girls,
• 1:35
  like plaintiffs who are part of a worldwide network of victims.
• 1:39
  Throughout the FAC, many paragraphs refer only to victims and
• 1:43
  not any plaintiff, But as with co conspirators, the FAC
• 1:47
  has defined a large, worldwide group of victims, of which
• 1:51
  plaintiffs are only a small subset six persons. When the
• 1:55
  FAC refers only to victims, it's not necessarily alleging anything
• 1:59
  about the planets as discussed Herein this vague group pleading
• 2:03
  fails to meet even the deferential pleading standard at this
• 2:06
  stage two fed RCIV p. Twelve b one no subject matter, jurisdiction, causation,
• 2:13
  or standing. The FAC should be dismissed pursuant of fed
• 2:17
  RCIV p. Twelve b one for failure to allege subject matter, jurisdiction,
• 2:22
  causation and standing. Plaintiffs in cases alleging violations of the
• 2:26
  Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act TVRPA who seek to invoke
• 2:32
  federal jurisdiction bear the burden of establishing the three elements
• 2:35
  of Article three standing Kublei versus Cargol six' ten f
• 2:40
  dot su P p THREE d one seventy, three one
• 2:43
  eighty through one eighty two D dc twenty twenty. Two
• 2:47
  plaintiff fails to Establish article three standing in tv p
• 2:50
  R a. Case the second element is, causation a fairly
• 2:55
  traceable connection between the plaintiff's injury and the complaint of
• 2:58
  conduct of the Defendant Steel company Versus citizens For Better
• 3:02
  environment five twenty TWO us eighty three one oh, three
• 3:05
  nineteen ninety. Eight because standing is not dispensed in, gross
• 3:09
  each plaintiff must demonstrate that she is standing separately as
• 3:12
  to each, defendant which requires showing that each defendant caused
• 3:16
  or Injury kubli at one eighty and eighty. Two as
• 3:20
  In kubli TVPR a, case the plaintiffs here it cannot
• 3:23
  show causation for three. Reasons, first the FAC's group pleading
• 3:27
  fails to establish causation separately for each, defendant specifically Mister
• 3:32
  DeJong kubli. At one eighty and eighty. Two, second THE
• 3:36
  fac violates the prohibition on speculative chain of. Possibilities, third
• 3:41
  the tvpr's venture theory of liability cannot relieve plaintiffs Of
• 3:46
  article three's constitutional causation. Requirement as In, kubili THE tvpra
• 3:52
  plaintiff's complaint does not link the individual, defendant Mister, DeJong
• 3:56
  to a particular act or, venture nor does it address
• 4:00
  the degree of influence that mister De jong specifically had
• 4:03
  over the alleged sex. Trafficking see Also Dull one Versus
• 4:08
  apple twenty twenty, one W l five seven seventy four
• 4:12
  two two four six D dc twenty twenty. One plaintiffs
• 4:16
  have pleaded no facts showing that every individual in the
• 4:19
  entire global supply, chain let alone one or more of
• 4:22
  the defendants controlled the minds or conditions that led to plaintiff's.
• 4:26
  Injuries as In, kubli THE fac alleges generally that the
• 4:30
  defendants knew about the sex trafficking conduct by a third
• 4:33
  Party epstein not before the Court kubli at one eighty.
• 4:37
  One these general broad allegations failed to establish a non
• 4:41
  speculative relationship between each plaintiff and each defendant in THIS tvpra,
• 4:46
  case there's no standing where the court would have to
• 4:49
  accept a number of very speculative inferences and assumptions in
• 4:54
  any endeavor to connect the alleged injury with the challenge.
• 4:57
  Conducted the plaintiff here faces the same problems satisfying the
• 5:01
  causation prong as did THE tvpr plaintiffs In dough one And.
• 5:05
  Koubli In dough. One the plaintiffs were traffic child miners
• 5:09
  of cobalt and The congo who BROUGHT tvpr claims Against
• 5:13
  apple and others that purchased refined cobalt twenty twenty one
• 5:17
  W l five seven seven four two two four at
• 5:21
  one in. Four THE do one plaintiffs alleged that non
• 5:24
  parties actually supervised them working in minds operated by non
• 5:28
  parties on lane owned by non, Parties BUT do one
• 5:31
  plaintiffs fell to allege a, traceable casual or causal connection
• 5:36
  between the harm that plaintiffs suffered and the particular. Defendant
• 5:40
  the fac here alleges even. Less it alleges generally that
• 5:44
  a non party i E epstein and undefined co, conspirators traffic,
• 5:48
  victims and unspecified plaintiffs and subjected them to sexual assault
• 5:52
  on property owned by the non party Id at one
• 5:55
  eighty two and one eighty. Three THE fac does not
• 5:58
  allege that mister De john supervised. Anything it also does
• 6:02
  not allege that he had contact with the. Victims as
• 6:05
  IN do. One the allegations here involved the actions of
• 6:08
  independent third parties in the causal chain between PLAINTIFFS do
• 6:12
  one twenty twenty one W l five seven seven four
• 6:15
  two two four and the defendant Mister. DeJong the causation
• 6:19
  or requirement of standing is not satisfied by injuries that
• 6:22
  result from the independent action of some third parties not
• 6:25
  before the court in this Case epstein and his co
• 6:28
  Conspirators koubli at one eighty. Two THE tvpr does not
• 6:34
  obviate the FAC's need to trace each plaintiff's harms to
• 6:38
  Mister dejong's Actions coble six' Ten f Dot supp Three
• 6:42
  d at one. Eighty three in THE hotel, tvpr case
• 6:46
  the plaintiff alleged a traceable direct link between the injuries
• 6:50
  and defendant. Hotel CHAIN, the fac on the, other hand
• 6:53
  forces the court to speculate about the role of intermediaries
• 6:57
  or whether a particular Defendant mister DeJong tie to a
• 7:01
  Particular plaintiff kubli six' ten. F dot Supp three d at,
• 7:05
  One eighty, Three part. Three fedar civp, Twelve b two.
• 7:10
  No PERSONAL jurisdiction the fac should be Dismissed pursuant. Of
• 7:15
  fedar civp, twelve b TWO because the fac does not
• 7:18
  meet the burden of Establishing that the court has personal
• 7:22
  jurisdiction over The. Defendant Mister DeJong Cabot Lodge SECRETARY verus
• 7:27
  stoltmann pc TWENTY twenty three wl six eighty one one
• 7:32
  seven seven FOUR One sdn, y october sixteenth. Twenty. Twenty
• 7:36
  three one non fact specific allegations group pleading fail. To
• 7:40
  establish jurisdiction the FAC's boiler played assertions against the defendants
• 7:45
  as a group are the type of conclusiony non fact
• 7:48
  specific jurisdictional allegations or legal conclusions couched as a factual
• 7:53
  allegation that will not establish a prima facie. Showing of
• 7:56
  Jurisdiction Thommen Versus. Frozen bank sa six Seventy seven F
• 8:01
  dot supp two d seven twenty seven. To, twenty five
• 8:05
  furthermore group pleadings. Is, not permitted instead the plaintiff is
• 8:09
  required to establish personal jurisdiction separately over each defendant and.
• 8:14
  Each Claim asserted sunword electrics versus McDonald THREE Sixty two
• 8:18
  F dot, three d, Seventeen Twenty, four second circuit two.
• 8:21
  Thousand And four this court need not draw argument of
• 8:25
  inferences in the plaintiff favor or accept a true legal
• 8:28
  conclusion couched as. A factual Allegation Dough versus telemundo network,
• 8:33
  twenty TWENTY three w l six twenty five nine three
• 8:37
  eight nine, ZERO at eight sdny. Twenty twenty three the
• 8:41
  FAC's vague group pleading fails to allege jurisdiction over or
• 8:45
  even Domicile. Of. MISTER DeJong two fac fails to establish
• 8:50
  personal jurisdiction. Over Non domicillary mister DeJong is. A non
• 8:56
  domicillary to determine whether it may exercise personal juristiction over,
• 9:01
  a Non domicillary the court engages in a. Two Part
• 9:04
  analysis Energy Brands versus spiritual brands FIVE Seventy one f
• 9:08
  DOT supp two d four fifty eight, FOUR SIXTY nine
• 9:12
  sdn y two. Thousand AND eight the fac first fails
• 9:16
  to establish jurisdiction under the Law Of The Forum Grand
• 9:20
  River versus prior for twenty five, F dot three d
• 9:23
  one fifty eight, One Sixty, five second circuit two. Thousand
• 9:26
  and five the only basis for jurisdiction over non domicillaries
• 9:31
  are general personal jurisdiction and long Arm Personal Jurisdiction big Apple,
• 9:36
  pyrotechnics versus spectacular two, thousand AND seven w l seven
• 9:40
  four seven eight zero, SEVEN NUMBER, two sdn y two.
• 9:44
  Thousand and seven but the fac then fails to establish
• 9:47
  that the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with the due
• 9:51
  process CLAUSE Of. THE Us constitution Dh Blair versus gott deener,
• 9:56
  four sixty two f Dot three ds on ninety five,
• 9:59
  One Oh, four second circuit two. Thousand and six. No
• 10:02
  general jurisdiction there's no general jurisdiction because there are no
• 10:06
  Allegations that mister DeJong specifically, engaged, in continuous permanent and
• 10:11
  Substantial Activity. In New york El, achmed versus twitter five
• 10:15
  point fifty three f, dot supp three d one eighteen,
• 10:18
  ONE TWENTY five sdn y. Twenty twenty one for an Individual,
• 10:22
  like mister DeJong the paradigm forum for the exercise of
• 10:25
  general jurisdiction Is His domicile Goodyear dunlop versus brown FIVE
• 10:30
  sixty four us, nine fifteen, nine twenty. Four TWENTY eleven
• 10:35
  the fac fails to allege the domiciles of any defendants
• 10:38
  and fails To Even invoke new york's general long. Arm jurisdiction,
• 10:42
  statutes all right we're gonna wrap up this, episode right
• 10:45
  here and in, the next episode we're gonna pick up
• 10:48
  with no. Long armed jurisdiction all of the information that
• 10:51
  goes with this episode can be found in. The description
• 10:54
  box