Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Epstein Survivors Take Their Case Against Former USVI Officials to Appeals Court (10/30/26)

Transcript

Epstein Survivors Take Their Case Against Former USVI Officials to Appeals Court (10/30/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. A few months ago, we saw that the
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: survivor's lawsuit that was filed against the Virgin Islands officials
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: over their role or alleged role in Jeffrey Epstein's operation
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: was dismissed. And it was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues. Well,
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: the six women who sued them have filed an appeal
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: with the Second Circuit Court asking it to undo the
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: ruling of the lower court because they think that these
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: officials should be held accountable for enabling Jeffrey Epstein and
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: benefiting from Jeffrey Epstein's money while they were being abused.
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: And I think that this is going to be the
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: kind of case that really sets the tone. Are we
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: going to have accountability or aren't we? And one place
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: where we definitely need some accountability is down in the U.S.
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: Virgin Islands. So today we have an article from WTJX
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: and the headline, Jane Doe asks appeal court to revive
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: Epstein-linked suit against VI government and former officials. This article
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: was authored by Tom Eder. Six women who sued former
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: Virgin Islands officials over their alleged role in Jeffrey Epstein's
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking operation have filed a 51-page brief with the U.S.
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, asking it to undo...
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: a lower court's dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs identified
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: as Jane Doe's 1-6 to protect their identities filed the
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: brief on Monday. It asked the appeals court to vacate
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: the May 5th judgment of U.S. District Judge Aaron Samaraniam
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: in Manhattan and reinstate their second amended complaint. The plaintiffs,
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: through attorney Annette Hacepidis, filed a notice of appeal on
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: May 11th, six days after the judgment. The lawsuit was
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: filed on November 22, 2023, as a proposed class action.
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: It alleged that defendants made the U.S. Virgin Islands a
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: safe haven for Epstein sex trafficking. The named defendants were
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: Virgin Islands government former governors John DeJong Jr. and Kenneth Mapp,
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: former First Lady Cecile DeJong, former Attorney General Vincent Frazier,
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: former Senators Celestino White and Carlton Dow, and delegate to
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: Congress Stacey Plaskett. Additionally, 100 unnamed John Doe defendants were listed,
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: including air traffic controllers, baggage handlers, police, and U.S. Coast
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: Guard agents. So the lawsuit was all-encompassing, right? What they
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: were claiming is that the USVI itself, the government, the apparatus,
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: was involved in their abuse. Well, maybe not by, you know,
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: abusing them themselves, but allowing this to occur. All the
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: deals that they were engaged in with Epstein... all the
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: money that he gave to these people, and all the
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: pull that he had with all of them. And there's
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: no doubt that he was close to all of these people.
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used their positions to
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: pressure customs, Coast Guard, airport, and law enforcement officials to
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: let Epstein bring people into the territory for commercial sex
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: acts without interference. They brought claims under the Trafficking Victim
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: Protection Act along with conspiracy obstruction and negligence claims. The
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: complaint also originally included a Rico claim, which was later withdrawn. Yeah,
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: you can't have that. God forbid. God forbid anybody gets
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: hit with Rico. Fucking joke. And the fact that Stacey
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: Plaskett was dismissed from the lawsuit is another joke. Why?
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: Because she's on the right team? I got news for you.
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: Stacey Plaskett needs to be held accountable. And anybody who
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: thinks differently, you're enabling Jeffrey Epstein. Enjoy yourself. No different
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: than defending somebody like Kash Patel. Same bullshit. Stacey Plaskett
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: was right in the middle of all of it, and
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: she was very close to Jeffrey Epstein. Is there ever
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: going to be accountability or cries for accountability from the
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: same people that yap and yell all day? I would
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: love to see it. Submaranium ruled on March 21st, 2025,
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: dismissing the claims against all defendants except Plaskett. He dismissed
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: the RICO and official capacity claims against her, but allowed
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: certain individual capacity claims to proceed, citing her personal ties
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: to New York. Plaskett was the only defendant alleged to
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: have traveled to New York and solicited funds from Epstein
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: in person. The plaintiffs and Plaskett later stipulated to dismiss
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: the claims against her with prejudice, and the judge closed
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: the case on September 23, 2025. His May 5th judgment
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: formally granted the motions to dismiss all claims. Absolute joke.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: Absolute fucking joke. But sure, tell me a little bit
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: more about somebody that's on the edges. Meanwhile, you have
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: people like Stacey Plaskett, who is being literally guided by
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein via text message, while she's sitting there as
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: part of Congress. If that's not disturbing to people, I
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: don't know what is. The judge dismissed the claims against
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: the other defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, meaning, he concluded,
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: the court lacked the legal authority to hear claims against
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: them in New York. He also found that the claims
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: against Cecile de Jong were barred by settlement releases the
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs had signed with Epstein's estate. So all loopholes and technicalities.
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: And Judge Submaranian should be embarrassed by it. Just another
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: guy going along with the system, huh? This is the
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: same judge... that allowed Diddy's lawyers to run roughshod over
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: the prosecution. As part of the plaintiff's arguments on appeal,
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: the brief raises three issues. First, the plaintiffs argue that
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: the district court wrongly decided, on its own, that they
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: had relied on Section 302A1 of New York's long-arm statute
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: when asserting jurisdiction based on a conspiracy theory. The judge
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: wrote that no New York court had accepted conspiracy jurisdiction
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: under that provision. The plaintiffs say their opposition papers cited
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: cases that arose under a different provision, Section 302A2, and
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: that the defendants never argued otherwise. They also note that
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: an attorney for the Virgin Islands government agreed at oral
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: argument that conspiracy could support jurisdiction under 302A1. In their review,
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: the district court never analyzed whether the complaint met the
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: requirements for conspiracy jurisdiction under 302A2. Just bad work by Submaranium, right?
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: When it comes down to it. Just another judge gumming
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: up the system. On the merits, the brief says, the
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: complaint meets those requirements. It identifies Epstein and the co-conspirator
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: acting in New York and alleges the defendants knew of
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: his New York activity, benefited from it, and directed him
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: to make payments from his New York bank accounts. The
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: brief points to the Second Circuit decision saying that conspiracy
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: jurisdiction is not a difficult requirement to satisfy. And it
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: notes that at this stage, the plaintiffs need only make
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: prelim showing of jurisdiction with all doubts resolved in their favor.
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: So it comes down to loopholes and technicalities. Oh, well,
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: you're not in the right jurisdiction. I mean, you might
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: be telling the truth, but this is the wrong jurisdiction. Second,
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: the plaintiffs argue that the complaint establishes jurisdiction under Section
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: 302A1 over John DeJong, Mapp, White, Frazier, and the Virgin
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: Islands government. That provision applies to defendants who transact business
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: in New York directly or through an agent in a
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: way connected to the claims. And I'd say that those
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: parameters were met, no? Certainly it would seem like it
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: to me. They're all conducting business in New York. The
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: district court found that the defendants were not alleged to
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: have specifically wanted money from New York bank accounts and
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: that the New York connection was essentially adventurous. It also
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: found that the complaint did not allege Epstein acted as
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: the defendant's agent in New York. The plaintiffs say the
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: complaint repeatedly alleges otherwise, citing numerous paragraphs in which the
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: defendants directed that Epstein pay them or their designees from
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: his New York accounts. It's obvious that Epstein was culpable
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: in New York. He was conducting business from New York.
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: And the whole entire reason that he did what he
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: did and incorporated down in the USVI was was to
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: avoid this shit that we're talking about now. Like, you
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: don't have to be a great legal mind to figure
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: it all out, but you do have to pay attention.
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: The brief relies heavily on the Second Circuit's 2023 decision
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: in Spettner v. Palestine Investment Bank, which held that a
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: foreign bank could be sued in New York based on
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: its repeated use of an agent's correspondent account there. The
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs argue that Epstein's New York accounts played a similar
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: role here. The brief also cites New York Court of
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: Appeals' decision on bank transfers and kickback schemes, including Leachie v.
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: Lebanese Canadian Bank and Rashad v. Picktick and Tsai. So
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: those are the cases that the plaintiffs are relying on
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: to show precedent in the courtroom. And pointing out those
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: cases to the appeals court, they're hoping to win the argument.
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: The payments the plaintiffs allege include a $ 50 million loan
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: from Epstein to the Virgin Islands government to facilitate the
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking ring, $ 625, 000 in tuition payments for the DeJong's children,
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: a request from DeJong for a loan of about $ 200, 000
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: to resolve a criminal settlement for misappropriation of public funds
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: when he was governor, and campaign and charitable contributions Oh yeah,
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: nothing to answer for here. It's like a fucking episode
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: of The Wire, right? The USVI is basically Baltimore. The
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs say these payments brought loyalty and access along with
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: input on sex offender legislation and a waiver from registration requirements.
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: They argue that the claims arise from that business because
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: the payments allowed Epstein to operate in the territory. The
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: brief also notes that the district court denied plaintiffs a
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: request for a jurisdictional discovery. It says the full extent
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: of the defendant's involvement cannot be known without it. Third,
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: the plaintiffs make two arguments about Cecile Dijon. They argue
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: that jurisdiction exists over Cecile Dijon under Section 302A2, which
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: covers tortious acts committed within New York. They say she
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: stayed at Epstein's New York residence during the period covered
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: by the complaint and that she acknowledged in a court
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: filing that she may have performed occasional urgent work while there.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: The plaintiffs argue her statements cannot be accepted at this
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: stage and that discovery may show she made multiple trips
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: and stayed for extended periods. They also say she communicated
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: regularly with Epstein in New York and directed payments from
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: his accounts. On the releases, the district court held that
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: the settlement language which covers anyone who worked in any
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: capacity for Epstein applied to Cecile de Jong, because the
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: complaint and the plaintiff's own filings described her as his
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: office manager. What a bunch of bullshit. And at the
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: time when this was all being put into place, I
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: told you there should be no carve-outs, not for anybody.
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: The plaintiffs say the court misunderstood their theory. They argued
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: she is sued for conduct as First Lady of the
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: Virgin Islands, using her political position and not for work
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: as Epstein's employee, so the release does not reach it.
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: They say Epstein paid her a salary for her office
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: work and separately paid substantial sums in support of the
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: alleged enterprise. So all of it has to be worked out,
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: and the only way to do that is to get
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: the discovery. So that's what the plaintiffs are trying to do.
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: They're trying to move to that point. In the alternative,
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: the plaintiffs argue the release language is ambiguous and the
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: claim should not have been dismissed before discovery. They cite U.S.
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: District Judge Jed Rakoff's 2023 ruling in a related case
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: against JPMorgan Chase, which found similar language in the Epstein
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: Victim Compensation Program release, unclear. The plaintiffs also dispute the
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: District Court's statement that they appeared to concede she was
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: covered by the release. They say that reading came from
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: a double negative in a supplemental letter that they never
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: withdrew their opposition on the point. The defendant's appealees have
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: not yet filed responses. Epstein was convicted in Florida in
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: 2008 of procuring a child for prostitution. He was arrested
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: again in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges and was
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: in New York on August 10, 2019 while awaiting trial.
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: So this lawsuit is not going away. And I think
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: that this appeal is going to be successful. So like usual,
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: we'll keep an eye on it. And when we have
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: some more information one way or the other, we'll get
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: it added to the catalog. All the information that goes
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.