Latest / Beyond The Horizon / New Mexico And The Epstein Related Lawsuit Filed Against The DOJ (Part 5) (10/18/26)

Transcript

New Mexico And The Epstein Related Lawsuit Filed Against The DOJ (Part 5) (10/18/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to dive right
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: back in to the lawsuit filed by New Mexico against
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: the DOJ. Causes of action, count one. Administrative Procedure Act, U.S.
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: Code 5, Section 706-2A. Arbitrary, capricious, not in accordance with law,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: in excess of statutory authority. the State re-alleges and incorporates
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: by reference the allegations set forth above, as if fully
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: set forth herein. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, APA, urgency action, findings,
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: and conclusions found to be either arbitrary, capricious, and abuse
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance of law, in
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, shall be held
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: unlawful and set aside by the Review and Court, U.S.
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: Code 5, Section 706, 2a. c. USDOJ's refusal, unsupported in law
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: and the circumstances at hand, to provide material requested in
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: NMDOJ's valid TUI request is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: of discretion and not in accordance with law. USDOJ stated
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: justification for continuing to withhold from NMDOJ Unredacted investigative records
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: and other material from USDOJ investigation into Epstein and his
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: associates are not permissible grounds for rejecting TUI requests under
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: state or agency regulations. An MDOJ's request will not interfere
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: with enforcement proceedings or threaten to impair investigative techniques or procedures.
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: In correspondence, USDOJ invoked its regulatory authority to limit disclosure
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: to NMDOJ because it allegedly would interfere with enforcement proceedings
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: or disclose investigative techniques and procedures, the effectiveness of which
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: would hereby be impaired. However, such an interpretation of its
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: regulation is contradicted by the history of information sharing with
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: state law enforcement authorities, including in New Mexico, with no
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: interference in contemporaneous or subsequent federal law enforcement proceedings. Furthermore,
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: Acting Attorney General Blanche has publicly confirmed that the USDOJ
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: is not currently engaged in any enforcement proceeding related to
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: Epstein or anyone associated with him related to his ties
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: in New Mexico. Moreover, NMDOJ has made clear it does
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: not seek information about any confidential federal investigative technique or
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: procedure that could be impaired. Therefore, USDOJ's refusal to comply
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: with NMDOJ's TUI request and unexplained deviation from long-standing agency
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: practice violate the APA. NMDOJ's request is reasonable in breadth
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: and burden, and is reasonably related to the needs of
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: its proceedings. USDOJ has made a blanket assertion that NMDOJ's
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: TUI request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably related
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: to the needs of the case, since there is no
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: pending case and the requests are not targeted to any
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: particular fact or issue. This boilerplate objection fails because it
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: provides no rational basis for refusing to comply and does
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: not describe the actual burden associated with compliance. In addition,
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: the objection ignores the substance of NMDOJ's request, the nature
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: of its ongoing investigation, and the status of responsive material. A.
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: An MDOJ requested unredacted copies of specific documents identified by
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: an individual EFTA production number, yet USDOJ has not provided
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: that material even though the request was narrowly tailored. Outside
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: of these specifically identified documents, an MDOJ limited its request
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: to matters associated with Epstein and his associates' ties and
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: conduct at Zorro Ranch and in New Mexico. As a
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: result of EFTA, USDOJ's universe of potentially responsive documents should
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: be easily searchable, and there are readily identifiable search terms
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: to locate what New Mexico needs. Locating and producing the
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: material NMDOJ requests is a task USDOJ has more than
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: sufficient resources to handle while meeting its other obligations. USDOJ's
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: objection ignores NMDOJ's repeated offers to minimize any administrative burden
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: on USDOJ. in specific ways, and that there is already
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: a ready means for NMDOJ to access portions of required material.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: NMDOJ is offered to send a team to Maine Justice
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: to examine the material in person, subject to reasonable security
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: protocols and access conditions. The USDOJ deems appropriate such a
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: review would pose minimal, if any, burden on the USDOJ,
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: as USDOJ has already given Congress access to unredacted duplicative
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: material in the reading room. and NMDOJ would merely require
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: access to the same. Finally, NMDOJ targeted its request to
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: particular facts and issues by specifying that it's investigating potential
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: violations of New Mexico state criminal laws in New Mexico
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: by Epstein and his co-conspirators. Complying with NMDOJ's request does
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: not violate the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act enumerates 13
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: situations in which covered information may be disclosed without the
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: consent of the individual to whom the record pertains, U.S.
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: Code 5, Section 552a and b. One of those exceptions
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: fits exactly the present circumstances by allowing disclosure of covered
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: information to another agency or to an instrumentality of any
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States,
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: to a state law enforcement agency for a civil or
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law,
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: made a written request to the agency which maintains the
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: activity for which the record is sought. Attorney General Torres,
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: the head of NMDOJ and New Mexico's top law enforcement officer,
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: made written requests to USDOJ specifying the record requested and
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: the authorized law enforcement activity for which these records are sought.
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: The enumerated exception of the Privacy Act also permit disclosure
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: of covered information for a routine use, which is defined
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: in that statute to mean, with respect to the disclosure
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: of a record, the use of such a record for
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: it was collected. Sharing these requested records with state law
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: enforcement is within the routine uses for which USDOJ holds
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: the material. Pursuant to the Privacy Act, the criminal division
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: of the USDOJ At the very least, USDOJ cannot base
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: its denial on NMDOJ's TUI request on speculation that some
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: unidentified responsive information might fall beyond disclosures authorized by the
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: Privacy Act's enumerated exceptions. Protective orders entered in Epstein-related cases
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: do not prevent disclosure to NMDOJ. USDOJ also cites protective
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: orders in the Epstein-Maxwell criminal cases as a barred to
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: compliance with NMDOJ's TUI request. Specifically, USDOJ has taken the
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: position that the orders as modified for compliance with EFTA
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: and as currently in effect, prohibit the department from disseminating
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: the identity of any victim or witnesses referenced in the
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: covered materials. which include all discovery pursuant to Rule 16,
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: Rule 17c, and the Jenks Act, and comprise the vast
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: majority of material in the Epstein Library. The objection misreads
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: the protective order and otherwise serves as a self-created excuse
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: for USDOJ not to cooperate. The protective order themselves only
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: prohibit public disclosure by USDOJ. The government, other than in
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: the discharge of their professional obligation in this matter, is
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: strictly prohibited from publicly disclosing or disseminating the identity of
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: any victim or witness referenced in the discovery. The government,
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: other than the discharge of the professional obligation in the matter,
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: is precluded from publicly disclosing or disseminating the identity of
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: any victim or witness referenced in discovery. Non-public disclosure to
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: NMDOJ is entirely consistent with protective orders. Next, consider the
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: aggressive position USDOJ takes generally to preserve its ability to
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: share information with other law enforcement agencies. For example, in
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: ACI Construction v. United States, Utah July 7, 2020, USDOJ
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: vigorously opposed a proposed requirement for notice to the plaintiff
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: if government was disclosing information to other law enforcement agencies
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: and in agreeing with USDOJ on the issue, the district
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: court collected cases that show a long history of USDOJ
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: safeguarding its freedom to share information with federal and state
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: law enforcement. Not surprisingly, other courts have faced similar requests,
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: and they've rejected them. The fact that the USDOJ already
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: has indicated that it's unlikely to seek a modification of
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: the protective order, it claims prevent disclosure is strong evidence
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: that they provide a fig leaf to justify secrecy, USDOJ prefers.
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: After all the cases cited above, show USDOJ taking active
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: stances on the issues in favor of information sharing with
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: law enforcement, including by seeking the amendment of protective orders
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: USDOJ contends might prohibit such information sharing. An MDOJ repeatedly
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: invited discussion of terms to protect from improper redisclosure non-public
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: information USDOJ shares, which USDOJ ignored. USDOJ has provided no
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: explanation for acting inconsistently with its repeated defense of its
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: authority to share information with other law enforcement agencies in
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: the matter and which involves an internally notorious child sex
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: trafficker and associates who participated or facilitated the abuse of
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: survivors who, to this day, continue pressing for justice. Most obviously,
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: outside the language of EFTA, USDOJ unilaterally decided to make
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: complete unredacted copies of every document available to any member
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: of Congress. That is, 535 people who can view the
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: portion of the material NMDOJ has asked to review that
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: is included in the Epstein file subject to any reasonable
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: security restrictions USDOJ might request. Unlike NMDOJ, no member of
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: Congress is in a position to investigate or prosecute crimes
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: that New Mexico has been unable to investigate because of
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: USDOJ's obstruction. The unilateral provision of unredacted access to so
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: many people while refusing to provide it to the type
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: of law enforcement partner USDOJ has cooperated with throughout modern times,
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: underscores the arbitrary and capricious nature of USDOJ's actions. Alright folks,
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to finish this bad boy off.
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: All the information that goes with this episode can be
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.