Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 6)

Transcript

The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 6) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: where we left off with the Brad Edwards CVR A
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Affid David. Another illustration of where the crime fraud misconduct
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: exception could potentially apply is with regard to information that
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: the government possesses that Matthew Minchell has a personal or
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: business relationship with defending Jeffrey Epstein. This could potentially show
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: misconduct by Menchell, and it also potentially a motive to
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: violate the victim's rights. Has explained previously, the government's Privileged
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: Log has numerous entries showing that Menchell was substantially and
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: personally involved in making decisions related to the Epstein prosecution.
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: Of the first Privilege log with regard to box number
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: three P zero one one nine two three two P
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: zero one one nine sixty six, the victims have information
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: suggesting that immediately after leaving the employment with the US
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office, Menchell was associated with Epstein, can trolled entities
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: or had some business relationship with them. The documents that
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: the government possess showing a personal or business relationship between
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: one of its prosecutors and the man who was charged
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: with prosecuting should be produced. The government has admitted that
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: its internal affairs component, the Office of Professional Responsibility, has
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: collected information about possible improper behavior during the investigation of
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: the Epstein matter. Government answers to RFA twenty two. The
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: fact that the government's own investigating agencies have collected such
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: information demonstrates that there is a prima fossee case of
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: improper behavior which is enough to trigger the crime fraud misconduct.
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: Exception to various privileges, factual materials not privileged. As noted
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: in the accompanying legal memorandum, factual materials are generally not
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: covered by the privileges at issue in the case, many
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: of the material to which the government is asserting privilege
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: are factual materials ver of the attorney client privilege. The
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: government has asserted attorney client privilege regarding many documents. Yet
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: with regard to most of these assertions, it's impossible to
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: determine who is the attorney, who is the client, whether
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: professional legal services are being rendered, and whether the communications
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: were confidential to those involved in the delivery of legal services. Accordingly,
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: it's very difficult for me to respond to many of
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: the assertions of attorney client privilege, and in any event,
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: the government has failed to carry its burden of showing
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: that privilege applies. An illustration of documents at to which
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: attorney client privilege appears to have been improperly asserted or
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: inadequately described is found on page seven of the first
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: privilege Log with regard to supplemental box number three. The
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: entry for these twenty two pages of documents reads file
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: folder entitled information Package Drafts, containing several descriptions. To see
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: how the attorney client privilege applies to these documents, I
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: could provide many other illustrations of the problem. The government's
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: attorney client privilege claim directly covers situations where it was
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: in a fiduciary relationship with the victims and therefore is
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: limited in now asserting privilege. For example, page three of
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: the supplemental Privilege Log contains an entry concerning a costa
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: containing drafts of eleven thirty seven letters from Acosta to
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: ken Starr and from j. Slowman to Jay Lefkowitz, performance
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by Marie Villafauna.
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: This information goes very directly to the issue involved in
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: the case, as it goes directly to victim notification, Yet
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: the government has asserted an attorney client privilege to prevent
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: the victims from learning what's in these documents. The fiduciary
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: exception to the attorney client privilege applies in this situation
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: and limits the government's ability to invoke a privilege. This
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: also appears to be shared communication between the government and
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: Epstein's attorneys, and it's unclear how the attorney client privilege
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: could ethically apply to such documents. As One example of
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: why the victims have established a compelling need for material
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: described in the preceding paragraph is the fact that the
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: court has indicated that it will be considering an estoppel
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: argument raised by the government as a defense in the case.
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: The Court has noted that this argument implicates a fact sensitive,
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: equitable defense which must be considered in the historical, factual
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities,
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: and the offense victims, including an assessment of the allegation
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: keep the victims in the dark. On the pendency of
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: negotiation between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: fact and presentation of the non prosecution agreement to them
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: was completed. The materials to which the government is asserting
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: attorney client privilege go directly to that interface between the victims,
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: the government, and Epstein. The victims have a compelling need
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: for the information, and the fiduciary exception to the attorney
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: client privilege applies to permit the court to provide these
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: documents to the victims. The government has not explained any
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: harm that would come from releasing the documents covered by
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: attorney client privilege to the victims. If the government raises
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: any such harm, I respectfully request an opportunity to provide
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: additional information on that alleged arm deliberative process privilege. Some
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: of the correspondents that is being withheld by the government
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: under the deliberative process privilege concerns an investigation that the
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility opened with regard to
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: the Epstein case. This investigation was undertaken at the request
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: of the victims in the case. On December tenth, twenty ten,
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: CO Council Professor Paul Cassel of the University of Utah
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: College of Law and I met with US Attorney for
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: the Southern District of Florida guarding this case in the
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: US Attorney's office in Miami, Florida. On that date, Professor
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: Cassell presented a letter to the US Attorney, Mister Ferrer,
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: asking him to personally investigate what happened during the Epstein
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: prosecution and how the victims were treated during that investigation
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: based on the privileged log that has been provided as
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: well as subsequent correspondence sent to Professor Cassell, That request
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: for investigation was turned over to OPR in Washington. The
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: ultimate outcome of the OPR investigation is unclear. What is
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: clear is that many documents are being withheld about that investigation,
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: documents that would go to the central issue in the case.
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: Approximately three hoole pages of privileged log, Pages twelve through
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: fourteen of the supplemental log relate to the OPR investigation
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: of how the Epstein case was handled and how the
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: victims were treated. A deliberative process privilege can only be
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: asserted with regard to the process of reaching a decision,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: not the ultimate disay decision itself. The government here has
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: apparently asserted a deliberative process claim over not only the
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: OPR process, but also over the OPR decision. It's not
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: clear which document embodies the final OPR decision, or, given
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: the inadequacies of the government's log, whether that final decision
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: has been produced. Given the limited description of the document
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: that have been provided, it appears that the OPR decision
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: may be reflected in a document found on page thirteen
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: of the supplemental log. The description there reads draft letter
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: marked confidential to be opened by addresses only Robin c
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: Ashton to a Fredo Ferrar, with a handwritten correction. No
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: dates provided regarding the letter, nor is there any indication
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: as to whether the letter was or was not circulated
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: to other persons. It is also noteworthy that this letter
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: is described as a draft letter. Nowhere in the privileged
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: log is the final version of that letter indicated, raising
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: questions about what was draft and what was final. If
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: this is the final embodiment of the opr's conclusions, then
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: this letter would not be protected by process of privilege
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: because the deliberations would have come to an end. It's
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: also worth noting that because OPR is an agency that
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: investigates misconduct by federal prosecutors, it would not be providing
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: attorney client advice to prosecutors, and its documents would not
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: be attorney client privileged with regard to, for example, the
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: fact that OPR has investigated many of the exact claims
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: raised by Jane do one and two and were able
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: to gather documents unobstructed by the government in order to
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: reach its conclusion likely means that production of the OPR
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: file to the victims in this case could significantly shortcut
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: this discovery process and the litigation. Additionally, if OPR needed
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: the documents to investigate and make findings regarding the victim's claims,
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: then logically the victims share that need and have no
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: other mis means through which to obtain the documents. The
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: government has not explained any harm that would come from
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: releasing the documents covered by the process of privilege to
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: the victims. If the government raises any such harm, I
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: respectfully request an opportunity to provide additional information on that
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: alleged harm. Investigative privilege. The investigative privilege is a qualified
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: privilege which balances the need of a particular litigate for
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: access to information against any public interest in non disclosure.
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: That balancing process is ordinarily made with reference to factors
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: discussed and Frankhauser vers Rizzo on the facts of this
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: case favor way in favor of disclosing the information the
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: victims have requested. With regard to factor one, the extent
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: to which disclosure will thwart governmental process by discouraging citizens
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: from giving the government information I presented for victims of
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: Epstein's sex offenses in federal court Change No. Number one,
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: Change No. Number two, and a victim I will refer
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: to as SR and MJ and other victims of Jeffrey
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: Epstein's abuse as well. If further information is disclosed about
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: the case, that will not discourage them from providing information,
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: but rather will encourage them. I have also talked personally
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: the attorneys for a number of other victims in the case.
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: I have been told that many of these victims hope
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: that Jang Do one and Jane Do two are successful
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: in their case. With regard to factor number two, the
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: impact upon persons who have given information of having their
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: identities disclosed. Jang Do one and Jane Do two are
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: not asking for information that would identify any particular victim accordingly,
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: there will be no effect on other victims. Additionally, I'm
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: aware of the true names of many of Epstein's victims,
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: and that information has not been disseminated to the public
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: where those individual victims did not wish for their identities
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: to be disseminated. All right, we're going to wrap up
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: this episode right here, and in the next episode dealing
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box.