Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein A Justice System That Looked The Other Way (7/24/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Jeffrey Epstein A Justice System That Looked The Other Way (7/24/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

0:01
Speaker 1: We'll come back to the Epstein chronicles today. We're gonna
0:05
Speaker 1: go all the way back to twenty and fifteen, and
0:08
Speaker 1: we're going to talk a little bit more about how
0:10
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein and his lawyers wanted to keep sealed documents sealed,
0:16
Speaker 1: and it was such a move on their part that
0:20
Speaker 1: his whole entire legal team, including Judge Reinhart, was so
0:25
Speaker 1: invested that they moved to keep these things from being unsealed. Personally, Now,
0:30
Speaker 1: why would the lawyers in this case be so adamant
0:34
Speaker 1: to keep the negotiations as far as the plea deal sealed?
0:40
Speaker 1: Why are they so invested in that? What are they
0:42
Speaker 1: so worried about? What are they hiding? Why are they
0:45
Speaker 1: so worried about the public knowing how that plea deal
0:50
Speaker 1: went down? Well, let's dive into this article from Above
0:55
Speaker 1: the Law and let's see what was going on in
0:58
Speaker 1: twenty and fifteen headline Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers want to seal
1:04
Speaker 1: documents to stop the frolic with the media. This article
1:08
Speaker 1: was published by Above the Law and it was published
1:11
Speaker 1: on January thirtieth of twenty fifteen. The author of this
1:16
Speaker 1: article is Tomorrow Taboo Lawyers for Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaires,
1:22
Speaker 1: the billionaires suspected of paying underage girls. You mean the
1:25
Speaker 1: billionaire pedophile who was raping underage girls to give them
1:29
Speaker 1: X rated massages. No, no, so we could rape them.
1:32
Speaker 1: Are fighting to keep plea negotiations between Epstein's attorneys and
1:36
Speaker 1: prosecutors out of public view. Now why would they be
1:40
Speaker 1: so adamant on doing that? What is in this plea deal?
1:43
Speaker 1: What did they lay out for the federal government that
1:46
Speaker 1: would get the federal government at the DOJ level to bite?
1:51
Speaker 1: What could they dangle that would make the DOJ play ball.
1:56
Speaker 1: Epstein is implicated in a suit against federal prosecutors brought
2:00
Speaker 1: by women who claim to it have been sexually abused
2:03
Speaker 1: by Epstein when they were miners. The plaintiffs claim that
2:06
Speaker 1: the government failed to fulfill its duty under the Crime
2:10
Speaker 1: Victim's Rights Act to involve Epstein's survivors in the settlement process.
2:15
Speaker 1: The women contend that the government instead secretly handed a
2:18
Speaker 1: sweetheart deal to the well connected billionaire pedophile and any
2:22
Speaker 1: of his possible co conspirators. The women are represented by
2:26
Speaker 1: lawyers Brad Edwards and Paul Cassel. Now we know that
2:29
Speaker 1: the court has already deemed this plea deal illegal. All right,
2:34
Speaker 1: so the court said that this plea deal was bunch
2:36
Speaker 1: of buppkists, a bunch of garbage. But yet somehow it
2:41
Speaker 1: still stands, and we still don't have any information about
2:45
Speaker 1: how this plea deal came into place. You want to
2:48
Speaker 1: talk about a veil of secrecy, you want to talk
2:50
Speaker 1: about shadowy, This is what I'm talking about. And I
2:53
Speaker 1: don't know how people aren't more fired up about this.
2:56
Speaker 1: You would think that people who are demanding transparency all day,
3:00
Speaker 1: every day on TV from everybody would demand some transparency
3:04
Speaker 1: here as well. Because this has a reverberating effect through
3:10
Speaker 1: the whole entire Department of Justice, through the whole legal system.
3:15
Speaker 1: How can anyone be okay with people like Epstein being
3:18
Speaker 1: able to manipulate the whole system in their favor when
3:22
Speaker 1: they're facing Haines's charges like this, and to do it well,
3:25
Speaker 1: all they have to do is get a few ex
3:27
Speaker 1: prosecutors on board who decide to hop ship for a
3:30
Speaker 1: fat paycheck, and everything's butter, because again, they're not paying
3:35
Speaker 1: for these lawyers to come into the courtroom and make
3:38
Speaker 1: it like a movie. Right, It's not a few good men.
3:41
Speaker 1: That's not how real life works. They're paying for the contacts.
3:44
Speaker 1: They're paying for you know, oh, I was his roommate
3:47
Speaker 1: at Harvard. That's the kind of shit they're paying for.
3:50
Speaker 1: And when you look at Epstein's team of lawyers, it
3:53
Speaker 1: was littered with ex prosecutors. It was littered with people
3:56
Speaker 1: who had very very close knowledge of what was going
3:59
Speaker 1: on going on, But yet there's no outcry that these
4:03
Speaker 1: people come forward now and talk about what they know.
4:09
Speaker 1: Although the defendant in the suit is the US government,
4:12
Speaker 1: not Epstein himself, he moved to intervene in the case
4:15
Speaker 1: in July twenty thirteen. Attorneys Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Bruce
4:21
Speaker 1: Reinhart Huh where do we hear that name recently? And
4:24
Speaker 1: Martin Weinberg are also interveners in the CVRA suit between
4:29
Speaker 1: the alleged survivors alleged huh and federal prosecutors. So why
4:34
Speaker 1: is Bruce Reinhart acting as an intervener here and trying
4:38
Speaker 1: to make it so that this stuff doesn't get made public?
4:42
Speaker 1: Was he so worried about if everything was on the
4:45
Speaker 1: up and up with that plea deal and everything was kosher,
4:48
Speaker 1: why are all these people acting as interveners here and
4:51
Speaker 1: trying to make it so the public has no idea
4:54
Speaker 1: what went down? What are they so worried about? You see,
4:57
Speaker 1: that's the thing. And when we talk about these people
5:00
Speaker 1: who were involved here, it's rather obvious that all of
5:03
Speaker 1: them were swinging for defenses. They all had connections to
5:07
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. And in a guy like Reinhart's case,
5:11
Speaker 1: he was just working for the Prosecutor's office a few
5:14
Speaker 1: days before going to work for Jeffrey Epstein's associates, and
5:18
Speaker 1: then to act like he wasn't working for Epstein. That
5:21
Speaker 1: was the biggest doozy for me. Oh no, he's not
5:23
Speaker 1: working for Epstein. He's working for his associates or his employees.
5:28
Speaker 1: Who do you think is paying them bills? Homie? And
5:31
Speaker 1: if I'm paying the bills, who's really calling the shots?
5:37
Speaker 1: And of course, Harvard law professor and former Epstein defense
5:40
Speaker 1: counsel Alan Dershowitz moved to intervene earlier this month, apparently
5:44
Speaker 1: motivated by the allegations by Virginia Roberts that Dershowitz had
5:49
Speaker 1: personally participated in some of Epstein's sexual misconduct. So why
5:54
Speaker 1: would all of these people Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Bruce Reinhart,
5:59
Speaker 1: Martin Winberg, and Alan Dershowitz moved to intervene here to
6:03
Speaker 1: make it so you didn't know about what was going on.
6:07
Speaker 1: And then one of these dudes becomes the federal judge. Yeah,
6:10
Speaker 1: let's all be happy about that. He's above approach. On
6:14
Speaker 1: January fourteenth, US District Judge Ken Marra ordered the parties
6:18
Speaker 1: in the case to brief the issue of sealing the correspondents,
6:22
Speaker 1: asking for adequate justification for sealing because public policy favors
6:27
Speaker 1: judicial records being open to the public, so the standard
6:31
Speaker 1: operating procedure is for this stuff to be open to
6:33
Speaker 1: the public. But when it comes to Epstein, his associates,
6:37
Speaker 1: all of his lawyers, all of his buddies, they don't
6:40
Speaker 1: got to play by those rules. They don't have to
6:42
Speaker 1: deal with that nonsense like me and you would. The
6:47
Speaker 1: plaintiffs want the correspondents unsealed. They have already won a
6:50
Speaker 1: related battle to access many of these documents. In twenty fourteen,
6:55
Speaker 1: the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the plea negotiations are not
6:58
Speaker 1: privileged from discovery. In the plaintiff's motions this week, they
7:03
Speaker 1: argued that The emails and letters between Epstein's lawyers and
7:06
Speaker 1: federal prosecutors are central to this lawsuit, and sealing the
7:10
Speaker 1: correspondence would prevent the public from learning about matters of
7:13
Speaker 1: considerable public concern. Now, remember also, a whole year's worth
7:18
Speaker 1: of emails between the prosecutors and Epstein's lawyers just up
7:22
Speaker 1: and vanished, And then when confronted about it, the Department
7:26
Speaker 1: of Justice said, oh, well, it wasn't just Alcosta's phone.
7:30
Speaker 1: It affected many people. Yeah, okay, sure, just another coincidence
7:33
Speaker 1: here in this case. Huh. Cameras don't work, emails disappeared,
7:38
Speaker 1: guards fell asleep, Epstein was put in a cell with
7:41
Speaker 1: TARTAGLIONI okay, you're right, your narrative's correct. I mean, for real,
7:47
Speaker 1: at this point, you gotta be really in the bag
7:51
Speaker 1: for the establishment at this point to not see how
7:55
Speaker 1: screwed up everything was here. In the brief on behalf
8:01
Speaker 1: of Epstein, attorneys Roy Black and Martin Weinberg argue that
8:05
Speaker 1: their client could be irreparably harmed if Judge Marraw allows
8:09
Speaker 1: emails and letters between Epstein's defense counsel and federal prosecutors
8:14
Speaker 1: to enter public record on January twenty sixth, Epstein's lawyers
8:18
Speaker 1: responded to Judge Marra's orders by filing a limited Intervener
8:23
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein response to Order requesting justification for supplemental protective order.
8:29
Speaker 1: In Layman's terms, go screw yourself. We're not going to
8:32
Speaker 1: give you any of this information. We're going to muck
8:34
Speaker 1: it up and gum up the situation by legal proceedings.
8:40
Speaker 1: Although there is a protective confidentiality order already in place,
8:44
Speaker 1: attorneys for Epstein contend that the current order's coverage is insufficient.
8:49
Speaker 1: The order followed Epstein's motions seeking protection from the constant leaks, comments,
8:54
Speaker 1: and inflammatory accusations made by the plaintiff's lawyers to the
8:57
Speaker 1: national and international media, as well as the various online
9:01
Speaker 1: outfits for varying reputations. The recent filings, comments, and exclusives
9:06
Speaker 1: granted to gossip reporters show that the frolic with the
9:09
Speaker 1: media has not abated. So this is all about the media, right.
9:13
Speaker 1: What they're trying to do is say, ah, there's nothing
9:15
Speaker 1: even here. The media is making more of this than
9:18
Speaker 1: there is, and everybody who's trying to get involved with
9:20
Speaker 1: that is just lighting the fires and gassing it up.
9:26
Speaker 1: You would think that they'd be more worried about, you know,
9:28
Speaker 1: proving that, but they never could, and they never would
9:31
Speaker 1: be able to. They further point out that the order
9:35
Speaker 1: does not provide any protection when those documents are converted
9:38
Speaker 1: into exhibits and filed as public record with the court.
9:42
Speaker 1: They fear that Edwards and Cassel will skirt the spirit
9:45
Speaker 1: of the original order by citing tiny portions of sensitive
9:49
Speaker 1: documents then dumping entire documents into the public record by
9:53
Speaker 1: attaching them as exhibits. So what are you so afraid of,
9:58
Speaker 1: as Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers, If you were all on the
10:00
Speaker 1: up and up, and you conducted yourselves correctly, and you
10:03
Speaker 1: got this plea deal through the proper channels, then you
10:06
Speaker 1: wouldn't be worried about anyone examining this right. But boy,
10:10
Speaker 1: oh boy, they sure are scared, aren't they. His lawyers
10:13
Speaker 1: favor a temporary seal order on the plea negotiation correspondence,
10:17
Speaker 1: whereby the documents would stay sealed unless, unless, and until
10:21
Speaker 1: Judge Mera ruled on a motion to unseal them individually.
10:26
Speaker 1: Epstein's lawyer's right. These temporary precautions are appropriate because mister
10:30
Speaker 1: Epstein and his legal counsel will be irreparably harmed if
10:35
Speaker 1: what are historically confidential plea negotiations are wrongly filed in
10:40
Speaker 1: the public record, making their way around the world on
10:42
Speaker 1: the Internet in minutes before the court has an opportunity
10:46
Speaker 1: to rule. So again, they were so worried that you
10:49
Speaker 1: would know what was going on here that they pulled
10:52
Speaker 1: out all the stops to keep this stuff sealed, so
10:55
Speaker 1: far as even his attorneys, including Bruce Reinhardt, by the way,
10:59
Speaker 1: miss above reproach came out swinging, oh, we're going to
11:03
Speaker 1: be interveners here. Did anybody ask mister Reinhardt about this
11:09
Speaker 1: exact situation before he became a judge? Probably not considering,
11:14
Speaker 1: you know, he's a Trump appointee and Trump hat Acosta
11:17
Speaker 1: working in his administration. So there's that. Epstein's lawyers further
11:25
Speaker 1: insist that there is a long standing tradition in the
11:27
Speaker 1: criminal justice system to keep plea negotiations confidential. They argue
11:32
Speaker 1: that the defense attorney would be unable to fulfill their
11:35
Speaker 1: duties to their clients if they fear they cannot communicate
11:38
Speaker 1: with prosecutors openly and frankly without tempering or censoring their
11:42
Speaker 1: police settlement communications to avoid making statements that could later
11:46
Speaker 1: come back to haunt their clients in TMZ, the National Inquirer,
11:50
Speaker 1: or the grocery store tabloids. Nice cover story, nice cover story,
11:54
Speaker 1: and it certainly tracks right. But the reality is this,
11:57
Speaker 1: they don't want you to know the truth, and they'll
11:59
Speaker 1: use this as their basis for you not knowing the
12:02
Speaker 1: truth in the Epstein case. Oh well, it would cause
12:07
Speaker 1: harm moving forward to other defendants. Ye okay, sure, sure,
12:11
Speaker 1: it would just another bullshit excuse from the establishment, from
12:15
Speaker 1: the system to make sure that we don't have all
12:17
Speaker 1: of the information here. With allegations as salacious as those
12:23
Speaker 1: found in documents already on public record, one shutterers to
12:26
Speaker 1: think what information Epstein might be fighting to keep out
12:29
Speaker 1: of you. If the public is after sordid but unproven
12:33
Speaker 1: details about Epstein's past, the Palm Beach Police departments probable
12:37
Speaker 1: Cause affidavid provides more than enough fodder. I've been dutifully
12:42
Speaker 1: checking Pacer for updates in this case. I'm sure other
12:45
Speaker 1: writers and journalists covering the story have been as well. Still,
12:49
Speaker 1: a lot of the language Epstein's lawyers use to describe
12:52
Speaker 1: the spread of information via the Internet and sundry media
12:55
Speaker 1: sounds vaguely histrionic. Still, Epstein's lawyers may have the argument
13:00
Speaker 1: in the end on this issue. The chilling effect on
13:03
Speaker 1: future plea negotiations provides a strong public policy argument. Yeah, well,
13:08
Speaker 1: I guess guess what. I don't buy that. And that's
13:11
Speaker 1: some lawyers speak right there. What about the survivors who
13:14
Speaker 1: were greatly wronged all of these years? There's always exceptions made, right, well,
13:20
Speaker 1: this needs to be one of those situations where an
13:23
Speaker 1: exception is made. As a general matter, plea negotiations ought
13:29
Speaker 1: to be kept confidential in order to inspire candor. Our
13:32
Speaker 1: justice system leans heavily on plea deals to resolve criminal cases.
13:36
Speaker 1: To agree on a deal, prosecutors and defense attorneys must haggle.
13:41
Speaker 1: Their haggling won't be as effective if they can't speak freely.
13:44
Speaker 1: If the specter of future publicity haunts defense counsels, negotiations
13:49
Speaker 1: with prosecutors, defense attorneys might be less forthcoming. Oh give
13:53
Speaker 1: me a fucking break here, Okay, give me a break these.
13:57
Speaker 1: If that's the case, then there has to be severe
13:59
Speaker 1: penalty for attorneys who are found to be playing games
14:02
Speaker 1: and lying. Right and I don't mean censure, and I
14:05
Speaker 1: don't mean a slap on the wrist, I mean losing
14:07
Speaker 1: your law license. How come it's always about protecting the system,
14:11
Speaker 1: the system, the system. What about the people that the
14:14
Speaker 1: systems supposedly set up to protect. Seems like that gets
14:19
Speaker 1: lost in the translation. Oh, or justice system or precious
14:23
Speaker 1: justice system. Well breaking news to all those lawyers out there.
14:26
Speaker 1: Your justice system is a gigantic dumpster fire. Moreover, defense
14:34
Speaker 1: attorneys maybe required to be less chatty during negotiations with prosecutors,
14:38
Speaker 1: since they owe a duty to their clients not to
14:40
Speaker 1: say things that might harm their clients. So another thing,
14:44
Speaker 1: if that's going to be the case, and you're going
14:45
Speaker 1: to go about it this way, you better make sure
14:47
Speaker 1: that the emails never disappear ever again, because there has
14:51
Speaker 1: to be receipts, Right if there is a situation where
14:54
Speaker 1: a judge or somebody else needs to look at what
14:56
Speaker 1: went on, there better be receipts. I don't want to
14:58
Speaker 1: hear about, oh, my emails, Do I have emails from
15:01
Speaker 1: like ten or twelve years ago? So I don't even
15:04
Speaker 1: understand what that means. Furthermore, it would be wrong to
15:10
Speaker 1: expect defense lawyers to be responsible for whether the prosecutors
15:14
Speaker 1: have involved survivors as the c As the c VRA
15:18
Speaker 1: requires later revealing the negotiations in effect pushes the defense
15:23
Speaker 1: for the prosecution's failure to meet its legal obligations. Courts
15:27
Speaker 1: can limit disclosure of plea negotiations while still maintaining that
15:31
Speaker 1: they are not privileged. Of course, a CVRA suit such
15:34
Speaker 1: as this one might be seriously crippled by the inability
15:38
Speaker 1: to introduce evidence of the wrangling between defense counsel and prosecutors.
15:43
Speaker 1: And they knew that. The defense knew that, and they
15:45
Speaker 1: used it as one of the quivers in their arrow.
15:48
Speaker 1: This is what I'm talking about. They know the law
15:51
Speaker 1: better than anyone, and they know how to use the
15:53
Speaker 1: law to their favor better than anyone. If the evidence
15:59
Speaker 1: is worth any reducing for the court's consideration, there's a
16:02
Speaker 1: strong presumption that the public ought to have access to it.
16:06
Speaker 1: But the temporary seal order favored by Epstein doesn't preclude
16:09
Speaker 1: those documents from entering the public record. Rather, it only
16:13
Speaker 1: delays it pending a determination by the court. Sure this
16:17
Speaker 1: process would add time and hassle to the proceedings, but
16:20
Speaker 1: the gossip media, the internet and the public are patient,
16:23
Speaker 1: will wait and look again. Really, what this is about
16:27
Speaker 1: this episode is about how Epstein's lawyers were working to
16:30
Speaker 1: the gills to make sure that their behavior wasn't exposed
16:34
Speaker 1: in all of this. That's what this is about. They
16:36
Speaker 1: didn't want their underhanded tactics to be exposed to the public,
16:40
Speaker 1: and yet they've been able to get away with it
16:42
Speaker 1: for all of these years. Nobody's demanding that there's accountability
16:46
Speaker 1: for those emails going missing the cameras. There's no accountability zero.
16:52
Speaker 1: So how do they expect anyone to look at what
16:54
Speaker 1: went on here or what's going on here and say, yeah,
16:57
Speaker 1: you know what, we have confidence that things are moving
16:59
Speaker 1: in the right direction because guess what nobody does. And
17:04
Speaker 1: for me, I've just had enough of all the transparency,
17:07
Speaker 1: I mean all of the non transparency here. It's about
17:10
Speaker 1: time that we have a transparent case in front of
17:12
Speaker 1: us and all of these documents that were considered so
17:16
Speaker 1: sensitive to be unsealed and released for public consumption. All right, folks,
17:22
Speaker 1: it's gonna do it for this episode. If you'd like
17:24
Speaker 1: to contact me, you can do that at Bobby Kapouchi
17:27
Speaker 1: at ProtonMail dot com. That's Bo Bby c apu Cci
17:32
Speaker 1: at ProtonMail dot com. You can also find me on
17:35
Speaker 1: Twitter at Bobby Underscore cap Ucci. The link that I
17:42
Speaker 1: discussed can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone,
17:46
Speaker 1: and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In
17:50
Speaker 1: this episode, we're gonna take a look at another unsealed document,
17:54
Speaker 1: and this time it's a letter from one of the
17:56
Speaker 1: lawyers at the Southern District of Florida to Jay Lefkwitz.
18:02
Speaker 1: And I think that the person writing this letter was
18:05
Speaker 1: Marie Villa Fauna, but the name is redacted. But when
18:09
Speaker 1: you look at all the facts and what she talks
18:11
Speaker 1: about or he talks about in the letter, it all
18:13
Speaker 1: lines up with it being Marievilla Fauna. But I think
18:16
Speaker 1: the most interesting thing here is how contentious the relationship
18:20
Speaker 1: was between Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers and the Feds down in Florida.
18:25
Speaker 1: And this is why I've told you time and time
18:26
Speaker 1: again that they went above Acosta's head. When you read
18:30
Speaker 1: the correspondence, you read the letters, you read the back
18:32
Speaker 1: and forth, it's obvious that Acosta wasn't playing ball with them,
18:36
Speaker 1: not how they wanted them to, and things didn't change
18:39
Speaker 1: until they reached out to Philip. So let's get into
18:43
Speaker 1: this letter and let's see what kind of context this
18:45
Speaker 1: can provide US. December eleventh, two thousand and seven, gear Jay,
18:53
Speaker 1: I'm writing not to respond to your asserted policy concerns
18:56
Speaker 1: regarding mister Epstein's non prosecution agreement, which will be addressed
19:00
Speaker 1: by the US attorney, but the time has come for
19:03
Speaker 1: me to respond to the ever increasing attacks on my
19:06
Speaker 1: role in the investigation and negotiation. It's an understatement to
19:11
Speaker 1: say that I'm surprised by your allegations regarding my role
19:15
Speaker 1: because I thought that we had worked very well together
19:17
Speaker 1: in resolving this dispute, and because I had described to
19:20
Speaker 1: you and others as a man of integrity. I am
19:24
Speaker 1: also surprised because I feel that I bent over backwards
19:27
Speaker 1: to keep in mind the effect of the agreement would
19:30
Speaker 1: have on mister Epstein and to make sure that you
19:33
Speaker 1: and he understood the repercussions of the agreement. For example,
19:37
Speaker 1: I brought to your attention that one potential plea could
19:40
Speaker 1: result in no gain time for your client. I correct
19:44
Speaker 1: one of your calculations of the sentencing guidelines that would
19:47
Speaker 1: have resulted in mister Epstein spending far more time in
19:50
Speaker 1: prison than you projected. Well, isn't that nice? Huh? But
19:54
Speaker 1: the fix wasn't in here, folks, not at all. I
19:56
Speaker 1: contacted BOP to see whether mister Epstein would be eligible
20:00
Speaker 1: for the prison camp that you desired, and I told
20:02
Speaker 1: you my suspicion about the source of the press league
20:05
Speaker 1: and suggested ways to avoid the press. Importantly, I continue
20:09
Speaker 1: to work with you in a professional manner, even after
20:12
Speaker 1: I learned that you had been proceeding in bad faith
20:15
Speaker 1: for several weeks, thinking that I had incorrectly concluded that
20:19
Speaker 1: solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution was a registrable offense,
20:24
Speaker 1: and that you would fool our office into letting mister
20:27
Speaker 1: Epstein plead to a non registrable offense. Even now, when
20:31
Speaker 1: it's clear that neither you nor your client ever intended
20:35
Speaker 1: to abide by the terms of the agreement that he signed,
20:38
Speaker 1: I have never alleged misconduct on your part. The first
20:42
Speaker 1: allegation that you raised is that I hid from you
20:45
Speaker 1: the fact that Bert okere Is is a friend of
20:48
Speaker 1: my boyfriend, and that I have a long standing relationship
20:51
Speaker 1: with mister Okerez. I informed you that I selected mister
20:55
Speaker 1: Okerez because he was a friend and a classmate of
20:57
Speaker 1: two people whom I respected, and that I never met
21:01
Speaker 1: or spoken with mister Okerez prior to contacting him about
21:05
Speaker 1: the case. All of those facts are true. I still
21:08
Speaker 1: have never met mister ocre Is, and at the time
21:12
Speaker 1: that he and I spoke about the case, he did
21:15
Speaker 1: not know about my relationship with his friend. You suggest
21:18
Speaker 1: that I should have explicitly informed you that one of
21:21
Speaker 1: the referrals came from my boyfriend rather than simply a friend,
21:25
Speaker 1: which is the term I used. But it's not my
21:28
Speaker 1: nature to discuss my personal relationships with opposing counsel. Your
21:33
Speaker 1: attacks on me and the victims established why I wanted
21:36
Speaker 1: to find someone whom I could trust with safeguarding the
21:39
Speaker 1: victim's best interest, especially in the face of intense pressure
21:43
Speaker 1: from an unlimited number of highly skilled and well paid attorneys.
21:47
Speaker 1: Mister okere Is was that person. One of your letters
21:50
Speaker 1: suggests a business relationship between mister Okerez and my boyfriend.
21:54
Speaker 1: This is patently untrue, and neither my boyfriend nor I
21:58
Speaker 1: would have received any financial benefit from mister ocre is appointment. Furthermore,
22:04
Speaker 1: after mister Okre Is learned about mister Epstein and his
22:07
Speaker 1: actions as described below, he expressed a willingness to handle
22:10
Speaker 1: the case pro bono, with no financial benefit even to himself. Furthermore,
22:16
Speaker 1: you were given several other options to choose from, including
22:19
Speaker 1: the Podthurst firm, which was later selected by Judge Davis.
22:23
Speaker 1: You rejected those other options. You also allege that I
22:27
Speaker 1: improperly disclosed information about the case to mister ocre Is.
22:31
Speaker 1: I provided mister ocre Is with a bare bone summary
22:34
Speaker 1: of the agreement terms related to his appointment to help
22:37
Speaker 1: him decide whether the case was something he and his
22:40
Speaker 1: firm would be willing to undertake. I didn't provide mister
22:43
Speaker 1: okre Is with the facts related to the investigation because
22:47
Speaker 1: they were confidential, and instead recommended that he googled mister
22:50
Speaker 1: Epstein's name for background information. When mister okre Is asked
22:55
Speaker 1: for additional information to assist his firm in addressing conflicting issues,
23:00
Speaker 1: I forwarded those questions to you, and you raised objections
23:03
Speaker 1: for the first time. I did not share any further
23:07
Speaker 1: information about mister Epstein or the case since mister oakre
23:11
Speaker 1: Is had been told that you concurred in his selection
23:15
Speaker 1: out of professional courtesy. I informed mister ocre Is of
23:17
Speaker 1: the Office's decision to use a special Master to make
23:20
Speaker 1: the selection and told him that the Office had made
23:23
Speaker 1: contact with Judge Davis. We have had no further contact
23:27
Speaker 1: since then, and I have never had contact with Judge Davis.
23:31
Speaker 1: I understand from you that mister okre Is contacted Judge Davis.
23:36
Speaker 1: You criticize his decision to do so, yet you feel
23:39
Speaker 1: that you and your co council were entitled to contact
23:42
Speaker 1: Judge Davis to try to lobby him to select someone
23:45
Speaker 1: to your liking, despite the fact that the non prosecution
23:49
Speaker 1: agreement vested the Office with the exclusive right to select
23:52
Speaker 1: the attorney representative. Another reason for my surprise about your
23:57
Speaker 1: allegations regarding misconduct related to the Section twenty two to
24:01
Speaker 1: fifty five litigation is your earlier desire to have me
24:04
Speaker 1: perform the role a facilitator to convince the victims that
24:08
Speaker 1: the lawyer representative was selected by the office to represent
24:11
Speaker 1: their interests alone, and that the out of court settlement
24:15
Speaker 1: of their claim was in their best interest. You now
24:18
Speaker 1: state that doing the same thing that you asked me
24:21
Speaker 1: to do earlier, as in proper meddling in civil litigation
24:24
Speaker 1: much of your letter reiterates the challenges to Detective Redacted's
24:28
Speaker 1: investigation that have already been submitted to the office on
24:31
Speaker 1: several occasions, and you suggest that I have kept that
24:34
Speaker 1: information from those who were reviewed the proposed indictment package.
24:39
Speaker 1: Contrary to your suggestion, those submissions were attached to and
24:43
Speaker 1: incorporated in the proposed indictment package, So your suggestion that
24:47
Speaker 1: I tried to hide something from the reviewers is false.
24:51
Speaker 1: I also take issue with the duplicity of stating that
24:54
Speaker 1: we must accept as true those parts of the redacted
24:57
Speaker 1: reports and witness statements that you like, and must accept
25:00
Speaker 1: as false those parts that you do not like. You
25:04
Speaker 1: and your co council also impressed upon me from the
25:07
Speaker 1: beginning the need to undertake an independent investigation. It seems
25:11
Speaker 1: inappropriate now to complain because our independent investigation uncovered facts
25:16
Speaker 1: that are unfavorable to your client. You can plain that
25:20
Speaker 1: I forced the client and State Attorney's Office to proceed
25:23
Speaker 1: on charges that they don't believe in. Yet you don't
25:27
Speaker 1: want our office to inform the State Attorney's Office of
25:30
Speaker 1: facts that support the additional charge, nor do you want
25:33
Speaker 1: any of the victims of that charge to contact misredacted
25:36
Speaker 1: or the court Misredacted's opinion may change if she knows
25:40
Speaker 1: the full scope of your client's actions. Also, it has
25:44
Speaker 1: always been my intention to have mister Epstein plead to
25:47
Speaker 1: federal not stay charges. You and I spend several weeks
25:50
Speaker 1: trying to identify and put together a plea to federal
25:54
Speaker 1: charges that your client was willing to accept. Yet your
25:57
Speaker 1: letter now accuses me of manufacturing charges of obstruction of justice,
26:02
Speaker 1: making obscene phone calls, and violating child privacy laws. When
26:06
Speaker 1: mister redacted told you that those charges would embarrass the office,
26:10
Speaker 1: he meant that the office was unwilling to bend the
26:13
Speaker 1: facts to satisfy mister Epstein's desired prison sentence, a statement
26:18
Speaker 1: with which I agree. I hope that you understand how
26:22
Speaker 1: your accusations that I imposed ultimatums and forced you and
26:25
Speaker 1: your client to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square
26:29
Speaker 1: with the true facts of the case. As explained in
26:32
Speaker 1: letters from Messrs Acosta and redacted. The indictment was postponed
26:37
Speaker 1: for more than five months to allow you and mister
26:40
Speaker 1: Epstein's other attorney to make presentations to the office to
26:43
Speaker 1: convince the office not to prosecute. Those presentations were unsuccessful.
26:49
Speaker 1: As you mentioned in your letter, I a simple line AUSA,
26:54
Speaker 1: handled the primary negotiation for the office and conducted those
26:57
Speaker 1: negotiations with you, miss Sanchez, as mister Lewis, and a
27:01
Speaker 1: host of other highly skilled and experienced practitioners. The agreement
27:05
Speaker 1: itself was signed by mister Epstein, Miss Sanchez, and mister Leftcourt,
27:10
Speaker 1: whose experience speaks for itself. You and I spent hours
27:14
Speaker 1: negotiating the terms, including when to use A versus the
27:18
Speaker 1: and other minutia. When you and I cannot reach agreement,
27:22
Speaker 1: you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messers redacted and
27:26
Speaker 1: Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and
27:30
Speaker 1: all plea negotiations, the defendant understands that the opinions and
27:34
Speaker 1: options are to plead or to continue with the investigation
27:38
Speaker 1: and proceed to trial. Those were the same options that
27:41
Speaker 1: were proposed to mister Epstein, and they are not persecution
27:46
Speaker 1: or intimidation tactics. Mister Epstein chose to sign the agreement
27:50
Speaker 1: with the advice of a multitude of extremely noteworthy counsel.
27:55
Speaker 1: You also make much of the fact that the names
27:57
Speaker 1: of the victims were not released to mister Epstein prior
28:00
Speaker 1: to signing the agreement. You never asked for such a term.
28:04
Speaker 1: During an earlier meeting where mister Black was present, he
28:07
Speaker 1: raised a concern that you now voice. Mister Black and
28:10
Speaker 1: I did not have a chance to discuss the issue,
28:13
Speaker 1: but I had already conceived of a way to resolve
28:15
Speaker 1: that issue if it were raised during negotiation. As I stated,
28:20
Speaker 1: it was not leading me to believe that it was
28:22
Speaker 1: not a matter of concern to the defense. Since the
28:25
Speaker 1: signing of the non prosecution agreement, the agents and I
28:29
Speaker 1: have vetted a list of victims more than once. In
28:31
Speaker 1: one instance, we decided to move a name because although
28:36
Speaker 1: the minor victim was touched inappropriately by mister Epstein, we
28:40
Speaker 1: decided that the link to a payment was insufficient to
28:43
Speaker 1: call it prostitution. I have always remained open to a
28:47
Speaker 1: challenge to the list, so your suggestion that mister Epstein
28:50
Speaker 1: was forced to write a blank check is simply unfounded.
28:54
Speaker 1: Your last set of allegations relates to the investigation of
28:57
Speaker 1: the matter. For instance, your claim that some of the
29:00
Speaker 1: victims were informed of their right to collect damages prior
29:03
Speaker 1: to a thorough investigation of their allegations against mister Epstein.
29:07
Speaker 1: This is also false. None of the victims was informed
29:11
Speaker 1: of the right to sue under Section twenty two fifty
29:13
Speaker 1: five prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims
29:17
Speaker 1: were notified shortly after the signing of the non prosecution
29:21
Speaker 1: agreement of the general terms of that agreement. You raised
29:24
Speaker 1: objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were
29:28
Speaker 1: done throughout this process. You have seen that I have
29:31
Speaker 1: prepared this case as though to precede the trial. Notifying
29:35
Speaker 1: the witnesses of the possibility of damages prior to concluding
29:39
Speaker 1: the matter by plea or trial would only undermine my case.
29:43
Speaker 1: If my reassurances are insufficient. The fact that not a
29:47
Speaker 1: single victim has threatened to sue mister Epstein should assure
29:50
Speaker 1: you of the integrity of the investigation. With respect to misredacted,
29:55
Speaker 1: I contacted her attorney, who was paid for by mister Epstein,
29:59
Speaker 1: and he was directed by counsel for mister Epstein to
30:02
Speaker 1: demand immunity and asked only whether he still represented misredacted
30:07
Speaker 1: and if he wanted to send me the victim notification
30:09
Speaker 1: letter to him. He asked what letter would say and
30:13
Speaker 1: I told him that the letter would be forthcoming in
30:15
Speaker 1: about a week and that I would not provide him
30:18
Speaker 1: with the terms with respect to misredacted status as a victim.
30:22
Speaker 1: You again want us to accept as true only the
30:25
Speaker 1: facts that are beneficial to your client, and reject as
30:28
Speaker 1: false anything detrimental to him. Misredacted made a number of
30:32
Speaker 1: statements that are contradicted by documentary evidence, and a review
30:35
Speaker 1: of her recorded statements shows her lack of credibility with
30:39
Speaker 1: respect to a number of statements. Based upon all of
30:42
Speaker 1: the evidence collected, misredacted's classified as a victim as defined
30:47
Speaker 1: by statute. Of course, that does not mean that misredacted
30:50
Speaker 1: considers yourself a victim or that she would seek damages
30:53
Speaker 1: from mister Epstein. I believe that a number of the
30:56
Speaker 1: identified victims will not seek damages, but that does not
31:00
Speaker 1: negate their legal status as victims. I understand you and
31:04
Speaker 1: your co council perceive a strategic advantage to removing me
31:08
Speaker 1: from the case, and that perhaps my willingness to allow
31:11
Speaker 1: others to speak for me embolden your criticisms. I hope
31:15
Speaker 1: that you now understand that your accusations are unfounded and
31:19
Speaker 1: that you can no longer continue unchecked your attack on
31:22
Speaker 1: my credibility of myself and my agents. In the future,
31:26
Speaker 1: I recommend that you address your accusations to me so
31:29
Speaker 1: that I can correct any misunderstandings before you make allegations
31:33
Speaker 1: in the department. Sincerely, it say says are Alexandra Acosta,
31:41
Speaker 1: but then by the signature of who actually sent it,
31:44
Speaker 1: which I think was Marie Villafauna, is redacted. But it
31:48
Speaker 1: shows you the contentious nature here, and it shows you
31:51
Speaker 1: how Epstein's team went above the head of the lawyers
31:54
Speaker 1: down in Florida, and there was never any way on
31:57
Speaker 1: this planet or any other that in office like the
32:01
Speaker 1: one in Florida is going to be able to provide
32:03
Speaker 1: the kind of deal that Epstein ended up getting. You
32:06
Speaker 1: don't make that kind of deal if you're just alex Acosta.
32:10
Speaker 1: And I think that these receipts that were providing gives
32:14
Speaker 1: us a very fascinating insight to how that back and
32:17
Speaker 1: forth went, because I really think it tells a whole
32:20
Speaker 1: lot of the story. So with that said, over the weekend,
32:23
Speaker 1: we're going to continue climbing to the summit of this
32:26
Speaker 1: gigantic mountain of Epstein files. All of the information that
32:31
Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description
32:34
Speaker 1: box Elaine Maxwell and her legal team have tried just
32:39
Speaker 1: about every trick in the book at this point to
32:42
Speaker 1: get their client out of jail. None of it has
32:46
Speaker 1: worked well. Now they have a list of twelve reasons
32:52
Speaker 1: why Glaine Maxwell should have some charges dropped, why the
32:56
Speaker 1: case should be stopped, as why it should be dismissed,
33:00
Speaker 1: How it's not fair to her because of the jerpool,
33:06
Speaker 1: a whole litany of BS nonsense. Now, remember what did
33:13
Speaker 1: I tell you all was going to happen? She was
33:16
Speaker 1: going to try and use technicalities to get off on
33:20
Speaker 1: these charges because she can't run on it. She can't
33:23
Speaker 1: use her innocence as the basis for her defense because
33:26
Speaker 1: guess what, breaking news, She's not innocent. If she was innocent,
33:32
Speaker 1: they'd be going hard in the paint to try and
33:35
Speaker 1: prove that innocence, not looking for technicalities, not looking for loopholes,
33:41
Speaker 1: and certainly not throwing a bunch of shit against the
33:44
Speaker 1: wall such as these twelve arguments. It is ludicrous that
33:50
Speaker 1: this lady and her legal team are able to muck
33:54
Speaker 1: the court system up with all of these moronic and
34:01
Speaker 1: ridiculous reasons, But we knew it was coming. We knew
34:07
Speaker 1: that Gelaane Maxwell wasn't just going to accept her fate meekly,
34:11
Speaker 1: and we knew that she was going to do whatever
34:13
Speaker 1: she possibly could to try and get off on these charges.
34:19
Speaker 1: So it really shouldn't come as a shock to anybody
34:23
Speaker 1: that she has many different wheels in motion, that she
34:27
Speaker 1: is exploring every single option that is available to her,
34:34
Speaker 1: and that her high powered legal team isn't going to
34:38
Speaker 1: try and drag this out for as long as possible.
34:41
Speaker 1: A because that's what they do, and b because the
34:45
Speaker 1: meter is running. Well, you think they're doing this because
34:48
Speaker 1: they're a charitable organization. Her lawyers, Hell no, they're making
34:52
Speaker 1: a bunch of money off of Gilaane Maxwell right now,
34:55
Speaker 1: and they're going to explore every technicality that you could
35:00
Speaker 1: possibly imagine. And that's what we see here with these
35:04
Speaker 1: twelve arguments being made by the bipedal serpent and her
35:09
Speaker 1: legal team, nothing more, nothing less. Now it boomerangs back
35:17
Speaker 1: to is the judge going to continue to do the
35:20
Speaker 1: right thing and stand fast and laugh at Gilaane Maxwell's
35:24
Speaker 1: legal team And they're very very very apparent search for
35:30
Speaker 1: technicalities and loopholes, And again I don't blame her lawyers
35:36
Speaker 1: for that. For the most part, that's the system that's
35:39
Speaker 1: set up by our corrupt ass justice system. So my
35:45
Speaker 1: real beef is with the lawmakers who have put this
35:49
Speaker 1: system in place. But at the same time, it's quite
35:52
Speaker 1: apparent that Gilaine Maxwell's legal team doesn't think that there
35:57
Speaker 1: is a tenable position to defend when it comes to
36:02
Speaker 1: guilty or innocent. Their whole entire defense, it seems, is
36:08
Speaker 1: to search for that technicality and hope beyond hope that
36:11
Speaker 1: something like the non prosecution agreement offers Glaye Maxwell some protection,
36:18
Speaker 1: because short of that, I think they realize that there's
36:21
Speaker 1: going to be no hope for getting her off of
36:24
Speaker 1: these charges. So let's jump into our article from the
36:29
Speaker 1: Daily Mail and see just exactly what they have to
36:34
Speaker 1: say about the situation. Headline from not enough Black and
36:38
Speaker 1: Hispanic jurors to COVID. Gilaine Maxwell makes twelve arguments as
36:43
Speaker 1: to why her case should be stopped as she begs
36:46
Speaker 1: judge to dismiss child sex trafficking charges against her. I mean, really,
36:54
Speaker 1: is this lady for real? Like, did she come out
36:57
Speaker 1: of a different alternate universe and think that her ridiculous,
37:03
Speaker 1: pedantic arguments here are going to work because she's wrong.
37:11
Speaker 1: You want to get the cases dropped. Here's an idea.
37:13
Speaker 1: You should have never been involved with Epstein in the
37:15
Speaker 1: first place. You should have never ever, ever abused these
37:20
Speaker 1: girls like they said you did. All right, why don't
37:24
Speaker 1: you try and defend that instead of trying to get
37:26
Speaker 1: off on technicalities. This article was authored by Sam Baker.
37:36
Speaker 1: Elane Maxwell has asked to judge to dismiss her case
37:38
Speaker 1: ahead of her trial on charges she recruited teenage girls
37:42
Speaker 1: in the nineties for Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse. Among
37:47
Speaker 1: the arguments filed by lawyers on behalf of Maxwell fifty
37:50
Speaker 1: nine was a claim that the indictment should be thrown
37:53
Speaker 1: out because it was obtained from a grand jury seated
37:56
Speaker 1: outside New York City in white plains, where the said
38:00
Speaker 1: black and Hispanic grandeurs would be underrepresented. Wow. Really reaching
38:05
Speaker 1: down there, really reaching deep? Huh. If Elaine Maxwell thinks
38:11
Speaker 1: that she's going to find allies in the black or
38:14
Speaker 1: Hispanic community, she is sorely mistaken. We're talking about two
38:19
Speaker 1: groups that are not what you would call friends to
38:24
Speaker 1: people like Elaine Maxwell. Chomo's child molesters. That is an
38:28
Speaker 1: unacceptable thing to be no matter what. And furthermore, to
38:33
Speaker 1: talk about oh, because it's in White Plains, it will
38:35
Speaker 1: be underrepresented. That's a bunch of horseshit too. Where I'm
38:39
Speaker 1: from South Yonkers, which is right below White Plains, it
38:44
Speaker 1: is a very diverse place, okay, right on the border
38:47
Speaker 1: of the South Bronx, and there is a very diverse
38:53
Speaker 1: jurapool to be selected from. So right off the bat,
38:57
Speaker 1: we can just slap that one down with a cudgel
38:59
Speaker 1: writer cross the head. The fact that Gilaine Maxwell, the
39:04
Speaker 1: epitome of white privilege, the epitome of having everything handed
39:10
Speaker 1: to you, would have the audacity to try and act
39:14
Speaker 1: like she is going to not get a fair shake
39:18
Speaker 1: because of the jerrypool and white planes. Newsflash, Gilaine, you're
39:23
Speaker 1: gonna get a bunch of your Westchester friends probably on
39:25
Speaker 1: that jury pool. You should be ecstatic about this. Again,
39:31
Speaker 1: it's just throwing more shit at the wall for these people.
39:35
Speaker 1: Gilaine Maxwell's lawyers, they understand, they're not dumb people. They
39:38
Speaker 1: understand that they don't have a case here. They can't
39:41
Speaker 1: defend this lady. So let's latch onto anything that we
39:46
Speaker 1: can as we fall down from the top of this tree,
39:49
Speaker 1: We'll grab onto any branch, even if it has thorns,
39:52
Speaker 1: anything to keep us from crashing into the forest floor.
39:58
Speaker 1: And this next one cracks me up right back to
40:00
Speaker 1: the COVID Huh they said the coronavirus outbreak was used
40:04
Speaker 1: as an excuse to see the Grand Jerry outside of
40:07
Speaker 1: New York City when the pandemic was killing thousands of
40:11
Speaker 1: city residents. Well, an excuse. I thought it was this
40:15
Speaker 1: big problem, a big pandemic, and a bunch of people
40:17
Speaker 1: were dying from it. What do you mean an excuse?
40:20
Speaker 1: So people dying is not a good enough reason for
40:23
Speaker 1: Guilayne Maxwell and her Maniac legal team. Sorry, but guess what.
40:29
Speaker 1: That's what happens all right. It's still in the state
40:31
Speaker 1: of New York and for them to try and act
40:35
Speaker 1: like there's no diversity in Westchester County is laughable at best.
40:40
Speaker 1: I'm from Westchester County. Now, don't get me wrong. There
40:43
Speaker 1: are some very very affluent areas of Westchester County, no
40:47
Speaker 1: doubt about. It's Scarsdale, Irvington, plenty of places where there
40:52
Speaker 1: are people with money. But let's not act like Westchester
40:59
Speaker 1: is just some ritzy, yutsy plays. Yonkers is a pretty
41:04
Speaker 1: rough and pumble spot, folks. Okay, certainly never going to
41:08
Speaker 1: be considered an upper class suburb of New York City,
41:12
Speaker 1: I can promise you that much. So the coronavirus stuff
41:16
Speaker 1: is just ridiculous. I'm so tired of people trying to
41:21
Speaker 1: use the pandemic as a way to get their way,
41:28
Speaker 1: to make their argument, or to use it as a
41:33
Speaker 1: way to try and get out of jail, or It's
41:36
Speaker 1: just so ridiculous. Helen Maxwell is just as safe in
41:43
Speaker 1: her lodgings in jail as she would be anywhere else
41:46
Speaker 1: when it comes to the pandemic. In a footnote, they wrote,
41:51
Speaker 1: the fact that miss Maxwell herself is neither black nor
41:54
Speaker 1: hispanic does not deprive her of standing to raise this challenge.
41:59
Speaker 1: I agree with that, right, I'm not gonna I would
42:02
Speaker 1: never say that somebody can't make a challenge to the
42:05
Speaker 1: court or to try and get a different jury pool.
42:08
Speaker 1: That's well within your rights and go for it. But
42:11
Speaker 1: for them to try and paint it like Westchester is
42:14
Speaker 1: like this super affluent area, like it's Beverly Hills is
42:18
Speaker 1: a joke, Okay, an absolute joke. Not true nowhere based
42:24
Speaker 1: in fact, and I can tell you right now that
42:27
Speaker 1: there are places in Yonkers that are so poor it
42:33
Speaker 1: would make your head spin. Folks, So I don't know
42:36
Speaker 1: what they're talking about. How the jury pool would be
42:40
Speaker 1: tainted up in Westchester, give me a break. In fact,
42:44
Speaker 1: I think that no matter where you go in the
42:49
Speaker 1: vicinity of New York City, you're going to have a
42:52
Speaker 1: bunch of rich folk, a bunch of people with money,
42:55
Speaker 1: because guess what, to live in New York City, you
42:57
Speaker 1: have to be rich and in the in the this
43:04
Speaker 1: article is the actual letter from Cohen and Gressor, and
43:09
Speaker 1: the letter reads, Dear Judge Nathan on behalf of our client,
43:13
Speaker 1: Gillane Maxwell, we will be file file of filing the
43:17
Speaker 1: following pre trial motions with accompanying exhibits. One motion to
43:21
Speaker 1: dismiss the superseding indictment for breach of the non prosecution Agreement.
43:26
Speaker 1: Two motion to Dismisscounts one through four and the superseding
43:30
Speaker 1: indictment as time barred. Three motion under the due process
43:34
Speaker 1: clause to suppress all evidence obtained from the government subpoena
43:38
Speaker 1: two redacted, and to dismisscounts five and six. Four motion
43:43
Speaker 1: to dismisscounts five and six of the superseding indictment because
43:46
Speaker 1: the alleged misstatements are not perjurious as a matter of law.
43:51
Speaker 1: Five motion of a for a severance of the separate
43:54
Speaker 1: trial on counts five and six of the superseding indictment.
43:58
Speaker 1: Six motion like from the superseding indictment. Seven motion to
44:05
Speaker 1: dismiss Counts one through six of the superseding indictment for
44:08
Speaker 1: pre indictment delay. Eight motion to dismiss either count one
44:13
Speaker 1: or count three of the superseding indictment as multiplicitus. Nine
44:19
Speaker 1: motion to dismiss the superseding indictment as it was obtained
44:22
Speaker 1: in violation of the sixth Amendment. Ten motion for a
44:26
Speaker 1: bill of particulars and pre trial disclosures. Eleven motion under
44:30
Speaker 1: the Fourth Amendment Martindale and the Fifth Amendment to suppress
44:34
Speaker 1: all evidence obtained from the government Subpoena two redacted, and
44:38
Speaker 1: to dismiss counts five and six. Twelve motion to dismiss
44:43
Speaker 1: counts one through four of the superseding indictment for lack
44:47
Speaker 1: of specificity. So that is the basis for their argument, right.
44:53
Speaker 1: Those are the twelve bullet points outlined by the defense,
45:00
Speaker 1: and if you notice none of them say, well, our
45:02
Speaker 1: client is innocent. It is all technicalities and all loopholes. Folks.
45:07
Speaker 1: This is what I warned you was coming, didn't I.
45:09
Speaker 1: And again, I'm certainly no legal expert or you know,
45:13
Speaker 1: an Adam Klassfeld or anything like that. But the writing
45:16
Speaker 1: was on the wall for what they were going to do.
45:18
Speaker 1: And I've seen mafioso try and do this before. I've
45:21
Speaker 1: seen don's try and use this same kind of defense,
45:25
Speaker 1: and it's just it just doesn't work. It didn't work then,
45:28
Speaker 1: and I highly doubt it's going to work now. Lawyers
45:33
Speaker 1: also said the indictment against their client was obtained unjustly
45:37
Speaker 1: and does not allege crime specific enough to bring before
45:40
Speaker 1: a jury. Well, we'll see about that, won't we. Let's
45:43
Speaker 1: get it in front of the jury, and then let's
45:45
Speaker 1: see what the jerry has to say, shall we? Because
45:49
Speaker 1: from where I'm sitting, oh, there's a lot. Okay, not
45:53
Speaker 1: just enough to bring to a jury, but enough to
45:56
Speaker 1: get your client convicted and sent to the clink for
45:59
Speaker 1: the rest of us life. Among the twelve separate arguments
46:04
Speaker 1: attacking the indictment, one of the first claims is that
46:07
Speaker 1: a non prosecution deal Epstein reached with the federal government
46:10
Speaker 1: a dozen years ago should shield Maxwell from prosecution. Two
46:14
Speaker 1: and there it is rearing its ugly head. And this
46:18
Speaker 1: has falls squarely on the shoulders of the United States
46:21
Speaker 1: government and the Department of Justice. The Democrats now control
46:27
Speaker 1: all three branches. You wanted the power, What are you
46:30
Speaker 1: going to do with it? Are you going to continue
46:32
Speaker 1: to let these people get off or are you finally
46:36
Speaker 1: going to put your foot down as the government and
46:41
Speaker 1: fix this. There's no one else to blame now, there's
46:45
Speaker 1: no more boogeyman, none of that. It is up to
46:51
Speaker 1: the current administration to make this happen. It is up
46:56
Speaker 1: to the current administration to make sure or that deals
47:00
Speaker 1: like this never happen again. And it certainly is up
47:06
Speaker 1: to the Eleventh Circuit Court to make this right. They
47:09
Speaker 1: are the ones who hold all the power right now.
47:11
Speaker 1: They can make this non prosecution agreement go away and
47:15
Speaker 1: really open the floodgates. And if there's any justice left
47:20
Speaker 1: in this country, that's what's going to happen. If not, folks,
47:25
Speaker 1: if the Eleventh Circuit keeps this non prosecution agreement in place,
47:31
Speaker 1: it's just another shot to the gut just another example
47:36
Speaker 1: of how the system is absolutely corrupt and how it
47:39
Speaker 1: needs to be completely and utterly shattered and rebuilt. This
47:44
Speaker 1: is their last chance. If they can't do the right
47:48
Speaker 1: thing here and strike down this non prosecution agreement, then
47:55
Speaker 1: I think it is certainly, certainly a sign that the
48:02
Speaker 1: decay can no longer be hidden. So I really hope
48:07
Speaker 1: the eleventh does the right thing. They said, the fact
48:12
Speaker 1: that a Manhattan grand jerry convened as early as June
48:14
Speaker 1: twenty fifth showed there was no reason for prosecution not
48:18
Speaker 1: to wait other than a publicity driven desire to arrest
48:21
Speaker 1: miss Maxwell on the anniversary of the Epstein indictment. No,
48:26
Speaker 1: they're probably trying to send a message, Okay, the publicity.
48:30
Speaker 1: You driven give me a break. If that was the case,
48:32
Speaker 1: don't you think that they would have been going after
48:34
Speaker 1: Maxwell for years. People have been screaming from the mountaintops
48:40
Speaker 1: about this case for years. Not many people, but a
48:43
Speaker 1: lot of people have, and that had no bearing on
48:47
Speaker 1: the case. Here's the deal. Your client got nailed, and
48:52
Speaker 1: now you're scrabbling and clawing for anything you can grab
48:56
Speaker 1: a hold of to try and deflect blame, to try
49:01
Speaker 1: and deflect attention. Oh, it's these technicalities. Maxwell. She should
49:06
Speaker 1: get off because of these technicalities. Oh, Maxwell didn't do
49:11
Speaker 1: any of this, You're blaming her for Epstein's sins. Meanwhile,
49:14
Speaker 1: there are scores and scores of girls who are pointing
49:17
Speaker 1: the finger directly at Gilaine Maxwell. How about you guys
49:20
Speaker 1: try and refute some of that. Huh, No, wonder you
49:24
Speaker 1: don't want to get wanted to go to trial. Maxwell's
49:29
Speaker 1: lawyers also asked that she'd be tried separately on charges
49:32
Speaker 1: that she committed perjury when she testified in a civil
49:35
Speaker 1: case brought by one of Epstein's accusers. They said prosecutors
49:40
Speaker 1: were using those charges improperly as a way to introduce
49:44
Speaker 1: evidence from after the nineteen nineties. Again, technicalities, not that
49:50
Speaker 1: the allegations are incorrect or wrong or that didn't happen,
49:54
Speaker 1: but they're too old. You can't use those. Meanwhile, the
49:59
Speaker 1: prosecution is well prepared to deal with this. In my opinion,
50:03
Speaker 1: I think Alison Moe is very, very smart and very shrewd,
50:09
Speaker 1: and I think that she will have a proper game
50:11
Speaker 1: plan to answer each one of these ridiculous, nonsensical bullet
50:17
Speaker 1: points thrown into the mix by Gilain Maxwell and her lawyers,
50:23
Speaker 1: so they can try, right, they can try, but I
50:28
Speaker 1: don't The agreement Epstein reached with a federal government that
50:31
Speaker 1: forms one of Maxwell's arguments sought to protect Epstein and
50:35
Speaker 1: those around him. But Maxwell herself was not identified by
50:39
Speaker 1: name in the document, so that could prove to be
50:43
Speaker 1: a rub for her as well if she tries to
50:44
Speaker 1: use this argument. Her name isn't mentioned in here, and
50:48
Speaker 1: now I know it says all unnamed co conspirators as well.
50:52
Speaker 1: But I think that there is a pathway for a
50:55
Speaker 1: legal fight there. There is always a pathway for illegal
51:00
Speaker 1: fight in the United States, and I think the verbiage
51:03
Speaker 1: of that agreement can be attacked. So we will see it.
51:07
Speaker 1: All hinges on what the Eleventh Circuit decides to do.
51:10
Speaker 1: If the Eleventh Circuit withholds it, I mean upholds it,
51:13
Speaker 1: then have to move to the next level. But if
51:16
Speaker 1: they chop it down, then all of its moot and
51:19
Speaker 1: we really get to see things kicked into motion. The
51:25
Speaker 1: document had been signed by Epstein when he agreed to
51:27
Speaker 1: plead guilty to state charges in Florida that forced him
51:30
Speaker 1: to register as a sex offender afterwards, not in New Mexico.
51:34
Speaker 1: Though Let's remember he did not have to register as
51:37
Speaker 1: a sex offender in New Mexico. Lawyers for Epstein had
51:42
Speaker 1: planned to argue the deal with federal prosecutors in Florida
51:45
Speaker 1: in two thousand and eight protected him against sex trafficking
51:48
Speaker 1: charges lodged against him in July twenty nineteen in New
51:52
Speaker 1: York City. That wouldn't have worked either. That argument would
51:55
Speaker 1: have been shot dead shot to pieces. It was a
51:58
Speaker 1: whole different case with a bunch of different charges, same
52:01
Speaker 1: as Maxwell. Manhattan federal prosecutors maintained they could proceed against
52:07
Speaker 1: Epstein or those who worked for him regardless. Yeah, and
52:12
Speaker 1: that's the same presence precedent that's being used here. The
52:17
Speaker 1: non prosecution agreement isn't an all around get out of
52:20
Speaker 1: jail freep card. It's just for the specific crimes that
52:24
Speaker 1: were committed during that period, So any other crimes that
52:28
Speaker 1: were committed after or before the crimes that were protected
52:33
Speaker 1: in the agreement are still fair game. Epstein killed himself
52:39
Speaker 1: out of Manhattan Federal prison a month after his arrest. Allegedly,
52:43
Speaker 1: Maxwell was arrested last July and has remained jailed on
52:47
Speaker 1: ground she might flee. She has pleaded not guilty the
52:50
Speaker 1: charges that she recruited three teenage girls, including a fourteen
52:54
Speaker 1: year old, for Epstein to sexually abuse between nineteen ninety
52:58
Speaker 1: four to nineteen ninety Federal prosecutors declined to comment and
53:04
Speaker 1: will file arguments and response in a few weeks ahead
53:06
Speaker 1: of a scheduled trial in July. In a recent bail application,
53:11
Speaker 1: Maxwell revealed she had set aside seven points sixty seven
53:14
Speaker 1: million to be spent on lawyers out of twenty two
53:17
Speaker 1: and a half million in assets belonging to herself and
53:21
Speaker 1: her husband. Oh a whole seven point sixty seven million. Huh?
53:24
Speaker 1: Just you know, a couple bucks set to the side,
53:26
Speaker 1: a little pocket change, some coins found in your cousin
53:31
Speaker 1: from Boston's couch. Isn't that nice? These people are living
53:38
Speaker 1: in an alternate reality, folks, not the same place that
53:41
Speaker 1: you and I reside, that's for sure. In the event
53:45
Speaker 1: Maxwell's lawyers cannot force a dismissal of the charges against her,
53:49
Speaker 1: they also made requests that would reduce the number of
53:52
Speaker 1: charges she faces. Again, it is not about her guilt
53:57
Speaker 1: or innocence, folks, And that's exactly what this shows you.
54:00
Speaker 1: This just puts into writing what I've been saying now
54:05
Speaker 1: for months. It's not about guilt or innocence when it
54:08
Speaker 1: comes to people like Gilay Maxwell. It's about technicalities, loopholes,
54:13
Speaker 1: and having the most high profile lawyers as possible to
54:17
Speaker 1: navigate those loopholes behind the scenes. And that's what's being
54:20
Speaker 1: attempted here, and that's what's always happened when it comes
54:23
Speaker 1: to Jeffrey Epstein and his cohorts. But guess what, it's
54:28
Speaker 1: not going to work this time. They're gonna need a
54:30
Speaker 1: new strategy and I don't think they have one, because
54:35
Speaker 1: it certainly doesn't seem like they are attempting to argue
54:39
Speaker 1: guilt or innocence. What they're relying on is simple technicalities,
54:47
Speaker 1: and folks, I don't think it's gonna work this time.
54:51
Speaker 1: If you'd like to contact me, you can do that
54:53
Speaker 1: at Bobby Kapucci at protonmel dot com. That's BO B
54:57
Speaker 1: B Y c ap u Cci at ProtonMail dot com.
55:02
Speaker 1: You can also find me on Twitter at b O
55:04
Speaker 1: B B Y Underscore c A p U C c I.
55:09
Speaker 1: All of the links that go with this episode can
55:12
Speaker 1: be found in the description box