Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Mega Edition: Brad Edwards And The Affidavit (Part 1-4) (10/16/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Brad Edwards And The Affidavit (Part 1-4) (10/16/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 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 continue taking
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: a look at some more court documents in regard to
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: the CVRA and the non-prosecution agreement and this time we're
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: taking a look at the affidavit of Bradley Edwards regarding
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: need for the production of documents. Case number 908-CV-80736-KAM Jane
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 vs. the United States of America.
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: The Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards. I, Bradley J. Edwards,
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: do hereby declare that I'm a member, in good standing,
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: of the Bar of the State of Florida. Along with co-counsel,
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: I represent Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2,
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: as referred to as victims, in the above-listed action to
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: enforce their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. I
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: also represented them and several other victims in civil suits
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am also
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: familiar with the criminal justice system, having served as a
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: state prosecutor in the Broward County State Attorney's Office. The
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: affidavit covers factual issues regarding the government's assertions of privilege
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: to more than 13,000 pages of documents it has produced
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: for in-camera inspection in the case. This affidavit provides factual
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: information demonstrating that the government's assertions of privilege are not well-founded.
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: It further demonstrates that the victims have a compelling and
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: substantial need for the information requested and have no other
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: way of obtaining that information. Background regarding unsuccessful efforts to
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: reach stipulated facts with the government. On July 7, 2008,
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: I filed a petition to enforce the CVRA rights of
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 with regard to
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: sex offenses committed against them by Jeffrey Epstein, while they
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: were minors. The course of the proceedings since then is
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: well known to the court. For purposes of this affidavit
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: regarding privileges, it's enough to briefly recount the efforts of
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: the victims to reach a stipulated set of facts with
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: the government, efforts that the government has blocked. The court
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: first held a hearing on victims' petition on July 11, 2008.
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: The court discussed a need to have a complete record,
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: and this is going to be an issue that's going
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: to go to the 11th Circuit, so it may be
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: better to have a complete record as to what your
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: position is and the government's is to what actions were taken.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: The court concluded that the hearing with the following instructions.
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: So I'll let both of you confer about whether there
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: is a need for any additional evidence to be presented.
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: And that was the transcript we did previously, so this
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: is building on that. The victims and the U.S. Attorney's
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: Office then attempted to reach a stipulated set of facts
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: underlying the case. The U.S. Attorney's Office offered a very
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: abbreviated set of proposed facts, and the victims responded with
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: a detailed set of proposed facts. Rather than respond to
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: the victims' specific facts, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office suddenly
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: reversed course. On July 29, 2008, it filed a notice
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: to court regarding absence of need for evidentiary hearing. The U.S.
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office took the following position. After consideration, the government
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: believes that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary. The office
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: asserted that the court need only take judicial notice of
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: the fact that no indictment had been filed against Epstein
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: to resolve the case. On August 1, 2008, the victims
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: filed a response to the government's notice given a proposed
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: statement of facts surrounding the case. The victim's response also
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: requested that the court direct the government to confer with
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: the victims regarding the undisputed facts of the case and
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: produce the non-prosecution agreement and other information about the case.
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: On August 14, 2008, the court held a hearing on
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: the case regarding the confidentiality of the non-prosecution agreement. The
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: court ultimately ordered production of the agreement to the victims.
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: After the US Attorney's Office made the non-prosecution agreement available
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: to the victims, the victims reviewed it and pursued further
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: discussion with the US Attorney's Office. Ultimately, however, the US
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office declined to reach a stipulated set of facts
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: with the victims and declined to provide further information about
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: the case. With negotiations at an impasse, the victims attempted
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: to learn the facts of the case in other ways.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: In approximately May of 2009, counsel for the victims propounded
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: discovery requests in both states and federal civil cases against Epstein,
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: seeking to obtain correspondence between Epstein and prosecutors regarding his
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: plea agreement. Information that the U.S. Attorney's Office was unwilling
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: to provide to the victims and information that was highly
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: relevant both to the victim's civil suit and their CVRA
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: enforcement action. Epstein refused to produce the information and, as
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: the court is aware, extended litigation to obtain the materials followed.
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: The court rejected all of Epstein's objections to producing the materials.
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: On June 30, 2010, counsel for Epstein sent to Counsel
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: for Victims approximately 358 pages of email correspondence between Criminal
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: Defense Counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the plea
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: agreement that had been negotiated between them. These emails began
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: to disclose for the first time the extreme steps that
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: had been taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office to avoid
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: prosecuting Epstein and to avoid having the victims in the
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: case learn about the non-prosecution agreement that had been reached
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: between Epstein and the government. While the court ordered that
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: all of the correspondence be turned over to the victims,
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: Epstein chose to disobey that order and instead only produce
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: the correspondence authored by the government and redacted all correspondence
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: authored by him or his attorneys. In mid-July 2010, Jane
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 settled their civil lawsuits
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: against Epstein. Then, armed with new information, they turned to
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: moving forward in the CVRA case. On September 13, 2010,
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: the victims informed the court that they were preparing new
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: filings in the case. On October 12, 2010, the court
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: entered an order directing the victims to provide a status
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: report on the case by October 27, 2010. That same day,
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: counsel for the victims again contacted the U.S. Attorney's Office
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: about the possibility of reaching a stipulated set of facts
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: in the case. That same day, the U.S. Attorney's Office responded,
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: We don't have any problem with agreeing that a factual
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: assertion is correct. If we agree, that is what occurred.
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: On October 23, 2010, the victims emailed to the U.S.
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office a detailed proposal statement of facts that many
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: of the facts now documented by the correspondents between the U.S.
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office and Epstein's counsel. The victims requested that the U.S.
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office identify which facts it would agree to. In
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office, the victims stated,
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: If you believe that any of the facts they proposed
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: are incorrect, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 would
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: reiterate their long-standing request that you work with us to
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: arrive at a mutually agreed statement of facts. As you know,
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: in the summer of 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: Doe 2 were working with you on a stipulation of
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: facts when you reversed course and took the position that
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: no recitation of the facts was necessary. I hope that
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: your email means that you will at least look at
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: our facts and propose any modifications that you deem appropriate.
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: Having that evidence quickly available to the court would help
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: move the case to a conclusion. That same day, the U.S.
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office agreed to forward the proposed statement of facts
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: to the appropriate Assistant U.S. Attorney for review. On October 26, 2010,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: Rather than stipulate to undisputed facts, the U.S. Attorney's Office
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: contacted the victims' attorneys and asked them to delay the
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: filing of their motion for a two-week period of time
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: so that negotiations could be held between the office and
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: the victims in an attempt to narrow the range of
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: disputes in the case and hopefully reach a settlement resolution
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: without the need for further litigation. Negotiation between the victims
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: and the U.S. Attorney's Office then followed over the next
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: two days. However... At 6.11pm on October 27th, 2010, the
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: date on which the victim's pleading was due, the U.S.
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office informed the victims that it did not believe
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: that it had time to review the victim's proposed statement
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: of the facts and advise which were accurate and which
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: were inaccurate. The office further advised the victims that it
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: believed that the victims did not have a right to
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: confer with their office under the CVRA in this case
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: because in its view, The case is civil litigation rather
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: than criminal litigation. As a result, purely as an accommodation
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: to the U.S. Attorney's Office, on October 27, 2010, the
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: victims filed a report with the court in which they
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: agreed to delay filing their motion and accompanying facts for
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: up to two weeks to see if negotiations can resolve
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: or narrow the disputes with the U.S. Attorney's Office. Discussions
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: with the U.S. Attorney's Office dragged on, including a personal
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: meeting between Jang Do-won and the U.S. Attorney in December
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: of 2010. After further discussion failed to produce any agreement
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: or other visible progress, the victims informed the U.S. Attorney's
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: Office that they would file their summary judgment motion with
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: the court on March 18, 2011, and requested further cooperation
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: from the office on the facts. Ultimately, after months of discussion,
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: the U.S. Attorney's Office informed counsel for the victims that
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: contrary to promises made earlier to stipulate to Undisputed Fact,
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: no such stipulation would be forthcoming. Instead, on March 15, 2011,
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida,
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: Wilfredo A. Ferra, sent a letter to the victims declining
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: to reach any agreement on the facts because as a
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: matter of law, the CVRA is inapplicable to this matter.
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: in which no federal criminal charges were ever filed. Your
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: request for the government's agreement on a set of proposed
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: stipulated facts is unnecessary and premature. That is because whether
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: the rights in 18 U.S. Code Section 3771A attached prior
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: to the filing of a charge in federal court is
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: a matter of statutory interpretation. Resolution of that question is
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: not dependent upon the existence of any certain set of
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: facts other than whether a charging document was ever filed
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: Southern District of Florida. And while this office remains willing
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: to cooperate, cooperation does not mean agreeing to facts that
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: are not relevant to the resolution of the legal dispute
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: at issue. Letter from Wilfredo A. Ferrer to Paul G.
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: Cassell Accordingly unable to work with the government to reach
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: a resolution of the facts on March 21, 2011, the
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: victims filed a motion for summary judgment alleging 53 undisputed facts,
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: along with some evidentiary support for each of the facts.
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: The victims also filed a motion to have their facts
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: accepted because of the government's failure to contest their facts.
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: The victims also filed a motion to have the court
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: direct the government not to withhold relevant evidence. Following a
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: hearing on the motions on September 26, 2011, the court
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: rejected the government's argument that the CBRA was inapplicable in
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: the case because the government had never filed charges against Epstein.
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: The court, however, rejected the victim's argument that it should
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: accept their facts because of the government's failure to contest
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: the facts. Instead, the court directed that discovery could proceed
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: in the form of requests for admissions and document production requests.
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: The court reserved ruling on the victim's motion that the
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: government should be directed not to withhold evidence. Alright folks,
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here. And in the
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off.
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up everyone and
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode,
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up where we left off with
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: the Brad Edwards affidavit in regards to CVRA and documents
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: not being produced by the government. In light of the
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: court's order on October 3rd, 2011, the victims filed a
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: request for production with the government. The request included 25
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: specific requests, each of which linked very directly to the
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: facts that the victims were attempting to prove in the case.
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: On November 7, 2011, the day when the government's responses
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: were due, rather than produce even a single page of discovery,
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: the government filed a motion to dismiss the victims' petitions.
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: On that same day, the government filed a motion to
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: stay discovery. The victims filed a response, arguing that the
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: government's motion was a stall tactic The victims also filed
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: a motion to compel production of all their discovery requests.
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: The government filed a reply, arguing that it was not stalling. Indeed,
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: the government told the court that the United States has
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: agreed to provide some information to the victims even during
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: the pendency of the stay of discovery and is undertaking
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: a search for that information. Contrary to that representation, however,
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: Over the next 17 months, the government did not produce
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: any information to the victims, despite the victims reminding the
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: government of that statement made to the court. Ultimately, after
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: some additional motions and rulings, on June 19, 2013, the
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: court denied the government's motion to dismiss and lifted any
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: stay of discovery. That same day, the court entered an
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: order granting the victim's motion to compel and directing the
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: government to produce all correspondence between it and Epstein. all
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: the communications between the government and outside entities, and every
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: other document requested by the victims. With respect to the
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: third item, the court allowed the government to assert privilege
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: by producing the items in question for in-camera inspection and
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: filing a contemporaneous privilege log. The court required that the
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: privilege log must clearly identify each document by the author, address, recipient, date,
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: and general subject matter. On July 19th and July 27th, 2013,
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: the government made its production. With regard to item number one,
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: correspondence with Epstein, the government withheld the correspondence pending the
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: ruling from the 11th Circuit on Epstein's motion to stay
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: production of these materials. With regard to the other items,
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: the government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the court
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: for in-camera inspection, but turned over only 1,357 pages to
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: the victims. Thus, the government asserted privilege to more than
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: 90% of the documents in question. The documents that the
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: government produced were almost worthless to the victims, as they
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: included such things as the victims' own letters to the government,
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: court pleadings filed by the victims themselves or other victims,
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: by Epstein or by news media organizations, public court rulings
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: on Epstein-related matters, public newspaper articles, and similar materials already
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: available to the victims. It also included roughly 400 pages
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: of notices sent to the various other victims in the case,
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: notices that were substantively indistinguishable from the notices the victims
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: themselves in this case had already received. Almost without exception,
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: the documents the government produced do not go to the
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: disputed issues in the case. The government made one last
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: production of material in the case on August 6, 2013.
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: This involved roughly 1,500 pages of documents that were largely
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: meaningless in the context of the contested issues in the case.
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: They included public documents in the case such as the
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: crime victim's own pleadings, copy of the victim's redacted summary
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: judgment motion. Curiously, while the government has produced these documents
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: that would likely fall into a relevant category of documents,
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: they have simultaneously refused production of hundreds of other documents
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: that are responsive to our requests on the basis of relevance.
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: The victims have tried to obtain information on all relevant
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: subjects through requests for admission. The government, however, has refused
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: to admit many of the victim's central allegations in the case.
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: A copy of the victim's request for admissions and the
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: government's response is attached to this affidavit so the court
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: can see that the victims have diligently tried to pursue
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: this avenue for developing the facts in the case. The
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: victim's have also tried to obtain information on subjects related
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: to their suit by voluntary requests for interview with persons
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: who are no longer employed by the Justice Department. For example,
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: I've sent letters to both Bruce Reinhart and Alex Acosta,
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: who both have information about the Epstein case, requesting an
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: opportunity to discuss the case with them. Both of them
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: have ignored my letters. The Need for Materials Requested by
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: the Victims The documents that the victims requested that the
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: government produced to them on October 3, 2011, are all
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: highly relevant to their CVRA enforcement action. We would not
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: have requested them otherwise. The victims also have no other
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: means of obtaining the requested material. This section of the
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: affidavit explains why the materials are needed by the victims.
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: For the convenience of the court, the affidavit will proceed
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: on a section-by-section basis concerning the need for material. Also,
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: for the convenience of the court, A copy of the
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: October 3, 2011 request for production is attached to the affidavit.
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: Also attached is the victim's supplemental discovery request of June 24, 2013.
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: As the court will note from reviewing the request for production,
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: most of the requests specifically recount the allegations that the
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: requested documents would support. In an effort to eliminate any
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: dispute from the government that the documents were not relevant
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: to the case. Many of the requests for production link
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: directly to specific paragraphs in the victim's previously filed summary
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: judgment motion. Accordingly, the victims have a very specific need
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: for these documents to support the allegations in the summary
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: judgment motion found at DE 48 at 323. The court
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: has previously concluded that the victim's proof of their claims is,
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: at this point, in the case inadequate. Instead, the court
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: has ruled whether the evidentiary proofs will entitle the victims
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: to that relief of setting aside the non-prosecution agreement is
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: a question properly reserved for the determination upon a fully
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: developed evidentiary record. The court has further indicated that it'll
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: be considering estoppel argument raised by the government as a
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: defense in the case. The court has noted that this
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: argument implicates a fact-sensitive equitable defense, which must be considered
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: in the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein,
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: the relevant prosecutorial authorities, and the federal offense victims, including
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: dark on the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and the
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: the non-prosecution agreement to them. The victims have a compelling
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: need for information about the government's action to show what
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: the entire interface was and to respond to the government's
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: estoppel arguments as well as other defenses that it appears
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: to be preparing to raise. Request for production, number one request,
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: Information regarding the Epstein investigation. These documents are needed to
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: support the victim's allegation that the government had a viable
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: criminal case for many federal sex offenses that it could
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: have pursued against Epstein. RFP number two requests information regarding
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: crime victim notification in the case. These documents are needed
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: to support victim's allegations that their rights under CVRA, their
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: right to notice and to confer with the government were
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: violated in the case. In particular, these documents are needed
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: to demonstrate that the victims were not properly notified about
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: the non-prosecution agreement entered into by the government and Jeffrey
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: Epstein and that the government did not confer with the
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: victims about the agreement. RFP number three requests information about
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: the NPA, including in particular its confidentiality provision. These documents
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: are needed to demonstrate that the confidentiality Provision precluded disclosing
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: the agreement to Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2,
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: as well as to other victims. These documents are further
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: needed to demonstrate that Jeffrey Epstein specifically orchestrated the secrecy
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: of the agreement, thereby deliberately causing the government's CVRA violation
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: in the case. RFP No. 4 Request documents relating to
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: negotiation between the government and Jeffrey Epstein concerning the court.
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: and or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: guilty plea, including, in particular, any negotiation concerning concluding the
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: plea in Miami or other location outside of West Palm Beach.
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: These documents are relevant to the victim's allegations that the
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: government was interested in finding a place to conclude any
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: plea agreement that would effectively keep Epstein's victims, most of
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: whom resided in or about Palm Beach, from learning what
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: was happening through the press. RFP number five requests documents
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: pertaining to negotiation between the government and Jeffrey Epstein regarding
• 22:08
  Speaker 1: any legal representation of the victims in civil cases by Epstein.
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: These documents are needed to prove the victim's allegation that
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: part of the plea negotiation with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: to make sure that victims would be represented in civil
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: cases against Epstein by someone who was not experienced personal
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: injury lawyer or by someone familiar to Epstein and his
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: legal team. RFP No. 6 requests documents concerning the government
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: and or Epstein's awareness of discussions of possible public criticism
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: and of victim objections to the non-prosecution agreement that they negotiated.
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: The documents are needed to prove the victim's allegation that
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: the government... wanted the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: public view because of the intense public criticism that would
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: have resulted had the agreement been disclosed and or the
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: possibility that victims would have objected in court and convinced
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: the judge not to accept the agreement. They are also
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: relevant to bias and motive by the authors or subjects
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: of other documents in the case. RFP number seven. request
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: documents regarding the government's awareness of its potential CVRA obligation
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: in the case and regarding any discussion between government and
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in the case. The documents
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: are needed to approve the victim's allegation that the government
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: was aware that it potentially had obligations under the CVRA
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: to notify the victims about the non-prosecution agreement and any
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: related state court plea agreement. RFP number eight, request documents
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the government to give
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: him a more favorable plea arrangement and or non-prosecution agreement,
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: including efforts on his behalf by former President Bill Clinton,
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: Prince Andrew, and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz. These materials
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: are needed to prove the victim's allegation that after Epstein
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: signed the non-prosecution agreement, His performance was delayed while he
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: used his significant social and political connections to lobby the
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: Justice Department to obtain a more favorable plea deal. These
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: materials are also needed to establish the course of proceedings
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: in the case, which is necessary in light of the
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: government's letters to the victims concerning the status of the case.
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: Alright folks, we're going to wrap up right here, and
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: to pick up where we left off. All of the
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: the description box. What's up everyone and welcome to another
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're picking
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: up where we left off with Brad Edwards and his
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: CVRA affidavit. RFP number 10 requests documents regarding the victim's
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: allegations that the FBI was led to believe that their
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: prosecution against and that the FBI was also misled by
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: the U.S. Attorney's Office about the status of the case.
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: The government has argued that these documents are not relevant
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: to the case because the only issue is whether the
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: government misled victims. But the government fails to recognize that
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: the victims received information about the case through the FBI.
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: These documents are therefore needed to demonstrate that the victims
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: received inaccurate information about the status of the case, inaccurate
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: information caused by the U.S. Attorney's Office negotiation with Epstein.
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: If the FBI agents were not accurately informed about the
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: progress of the case, then they could not have accurately
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: informed the victims about the progress of the case, a
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: central point in the victim's argument. Moreover, these documents would
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: show a common scheme or plan something made admissible in
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: a trial by operation of FedR Evidence 404B. Of course,
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: if the U.S. Attorney's Office was misleading the FBI about
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: the NPA... It would have been part of the same
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: scheme or plan to mislead the victims as well. The
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: documents are also needed to support specific allegation in the
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: victim summary judgment motion. RFP number 11 requests documents regarding
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: various meetings that the government, including FBI agents, had with
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: the victims. These documents are needed to prove that during
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: those meetings the government did not disclose to the victims
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: or their attorneys that a non-prosecution agreement had been negotiated
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: with Epstein. and even if signed with Epstein that related
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: to their case's allegations that the victims have advanced in
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: their summary judgment motion. RFP number 12 requests all documents
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: connected with a request from the U.S. Attorney's Office to me,
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: Bradley J. Edwards, to write a letter concerning the need
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: for filing the federal charges against Epstein and follow up
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: to that letter. These documents are needed to show that
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: this request was made to me without disclosing the existence
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: of of the non-prosecution agreement. Thus, just as Jane Doe No.
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 were deceived about the NPA,
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: I was deceived as well. It's also needed to contradict
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: the government's apparent position that it disclosed the existence of
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: the NPA to me and to the victims. The government
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: admits that when Epstein was pleading guilty to the state
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: charges discussed in the non-prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein's
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: defense attorneys sought to keep the document memorializing the non-prosecution
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: agreement confidential, but denies that they sought at that time
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement confidential. RFP
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: number 13 requests documents regarding how on or about June 27th, 2008,
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: the government learned that Epstein would be entering his plea
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: to state charges on or about June 30th, 2008. The
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: documents are needed to describe the course of proceedings in
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: the case and to prove both the government and and
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: Epstein's awareness that he would be entering a guilty plea
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: and thus blocking prosecution of other crimes without the victim's
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: full knowledge of what was happening. RFP number 14 requests
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: documents relating to the government and Epstein working together to
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including declining
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: comment about the existence of such an agreement when asked
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: about it when his guilty plea in state court became
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: public knowledge. These documents are needed to prove the victim's
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: allegation that the government concealed the MPA from them. And
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: to contradict what appears to be the government position, namely
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: that the victims were aware of the MPA shortly after
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: it was negotiated. Government answers to RFA 13B claiming that
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: the USAO had communicated with Jane Doe 1 about the
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: non-prosecution agreement that barred conferring with victims about the agreement.
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: RFP No. 15 requests documents pertaining to the feasibility of
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: notifying the victims about the NPA, along with information concerning
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: how the victims came to receive a corrected notification letter
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: on or about September 3, 2008, months after Epstein had
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: pled guilty. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: government had no valid reason for failing to provide notice
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: to the victims. It's also needed to demonstrate why the victims...
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: at the first, received inaccurate information about the NPA as
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: well as Epstein's involvement in that inaccurate notice. RFP No.
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: 16 requests documents regarding Bruce Reinhart, a senior prosecutor who
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: was present in the U.S. Attorney's Office during the time
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: that the office negotiated the NPA with Epstein, blocking his
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern District of Florida.
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: In RFP number 16, the victims have sought documents showing
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: that Reinhart learned confidential non-public information about the Epstein matter.
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: The court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: affidavit with this court in which he flatly declared that
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: while he was a prosecutor in the office, I never
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: learned any confidential non-public information about the Epstein matter. When
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: Reinhart made that statement, it seemed improbable to me because
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: Reinhart was in close contact with other prosecutors in the
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: office and would seem likely that he would have discussed
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: the high-profile Epstein case with him. Additionally, I learned through
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: public record that while still a prosecutor at the office, Mr.
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: Reinhart established his criminal defense office had the exact address,
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: the exact suite number, as Jeffrey Epstein's personal business address. However,
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: I did not have any direct way of contradicting Reinhardt's
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: sworn statement. Since then, however, in answering the victim's request
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: for admissions, the government has admitted that it possesses information
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: that Reinhardt learned confidential, non-public information about the Epstein case
• 30:51
  Speaker 1: and that he discussed the Epstein case with other prosecutors.
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: Of course, this means that the government has documents that
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: Reinhardt filed a false affidavit with the court. This gives
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: rise to the reasonable inference that if Reinhardt was willing
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: to provide false information about this subject, he may have
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: additional information about the case that's being concealed as well.
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: Material about Reinhardt are also needed to support the victim's
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: summary judgment motion. Reinhart's affidavit with the court also states,
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: because I did not have any, I did not share
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: non-public confidential information about the Epstein investigation with any of
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: Epstein's attorneys, because the government has information demonstrating that the
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: first part of this statement is false, it may well
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: be that the second part of this statement is false
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: as well. Given that Mr. Reinhart established a business address
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: identical to Epstein's business address at a time while he
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: was still serving and working at the U.S. Attorney's Office,
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: and that Mr. Reinhart ultimately represented several of Epstein's co-conspirators,
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: jet pilots, and staff during the civil litigation, any involvement Mr.
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: Reinhart had with Mr. Epstein's case while working at the
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: office is highly relevant. The government has further admitted that
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: it possesses documents reflecting contact between Bruce Reinhart and persons
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: or entities affiliated with the Jeffrey Epstein case before Reinhart
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: left his job at the U.S. Attorney's Office. As stated above,
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: Reinhart left the U.S. Attorney's Office to start a private
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: firm that was located in the same address as Epstein's
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: personal business where he was daily. This would appear to
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: be a violation of the Florida Rules of Ethics for Attorneys.
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: Information about Reinhart's connection to Epstein is critical to the
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: victim's allegations in the case. If Reinhart was helping Epstein
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: gain insight about the prosecution's efforts, that would provide a
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: motive for Reinhart and other prosecutors to not to properly
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: notify the victims and not to confer with them. Also,
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: if Epstein was improperly receiving information about the prosecution's efforts
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: against him or lack thereof, that could be highly relevant
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: to the remedy stage of the case, in which the
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: victims will ask, among other things, to have the NPA
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: agreement invalidated. Epstein has already indicated that he will raise
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: a double jeopardy argument against that effort. However, double jeopardy
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: considerations do not apply in situations where the defendant, was
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: not truly in jeopardy of prosecution. In addition, the court
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: may wish to consider in crafting a remedy Epstein's culpability
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: for the violation of the MPA. Evidence that Epstein was
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: improperly obtaining information about the prosecution's efforts against him would
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: be highly relevant to that culpability assessment. It's also relevant
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: to the Estoppel defense that the government, and perhaps Epstein
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: as well, intends to raise. Evidence concerning Reinhardt's connections include
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: improper connections to Epstein is also relevant to bias and
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: motive in the case. It would show, for example, that
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: Reinhart had a reason to encourage others in the U.S.
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office to give Epstein a more lenient deal than
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: the one he was entitled to. RFP number 16 requested
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: information not only about improper connections between Epstein and Reinhart,
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: but more broadly about such connections with any prosecutors. Of course,
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: if the government possesses such information, it would be highly
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: relevant to the victim's allegations for the reasons just discussed.
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: In its answers to the victim's request for admission, the
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: government admits that it has information about personal or business
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: relationships between Jeffrey Epstein and another prosecutor involved in the case,
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: Matthew Menschel. Answers to request for admission at 20. The
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: government should be required to disclose all of those documents
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: so that the victims can determine whether there was anything
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: improper about those relationships. In my experience, it's highly unusual
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: for federal prosecutors to work on a case prosecuting someone
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: such as Epstein and then shortly thereafter leave the employment
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: of the federal government and enter into a business relationship
• 34:54
  Speaker 1: with the person who was being prosecuted. RFP number 17
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: asked for documents concerning the investigation into Epstein's prosecution undertaken
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, OPR, in Washington, D.C.,
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: The investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims,
• 35:13
  Speaker 1: who asked the Justice Department to determine whether improper influence
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: were brought to bear during the negotiations involving the possible
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: prosecution and ultimately the non-prosecution of Epstein. It's apparent from
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: the privilege logs that the government has produced that OPR
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: generated a great deal of correspondence, at least 46 pages,
• 35:32
  Speaker 1: regarding this request. Of course, improper influence being brought to
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: bear on the Epstein prosecution would support the victim's allegations
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: that they are not being properly notified. Moreover, OPR may
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: well have investigated the specific allegations that are at issue
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: in the case or directed others to undertake such an investigation.
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: Here again, this information would be critical to supporting the
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: victim's case, in fact, because OPR has presumably investigated many
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: of the precise actions and actors about which the victims
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: complain in the litigation and have already gathered many of
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: the documents needed The production of the OPR case file
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: could probably shortcut this litigation and discovery process. There is
• 36:14
  Speaker 1: no other way to obtain this information from OPR. On
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: May 6, 2011, nearly half a year after the victim's
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: request of December 10, 2010, for an investigation, OPR sent
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: a letter to my co-counsel, Professor Paul Cassell, in which
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: it stated that it regretted it could not be of
• 36:31
  Speaker 1: assistance in providing information about the allegations. Alright folks, we're
• 36:36
  Speaker 1: going to wrap up right here. And in the next
• 36:38
  Speaker 1: episode dealing with the topic we're going to pick up
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: where we left off. All of the information that goes
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're picking up where we
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: left off with Brad Edwards and his CVRA affidavit. RFP
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: number 18 asks for information about why the U.S. Attorney's
• 37:04
  Speaker 1: Office for the Southern District of Florida was conflicted out
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: handling various issues related to the Epstein case. This information
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: is needed to show why the victims did not receive
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: proper notification about the NPA that the office negotiated with Epstein.
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: It appears that the conflict of interest that has been
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: recognized may have had to do with the office's treatment
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: of the victims. Moreover, in its production of documents and
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: in follow-up correspondence, The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
• 37:33
  Speaker 1: District of Florida has indicated that there are no responsive
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: documents being held by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: other district that is handling conflict matters. It appears that
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: this other office in the Middle District of Florida, this
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: appears to be improbable because the conflict matters would presumably
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: generate many documents covered by the victim's discovery requests, including
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: the OPR investigative file. Accordingly, the conflict matter is highly
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: relevant to determining whether the U.S. Attorney's Office has provided
• 38:04
  Speaker 1: complete production to the victims. A conflict of interest would
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: also be highly relevant to the motivations of the government
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: attorneys throughout the handling of the Epstein case. RFP number
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: 19 asked for information supporting allegations made in March of
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: 2011 by former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. He sent a
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: three-page letter to the news media in which he claimed
• 38:29
  Speaker 1: that when government attorneys began investigating Epstein, Epstein launched a
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: year-long assault on the prosecution and prosecutors. This information is
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: needed to explain why the U.S. Attorney's Office would have
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: withheld notifications from victims about the NPA. If prosecutors were
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: being assaulted, as Acosta has said they were, then they
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: would have reason to disregard their obligations to crime victims.
• 38:53
  Speaker 1: In addition, this would show improper behavior by Epstein. which
• 38:57
  Speaker 1: would be relevant at the remedy stage of the case
• 38:59
  Speaker 1: in determining the scope of any remedy. These allegations would
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: also bear strong on motive and bias. RFP number 20
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: requests documents between the government and state and local prosecutors
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: and police agencies, including the Palm Beach Police Department, regarding
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: the non-prosecution agreement, because this involves information outside of the
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: department itself. It is the victim's understanding that the government
• 39:23
  Speaker 1: has already turned over all of this information to them,
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: as the court has directed. For the sake of completeness, however,
• 39:31
  Speaker 1: it's worth noting that this information is needed to demonstrate
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: that the victims were not properly informed that Epstein's plea
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: to state charges would trigger the NPA and preclude prosecution
• 39:41
  Speaker 1: for crimes committed against them. RFP number 21 requests correspondence
• 39:46
  Speaker 1: regarding the NPA. Here again, the victims understand that the
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: government is prepared to produce all of this information to
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: them once the stay pending action by the 11th Circuit
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: is lifted. Again, for the sake of completeness, it's worth
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: noting that the correspondence is needed to demonstrate the victims'
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: claims that the government was concealing the existence of the
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: NPA from them, and that this was done at Epstein's behest.
• 40:10
  Speaker 1: The court has specifically noted that the victims have a
• 40:13
  Speaker 1: need for information that will allow them to argue to
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: the court in support of their allegation, of a deliberate
• 40:19
  Speaker 1: conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: in the dark on the pendency of negotiation between Epstein
• 40:27
  Speaker 1: and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: of the non-prosecution agreement to them RFP number 22 requests
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: information about consideration that Epstein provided or offered to provide
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: to any individual within the government Here again, the victims
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: understand that this information is being provided to them. It's
• 40:50
  Speaker 1: again worth noting, however, that this information is highly relevant
• 40:53
  Speaker 1: to explaining why the U.S. Attorney's Office would not have
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: properly notified the victims about what's happening in their case,
• 41:00
  Speaker 1: an allegation that is at the center of the victim's
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: summary judgment motion. RFP number 23 asks for documents that
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: will assist Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in
• 41:10
  Speaker 1: protecting their rights under the CVRA. The request links to
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: the government's obligation under the CVRA to use its best
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: efforts to protect victims' rights. U.S. Code 18, Section 3771-C1.
• 41:24
  Speaker 1: The direct connection between this request and the victim's case
• 41:27
  Speaker 1: is self-explanatory. RFP No. 24 requests correspondence related to the
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: Epstein prosecution that the government had with entities outside the
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: federal government. Here again, it's my understanding that these materials
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: have already been ordered produced. See DE 190 at 2.
• 41:45
  Speaker 1: For the sake of completeness, this information is again relevant
• 41:48
  Speaker 1: to showing the course of the Epstein investigation and why
• 41:51
  Speaker 1: the victims were not properly notified about the event during
• 41:55
  Speaker 1: that investigation. RFP number 25 requests all initial productions that
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: are required under the federal rules of civil procedure. This
• 42:04
  Speaker 1: is a protective request to ensure that, should it be
• 42:07
  Speaker 1: determined that the civil rules apply, they then receive all
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: material to which they are entitled. In June of 2013,
• 42:14
  Speaker 1: the victim sent a supplemental request for production asking the
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: government to provide any information concerning any investigation that the
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: department undertook concerning the treatment of the victims during the
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: investigation in the case, including any FBI, grand jury, OPR,
• 42:31
  Speaker 1: or other investigation in the Southern District of Florida, Middle
• 42:35
  Speaker 1: District of Florida, or elsewhere. Here again, this information is
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: critically needed as it would go directly to proving the
• 42:42
  Speaker 1: victim's allegations that their rights were violated during the investigation
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: of Epstein. This information would also go directly to defeating
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: the government's estoppel argument. The information would also show motive
• 42:54
  Speaker 1: and bias. Inadequate Privilege Log The government has produced a
• 43:00
  Speaker 1: privilege log that violates the court's order in the case.
• 43:04
  Speaker 1: I have been greatly hampered in responding to the government's
• 43:07
  Speaker 1: assertions of privilege because of that inadequate log. Indeed, in
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: many cases, it's impossible to determine whether the government's assertions
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: of privilege are even plausible because of the inadequacy of
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: the log. The court has directed the government to produce
• 43:22
  Speaker 1: a privilege log that clearly identifies each document as to
• 43:26
  Speaker 1: which privilege is asserted by the author, addressee, recipient, date,
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: and general subject matter. Many of the entries into the
• 43:35
  Speaker 1: privilege log fail to meet the requirement. A good illustration
• 43:39
  Speaker 1: of the inadequacies of the privilege log comes from the
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: very first entry in the log, covering box number one,
• 43:45
  Speaker 1: some 39 pages of documents. Yet, the only description of
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: these 39 pages is file folder entitled C-O-R-R-R-E-G-J Subpoenas, containing
• 43:57
  Speaker 1: correspondence related to various grand jury subpoenas and attorney Villafana's
• 44:02
  Speaker 1: handwritten notes. Another good illustration of the inadequacies of the
• 44:06
  Speaker 1: privilege log is provided on page 20 of the first
• 44:09
  Speaker 1: privilege log with regard to box number 3. The government
• 44:13
  Speaker 1: asserts privilege here regarding 90 pages of documents, yet the
• 44:17
  Speaker 1: only description of these 90 pages is file folder entitled
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: key documents containing correspondence between a USA and case agent
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: regarding indictment prep questions, victim identification information, corrections to draft indictment,
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: indictment preparation timeline, key grand jury materials. There are many
• 44:38
  Speaker 1: other illustrations of the inadequacies of that privilege log that
• 44:41
  Speaker 1: the court will see when it examines it. I have
• 44:44
  Speaker 1: also filed contemporaneously a response to the government's privilege log,
• 44:48
  Speaker 1: which identifies many situations of an inadequate privilege log, as
• 44:53
  Speaker 1: well as other responses that are needed to respond to
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: the government's log. The government has never contacted me or
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: co-counsel about any burdens associated with producing a privilege log
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: that complied with the government directives. At all times relevant
• 45:09
  Speaker 1: to this case, I would have been willing to work
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: with the government council to minimize any excessive burden from
• 45:15
  Speaker 1: producing an adequate privilege log. The request for production that
• 45:19
  Speaker 1: I sent to the government specifically invited discussions to avoid
• 45:23
  Speaker 1: any excessive burden. Failure to prove factual underpinning of privilege claim.
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: Many of the government's privilege assertions require factual premise, such
• 45:34
  Speaker 1: as the existence of an attorney-client relationship and the rendition
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: of legal services within that relationship. Yet the government has
• 45:41
  Speaker 1: not provided the factual underpinnings of any of its privilege assertions.
• 45:46
  Speaker 1: An illustration of the problem is found on page 1
• 45:49
  Speaker 1: of the Supplemental Privilege Log with regard to Supplemental Box No. 3.
• 45:53
  Speaker 1: The entry here reads, 7-10-08 emails between Jay Sloman and
• 45:58
  Speaker 1: Marie Villafana, Kay Atkinson, and FBI RE proposed response to
• 46:03
  Speaker 1: Goldberger's letter, victim notification. The log then indicates that the
• 46:07
  Speaker 1: government is asserting attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, and deliberative
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: process privilege. The government, however, does not provide any document
• 46:16
  Speaker 1: for any of the factual underpinnings of any of these claims.
• 46:20
  Speaker 1: For example, with regard to the attorney-client claim, the government
• 46:23
  Speaker 1: does not explain who the attorney is and who the
• 46:26
  Speaker 1: client is. With regard to the work product claim, the
• 46:29
  Speaker 1: government does not explain what litigation this document contemplated. And
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: with regard to the deliberative process, the government does not
• 46:37
  Speaker 1: explain what deliberative process was involved. There are many other
• 46:41
  Speaker 1: illustrations of the government's failure to prove the factual underpinnings
• 46:45
  Speaker 1: of the privilege assertions, which the court will see when
• 46:48
  Speaker 1: it examines the victim's responsive log. Waiver of confidentiality. Some
• 46:54
  Speaker 1: of the privileges that the government asserted have been waived.
• 46:57
  Speaker 1: Of course, a requirement of a privilege is that confidentiality
• 47:01
  Speaker 1: be maintained. Some of the materials have been circulated outside
• 47:05
  Speaker 1: of any confidential circle, thereby waiving privilege. An illustration of
• 47:09
  Speaker 1: waiver found on page 1 of the supplemental privilege log
• 47:13
  Speaker 1: with regard to supplemental box number 3. The entry here reads,
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: 7808 email from Marie Villafana to Alex Acosta, Jay Sloman, Atkinson,
• 47:24
  Speaker 1: an FBI RE proposed response to Goldberger's letter, victim notification.
• 47:29
  Speaker 1: The log then indicates that the government is asserting attorney-client
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: privilege with the email. But the emails were not internal
• 47:36
  Speaker 1: to the U.S. Attorney's Office, but were also sent to
• 47:39
  Speaker 1: the FBI. This is another illustration of the inadequacies of
• 47:43
  Speaker 1: the privilege log, because who in the FBI the materials
• 47:46
  Speaker 1: were sent to is not disclosed. but the FBI is
• 47:50
  Speaker 1: a law enforcement investigative agency, not an agency that provides
• 47:54
  Speaker 1: legal advice. Accordingly, any attorney-client privilege would be waived by
• 47:58
  Speaker 1: dissemination of these emails outside of the attorney's office. Another
• 48:04
  Speaker 1: illustration a waiver is found on page 3 of the
• 48:07
  Speaker 1: Supplemental Privilege Log. With regard to Supplemental Box No. 3,
• 48:11
  Speaker 1: the entry here reads, File Folder Labeled Meeting with Ken
• 48:14
  Speaker 1: Starr R.A.A.J.S. Drew containing handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafana,
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: Ken Starr, and of course, a defense attorney who represented
• 48:24
  Speaker 1: defendant Epstein. Recording information provided by a defense attorney is
• 48:28
  Speaker 1: not part of any governmental attorney-client privilege. Another illustration of
• 48:33
  Speaker 1: waiver is found on page 7 of the Supplemental Privilege Log,
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: with regard to the Supplemental Box No. 3. The entry
• 48:41
  Speaker 1: here reads, File Folder Entitled, Notes, Plea Negotiations, containing 9-1707 email,
• 48:47
  Speaker 1: from Maria Villafana to Jay Richards, and Kirkendall RE status update.
• 48:53
  Speaker 1: Undated and typed handwritten notes by Maria Villafana, items to
• 48:57
  Speaker 1: be completed on case, strength of case, victim interviews, summary
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: of evidence, guideline calculations. The government is asserting attorney-client privilege
• 49:06
  Speaker 1: regarding this email. I understand the reference to Richards and
• 49:09
  Speaker 1: Kirkendall to be references to FBI agents, not attorneys, in
• 49:13
  Speaker 1: the U.S. Attorney's Office. Accordingly, The attorney-client privilege would not
• 49:18
  Speaker 1: extend to this email. Alright folks, we're going to wrap
• 49:21
  Speaker 1: up right here, and in the next episode dealing with
• 49:23
  Speaker 1: the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off.
• 49:26
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 49:29
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box.