Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 4)

Transcript

The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 4) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: left off with Brad Edwards and his cvra Affi David
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: RFP number eighteen asked for information about why the US
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was conflicted
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: out of handling various issues related to the Epstein case.
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: This information is needed to show why the victims did
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: not receive proper notification about the NPA that the office
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: negotiated with Epstein. It appears that the conflict of interest
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: that has been recognized may have had to do with
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: the office's treatment of the victims. Moreover, in its production
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: of documents and in follow up correspondence, the US Attorney's
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: Office for the Southern District of Florida has indicated that
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: there are no responsive documents being held by the US
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office in the other district that is handling conflict matters.
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: It appears that this other office in the Middle District
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: of Florida. This appears to be improbable because the conflict
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: matters would presumably generate many documents covered by the victim's
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: discovery requests, including the OPR investigative file. Accordingly, the conflict
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: matter is highly relevant to determining whether the U S
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office has provided complete production to the victims. A
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: conflict of interest would also be highly relevant to the
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: motivations of the government attorneys throughout the handling of the
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: Epstein case RFP number nineteen. As for information supporting allegations
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: made in March of twenty eleven by former US Attorney
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: Alexandra Acosta, he sent a three page letter to the
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: news media in which he claimed that when government attorneys
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: began investigating Epstein, Epstein launched a year long assault on
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: the prosecution and prosecutors. This information is needed to explain
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: why the US Attorney's Office would have withheld notifications from
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: victims about the NPA. If prosecutors were being assaulted, as
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: a Costa has said they were, then they would have
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: reason to disregard their obligations to crime victims. In addition,
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: this would show improper behavior by Epstein, which would be
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: relevant at the remedy stage of the case in determining
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: the scope of any remedy. These allegations would also bear
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: strong on motive and bias are if P number twenty
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: request documents between the government and state and local prosecutors
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: and police agencies, including the Palm Beach Police Department regarding
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: the non prosecution Agreement. Because this involves information outside of
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: the department, it is the victims understanding that the government
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: has already turned over all of this information to them,
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: as the Court has directed. For the sake of completeness, however,
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: it's worth noting that this information is needed to demonstrate
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: that the victims were not properly informed that Epstein's plea
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: to state charges would trigger the NPA and preclude prosecution
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: for crimes committed against them. Are if P Number twenty
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: one request correspondent regarding the NPA. Here, again, the victims
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: understand that the government is prepared to produce all of
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: this information to them once the stay pending action by
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: the Eleventh Circuit is lifted. Again, for the sake of completeness,
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: it's worth noting that the correspondence is needed to demonstrate
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: the victim's claims that the government was concealing the existence
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: of the NPA from them, and that this was done
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: at Epstein's behest. The Court has specifically noted that the
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: victims have a need for information that will allow them
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: to argue to the court in support of their allegation
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: of a deliberate conspiracy between EPSTEIN and federal prosecutors to
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: negotiation between EPSTEIN and federal authorities until well after the
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: fact and presentation of the non prosecution agreement to them.
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: RFP number twenty two requests information about consideration that EPSTEIN
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: provided or offered to provide to any individual within the government.
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: Here again, the victims understand that this information is being
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: provided to them. It's again worth noting, however, that this
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: information is highly relevant to explaining why the US Attorney's
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: Office would not have properly notified the victims about what's
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: happening in their case, an allegation that is at the
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: center of the victim's summary judgment motion RFP number twenty three.
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: As for documents that will assist Jane DO one and
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: Jane DO two and protecting their rights under the CVRA,
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: the request links to the government's obligation under the CVRA
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: to use its best efforts to protect victims' rights. US
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: Code eighteen, Section thirty seven seventy one C one. The
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: direct connection between this request and the victim's case is
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: self explanatory. RFP number twenty four requests correspondence related to
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: the Epstein prosecution that the government had with entities outside
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: the federal government. Here again, it's my understanding that these
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: materials have already been ordered produced CDE one ninety eight two.
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: For the sake of go completeness. This information is again
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: relevant to showing the course of the Epstein investigation and
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: why the victims were not properly notified about the event
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: during that investigation. RFP number twenty five request all initial
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: productions that are required under the Federal Rules of Civil procedure.
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: This is a protective request to ensure that should it
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: be determined that the civil rules apply, they then receive
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: all material to which they are entitled. In June of
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: twenty thirteen, the victims sent a supplemental request for production
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: asking the government to provide any information concerning any investigation
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: that the Department undertook concerning the treatment of the victims
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: during the investigation in the case, including any FBI grand jury, OPR,
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: or other investigation in the Southern District of Florida, Middle
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: District of Florida, or elsewhere. Here Again, this information is
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: critically needed, as it would go directly to proving the
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: victim's allegations that their rights were violated during the investigation
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: of Epstein. This information would also go directly to defeating
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: the government's estoppel argument. The information would also show a
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: motive and bias. Inadequate privileged log. The government has produced
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: a privileged log that violates the court's order in the
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: case I have been greatly hampered in responding to the
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: government's assertions of privilege because of that inadequate log. Indeed,
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: in many cases, it's impossible to determine whether the government's
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: assertions of privilege are even plausible because of the inadequacy
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: of the log. The court is directed the government to
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: produce a privileged log that clearly identifies each document as
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: to which privilege is asserted by the author, addresseee, recipient date,
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: and general subject matter. Many of the entries into the
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: privileged log failed to meet the requirement. A good illustration
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: of the inadequacies of the privileged log comes from the
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: very first entry in the log, covering box number one
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: nine pages of documents. Yet the only description of these
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: thirty nine pages is file folder entitled cor r R
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: GJ Subpoenas, containing correspondence related to various grandjury subpoenas and
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: Attorney Villafana's handwritten notes. Another good illustration of the inadequacies
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: of the privileged log is provided on page twenty of
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: the first privileged log with regard to box number three.
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: The government asserts privilege here regarding ninety pages of documents,
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: yet the only description of these ninety pages is file
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: folder entitled key Documents containing correspondence between a USA and
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: case agent regarding indictment prep questions, victim identification information, corrections
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: to draft indictment, indictment preparation timeline, key grand jury materials.
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: There are many other illustrations of the inadequacies of that
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: privileged log that the court will see when it examines it.
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: I have also filed contemporaneously response to the Government's privileged log,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: which identifies many situations of an inadequate privilege log, as
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: well as other responses that are needed to respond to
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: the government's log. The Government has never contacted ME or
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: Co Council about any burdens associated with producing a privileged
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: log that complied with the government directives at all times
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: relevant to this case, I would have been willing to
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: work with the Government Council to minimize any excessive burden
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: from producing an adequate privilege log. The request for production
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: that I sent to the Government specifically invited discussions to
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: avoid any excessive burden failure to prove factual underpinning of
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: privileged claim Many of the government's privilege assertions require factual premise,
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: such as the existence of an attorney client relationship and
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: the rendition of legal services within that relationship. Yet the
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: government has not provided the factual underpinnings of any of
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: its privileged assertions. An illustration of the problem is found
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: on page one of the Supplemental Privilege Log with regard
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: to Supplemental Box number three. The entry here reads seven
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: ten eight emails between j. Slowman and Marie Villafauna k
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: Atkinson and FBI are e proposed response to Goldberger's letter
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: victim notification. The log then indicates that the government is
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: asserting attorney client privilege, work product privilege, and deliberative process privilege.
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: The government, however, does not provide any document for any
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: of the factual underpinnings of any of these claims. For example,
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: with regard to the attorney client claim, the government does
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: not explain who the attorney is and who the client is.
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: With regard to the work product claim, the government does
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: not explain what litigation this document contemplated. And with regard
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: to the deliberative process, the government does not explain what
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: deliberative process was involved. There are many other illustrations of
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: the government's failure to prove the factual underpinnings of the privilegetions,
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: which the court will see when it examines the Victim's
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: responsive log. Waiver of confidentiality. Some of the privileges that
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: the government asserted have been waived. Of course, a requirement
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: of a privilege is that confidentiality be maintained. Some of
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: the materials have been circulated outside of any confidential circle,
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: thereby waiving privilege. An illustration of waiver found on page
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: one of the Supplemental Privilege Log with regard to Supplemental
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: Box number three. The entry here reads seven to eight
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: AW eight email from Marie Vilafauna to alex Acosta J.
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: Slowman Atkinson, an FBIRI proposed response to Goldberger's letter victim notification.
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: The log then indicates that the government is asserting attorney
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: client privilege with the email, but the emails were not
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: internal to the US Attorney's office, but were also sent
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: to the FBI. This is another illustration of the inadequacies
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: of the privileged log because who in the FBI the
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: materials we're sent to is not disclosed. But the FBI
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: is a law enforcement investigative agency, not an agency that
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: provides legal advice. Accordingly, any attorney client privilege would be
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: waived by dissemination of these emails outside of the attorney's office.
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: Another illustration a waiver is found on page three of
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: the Supplemental Privilege Log with regard to supplemental box number three.
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: The entry here reads file folder labeled meeting with ken
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: Starr raa JS drew containing handwritten notes by A Marie
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: Vilafuna ken Starr and of course a defense attorney who
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: represented defend at Epstein. Recording information provided by a defense
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: attorney is not part of any governmental attorney client privilege.
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: Another illustration of waiver is found on page seven of
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: the Supplemental Privileged Log with regard to the supplemental box
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: number three. The entry here reads file folder entitled notes
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: Plea Negotiations containing nine seventeen oh seven email from Maria
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: Villa Fauna to Jay Richards and Kirkandall are e status
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: update on dated and typed handwritten notes by Maria Villa Fauna.
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: Items to be completed on case, strength of case, victim interviews,
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: summary of evidence, guideline calculations. The government is asserting attorney
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: client privilege regarding this email. I understand the reference to
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: Richards and Kirkandall to be references to FBI agents, not
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: attorneys in the US Attorney's office. Accordingly, the attorney client
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: privilege would not extend to this email. All right, folks,
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: We're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: we left off. All of the information that goes with
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.