Latest / Beyond The Horizon / The DOJ And Their Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivors 4th Amended Complaint (Part 2) (11/9/26)

Transcript

The DOJ And Their Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivors 4th Amended Complaint (Part 2) (11/9/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: back to the DOJ's motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: against them by the survivors. I. Undertaking Doctrine. Count 1
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: of the 2-count FAC is based on the Undertaking Doctrine.
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: There are two elements required to assert the Undertaking Doctrine
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: under Florida law. First, with respect to undertakings for the
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: protection of a third person. The restatement second of tort provides,
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: one who undertakes gratuitously or for consideration to render services
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: to another which he should recognize as necessary for the
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: protection of a third person or his things is subject
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: undertaking if a. his failure to exercise reasonable care b.
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: increases the risk of such harm, or B, he has
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: the third person, or, harm is suffered because of reliance
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: on the other or the third person upon the undertaking.
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: In Marjory Stoneman Douglas, quoting Restatement 2nd of Torts, 324a, 1965, Accordingly,
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: the first element of an undertaking duty under 324A is
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: an undertaking to render service to another, which the undertaker
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person.
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: In Marjory Stoneman Douglas, the court found that the plaintiff
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: had sufficiently alleged a duty under the first prong of
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: the undertaking doctrine because they sufficiently alleged that the public
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: access line was explicitly for the protection of third persons.
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: Plaintiffs in Marjory Stoneman Douglas do not specifically allege that
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: the PAL was for the protection of the third person,
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: but also that it undertook to serve as a central
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: repository and conduit for information regarding potential threats to life
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: and to handle and relay that information to the agency's
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: agents and analysts. The facts in Marjory Stoneman Douglas were
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: extremely specific as to the undertaking by the PAL. For example,
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: allegations in the complaint explain that prior to 2012, concerned
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: citizens with information about potential threats to life could directly
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: contact their local FBI field office and could even speak
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: directly with FBI agents and analysts, meaning that the personnel
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: at the local offices, the agents and analysts tasked with
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: investigative and intelligence duties, would receive calls directly from the
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: public and process information about potential threats themselves. Thereafter, in 2012,
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: the FBI upended this system and replaced it with PAL,
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: to serve as a centralized system to receive TIP information
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: from the public to the FBI about crimes and threats,
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: and relay that TIP information to FBI agents and analysts.
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: In doing so, the PAL undertook to serve as the
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: nation's core hub, repository, and distribution point for TIPs about
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: potential threats to life including mass shootings and school shootings. Additionally,
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: the information provided through the PAL system was extremely urgent
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: and highly specific, both about the likelihood that Cruz would
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: try to hurt or kill others, and about Cruz's likely target,
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: his former high school in Parkland, Florida. The court then
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: went on to note that PAL's failure of that duty
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: by failing to do the most basic task, providing the
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: tips to the local FBI field office for evaluation, after
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: assuring the caller that the information would be provided to
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: the correct people. plaintiff in the case, at hand, do
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: not allege specific allegations of an undertaking to third persons. Rather,
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: they simply state, the FBI and the Department of Justice
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: rendered law enforcement services to American citizens and failed to
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: exercise reasonable care. FAC at 325. Further, the allegation that
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: the FBI would investigate the allegations and help Ms. Christensen
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: are not sufficient to plead a duty by the FBI.
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: See FAC at 152. By plaintiff's own words, this alleged
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: statement was overheard from a conversation not involving Ms. Christensen,
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: and Ms. Christensen's own declaration states that the FBI allegedly
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: said they'd look into it. This is clearly not the
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: highly specific facts that existed in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas case,
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: and certainly not enough to create an undertaking on behalf
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: of the FBI. Such conclusory allegations of a duty do
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: not meet the Rule 8 pleading standard and should not
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: be accepted by this court. Finally, the allegation that the
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: FBI undertook the duty to investigate reports from J.P. Morgan
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: is simply nonsensical. By plaintiff's own words, J.P. Morgan filed
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: suspicious activity reports to FinCEN, a bureau of the U.S.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: Department of Treasury. There are no specific allegations that FinCEN
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: then notified the FBI about those SARS, and therefore no
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: duty can exist. notably the Department of Treasury is separate
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: and apart from the DOJ and FBI, and to the
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: extent plaintiffs are now alleging negligence on behalf of the
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: Department of Treasury, there are no allegations that administrative claims
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: were presented to that agency. The second element needed to
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: establish the undertaking doctrine under Section 324A is physical harm
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: to a third person, resulting from the undertaker's failure to
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: exercise reasonable care. This second element can be satisfied in
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: any one or more of three ways. The undertaker's negligence
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: increases the risk of harm. The undertaker performs a duty
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: owed by the other to the third person and or
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: the other relies on the undertaking in a way that
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: contributes to the harm. In Marjory Stoneman Douglas, 482, 3D
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: at 1294, plaintiffs contend that they have alleged sufficient facts
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: to support two of those three. The harm is suffered
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: because of reliance of the other or the third person
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: upon the undertaking. and failure to exercise reasonable care increase
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: the risk of harm. Again, looking at Marjory Stoneman Douglas,
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: it is apparent that the plaintiffs here have not met
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: their burden to show reasonable reliance. First, the plaintiffs and
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: Marjory Stoneman Douglas allege that when January 5th caller sought
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: assurances from the FBI customer service representative that the FBI
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: was the proper forum for reporting information about Cruz, the
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: FBI reassured her both implicitly and expressly that the FBI
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: was the proper forum for reporting such information, and the
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: FBI would investigate the matter, and that the FBI would
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: follow up with the caller as the investigation proceeded. Marjorie
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: Stoneman Douglas, 482, at 1295. It was further alleged that
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: when the January 5th caller was preparing to end the call,
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: she expressly reconfirmed that the FBI would look into the
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: information she provided. This information was both highly specific and
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: included specific details about the information related to the call
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: with the FBI. Additionally, the tip from the January 5th
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: caller was a little more than one month before the shootings.
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: In contrast, plaintiff's allegations of reliance here are vague, conclusory,
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: and inconsistent with public records. Plaintiff's allegations that Maria Farmer
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: relied on the FBI to investigate her claims run directly
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: contrary to the allegations in the complaint filed by Maria
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: Farmer in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: of New York. See Maria Farmer complain at page 2,
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: paragraph 7, attached as Exhibit G. Nowhere in Maria's own
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: complaint for negligence against the FBI did she ever state
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: she relied on the FBI. In fact, Ms. Farmer's own
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: complaint states that an FBI agent taking Maria's call hung
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: up on her. and no one at the FBI attempted
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: to follow up with her or pursue her valid and
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: serious allegations, most of which continued for many years, if
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: not decades, with wide-ranging consequences. Ms. Farmer's specific allegations do
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: not support any undertaking by the FBI, let alone reasonable reliance.
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: As for the claims of reliance by Audra Christensen, they
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: too are vague, conclusory, and contradictory, thus failing to meet
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: Rule 8 pleading requirements. Plaintiffs claim that Ms. Christensen relied
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: on the FBI to investigate her claims because they said
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: they would. Yet Ms. Christensen aversed to her declaration that
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: the FBI never returned these calls and ignored my reports.
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: It's paradoxical that the FBI can both have assured Ms.
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: Christensen that they were going to actively investigate while at
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: the same time ignoring her reports and not returning her calls.
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: See Chapman v. Abbott Labs, Florida, 2013. A court need
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: not accept a true allegation in a complaint that contradicts
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: or are inconsistent with judicially noticed facts. Notably, both Ms.
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: Farmer and Ms. Christensen provided information directly to FBI agents
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: who were able to evaluate the tips and make the
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: determination as to the next steps, if any. This is
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: directly in contrast with Marjory Stoneman Douglas, where the court
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: found that the government had violated a duty owed to
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: plaintiffs by the PAL, failing to provide the tip information
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: to FBI agents for similar evaluation. See Marjory Stoneman Douglas, 482F. SUPP. Further,
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: it's inherently unreasonable that either Ms. Farmer or Ms. Christensen
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: would continually rely on the government to act four years
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: after their reports, where there was absolutely no follow-up whatsoever.
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: In 1996, after receiving the tip, and for the next decade,
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: the FBI never asked to meet with Ms. Farmer or
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: to speak to her sister at all. who were the
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: alleged victims of the tip, nor did the FBI over
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: the years at past attempt to take Ms. Christensen's statement,
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: or even speak directly to her, to obtain specific details
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: that end assess her credibility. In fact, the FBI never
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: spoke directly to Christensen at any point in time. until 2020.
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: During the years that went by, after limited contact with
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: no follow-up whatsoever, no reliance was reasonable. This is far
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: beyond the mere month between the call and inaction in
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: Marjory Stoneman Douglas and cannot be considered a reasonable reliance
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: for an indefinite period of time. A promise by police
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: is That certain action will be forthcoming within a specified
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: time period generally will not justify reliance long after a
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: reasonable time period has passed without any indication that the
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: action has occurred. Finally, as already discussed by defendant, the
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: FBI began investigating into Epstein beginning in 2005. Following a
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: tip in 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department and FBI
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: conducted a two-year investigation of Epstein's conduct. Even if a
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: duty to investigate Epstein was created in the 2005-2006 time period,
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: the 11th Circuit has already taken notice that an intensive
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: FBI investigation was completed, which thereby fulfilled any duty. Idea 1249,
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: noting that by 2007 government lawyers were able to compile
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: both an 82-page prosecution memo and a 53-page draft indictment.
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here.
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: going to pick up where we left off. All the
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: the description box.