Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Governor John de Jongh's Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivors Lawsuit (Part 3)

Transcript

Governor John de Jongh's Motion To Dismiss The Epstein Survivors Lawsuit (Part 3) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  In this episode, we're picking up where we left off
• 0:06
  with the John DeJong memorandum in support of his motion
• 0:10
  to dismiss the lawsuit filed against him by the Epstein Survivors.
• 0:16
  Six fed Our civp. Twelve b six. FAC fails to
• 0:21
  state acclaim. The FAC should be dismissed pursuant to fed
• 0:25
  Our civp. Twelve b six because it fails to state
• 0:29
  sufficient factual matter to state acclaim to relief that is
• 0:32
  plausible on its face. Patron versus Turner Publication Company, twenty
• 0:38
  twenty three, w L seven thirty two four four seven two,
• 0:42
  SDN Y, twenty twenty three. This Court should not accept
• 0:45
  non factual matter or conclusiony statements set forth in a
• 0:48
  complaint as true. Boswell versus Bimbo Bakeries five seven d
• 0:53
  f Dot supp three D eighty nine ninety three, SDN Y,
• 0:57
  twenty twenty one. Plaintiffs show more than a sheer possibility
• 1:02
  that mister DeJong acted on lawfully and cannot rely on
• 1:05
  mere labels and conclusions to support a claim one all
• 1:09
  coas fed Rcivpaight A and proper group pleading fed RCIVP.
• 1:15
  Eight requires at a minimum that the FAC give each
• 1:19
  defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and
• 1:22
  the grounds upon which it rests. The FAC fails to
• 1:26
  give fair notice because it lumps all defendants together in
• 1:29
  each claim and provides no factual basis to distinguish their conduct.
• 1:34
  Plus Grade versus Endava twenty twenty three, w L two
• 1:38
  four zero two eight seventy nine AT three SDN y
• 1:42
  twenty twenty three, Rule twelve B six Medina versus Bauer
• 1:46
  two thousand and four, WL thirteen sixty six thirty six
• 1:51
  six SDNY two thousand and four. Such a deficient pleading
• 1:55
  is called in proper group pleading ID and buco versus
• 1:59
  West Iowa TVPR case, the plaintiffs conplaint lacked specific factual
• 2:05
  allegations about each defendant's conduct, defendant's knowledge of each other's conduct,
• 2:10
  or to establish a reckless disregard concerning the alleged violations.
• 2:14
  Five point fifty five f DOT supp three d six
• 2:17
  twenty eight six forty two Northern District of Iowa, twenty
• 2:21
  twenty one. These shortfalls and plaintiffs complaint illustrate the problem
• 2:26
  with shotgun style pleading or a kitchen sinc pleading citing
• 2:29
  to Tone versus SunTrust eight fifty seven F. Dot supp
• 2:33
  Two d A twenty one, eight thirty one District, Minnesota,
• 2:37
  twenty twelve. Without details as to who did what, This court,
• 2:41
  like the court in Buco, cannot determine whether allegations are
• 2:45
  sufficient to state a TVPR claim against each defendant two
• 2:49
  all coas Statute of limitations failure to allege conspiracy. Mister
• 2:55
  DeJong Statute of limitations defense may be decided on a
• 2:58
  Rule twelve B six motion because the defense appears on
• 3:02
  the face of the complaint Aluell versus Christian Brothers seven
• 3:05
  seventy four f. Dot three d seven ninety one, seven
• 3:08
  ninety eight and twelve Second Circuit twenty fourteen. The FAC's
• 3:13
  claims depend on continuing conspiracy to be timely. They would
• 3:17
  otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. The FAC
• 3:21
  fails to plead a CoA four conspiracy in New York,
• 3:24
  but it additionally fails to plead a conspiracy for the
• 3:27
  purpose of establishing continuing conduct liability for mister DeJong. Each
• 3:33
  defendant is entitled to know how he is alleged to
• 3:35
  have conspired with whom and for what purpose. Mirror generalizations
• 3:40
  to any particular defendant or even defendants as a group
• 3:44
  are insufficient. Front Point Asian LP Verus City Bank, twenty
• 3:48
  seventeen w L three six zero zero four two five
• 3:52
  eleven SDNY of twenty seventeen motion to dismiss for failure
• 3:57
  to stay conspiracy. Emphasis is added the fac mentions mister
• 4:01
  DeJong by name and five paragraphs, none of those sufficiently
• 4:04
  alleged conspiracy or continuing conduct. Three all coas USVII law applies.
• 4:11
  Statue of limitations. USVII law should apply, not New York law.
• 4:16
  Whereas here the parties are domiciled in different states, and
• 4:19
  the issues is the standard governing defendant's conduct. The place
• 4:24
  or location of the tort is so determined. Wiseman Institute
• 4:28
  versus Nessus, two twenty nine F. Dot supp two d
• 4:32
  two thirty four two forty nine SDNY two thousand and two.
• 4:37
  Kroc versus. Lipsey, ninety seven F. Dot three d six
• 4:40
  forty six forty six, Second Circuit nineteen ninety six. The
• 4:44
  alleged locus of specific abuse and other bad actors by
• 4:48
  the US government officials as alleged in the FAC was
• 4:52
  in the USVII, not New York. The plaintiffs filed in
• 4:56
  New York for the Adult Survivors Act CPLR Section two
• 5:00
  U fourteen j ASA E CF Number seven, and its
• 5:04
  one year revival period starting November twenty fourth, twenty twenty two,
• 5:08
  during which adult survivors of sexual assault sue their abusers
• 5:12
  despite the expiration of the previously applicable statutes of limitation
• 5:17
  Carrol versus. Trump six fifty f DOT supp three D
• 5:20
  two thirteen two eighteen sdn Y twenty twenty three. That
• 5:25
  window closed on eleven, twenty four, twenty twenty three. Plaintiffs'
• 5:28
  claims would otherwise be time barred in the USVII, which
• 5:32
  is not enacted any one year revival period for sexual assault.
• 5:36
  That's almost certainly why the plaintiffs forum shopped and filed
• 5:39
  this case in New York instead of the USVII. They
• 5:42
  wanted to forum shop for the New York ASA. New
• 5:46
  York law should not apply. Though four first second third
• 5:49
  coas FAC alleges conduct before TVPR a private right of
• 5:54
  action existed. The first, second and third coas are premised
• 5:59
  on conduct that arose from two thousand and one. Alleged
• 6:02
  conduct from two thousand and one to two thousand and
• 6:04
  three predates the private rights of action under the tv PRA.
• 6:09
  The FAC largely does not identify which conduct occurred when
• 6:13
  plaintiffs have no private right of action for allegations occurring
• 6:17
  before two thousand and three, and the FAC fails to
• 6:20
  distinguish dates for the vast majority of alleged conduct. Congress
• 6:24
  enacted the TVPR in two thousand, first, creating criminal offenses
• 6:28
  for sex trafficking, but no private right of action. Congress
• 6:33
  did not add a civil right of action for victims
• 6:35
  to sue their traffickers until twenty thirteen. A TVPRA private
• 6:41
  CoA not retroactive. The TVPRA does not apply retroactively to
• 6:46
  conduct that predated the creation of the private right of action.
• 6:49
  Honksho Wang versus n Lander twenty eighteen, w L one
• 6:53
  two seven six eight five four AT four SDNY twenty eighteen,
• 6:58
  v Les versus Sanchez six nine D three F dot
• 7:01
  three D three O eight three twenty five. Second Circuit
• 7:04
  twenty twelve doll one versus Deutsche Bank twenty twenty three
• 7:08
  w L three sixteen seven six three three eight s
• 7:12
  d n Y twenty twenty three in Valais. The Second
• 7:16
  Circuit concluded that while criminal liability may have existed prior
• 7:19
  to the twenty twenty three amendments, the civil remedy added
• 7:22
  in two thousand and three fits with Landgraf verse USVII
• 7:26
  Films Production five eleven US two forty four nineteen ninety four.
• 7:31
  The definition of impermissibility retroactive legislation because it increases the
• 7:36
  party's liability for previously occurring conduct id citing Doe versus
• 7:41
  sidig A ten f Dot sup p two d one
• 7:45
  twenty seven, one thirty five d d C. Twenty eleven,
• 7:49
  Nata versus Bush seven seventy f Dot sup p two
• 7:53
  D one ninety three two O five d d C.
• 7:55
  Twenty eleven. Plantiffs have fel to specify which Posts two
• 7:59
  thousand and one conduct occurred pre twelve nineteen two thousand
• 8:03
  three barred and Post twelve nineteen, two thousand three after
• 8:07
  private right of action added to the TVPR B no
• 8:12
  TVPR continuing violation theory. The FAC alleges a continuing violation
• 8:18
  theory for the retroactive application of Section fifteen ninety five
• 8:22
  FAC At five and six However, federal courts have also
• 8:26
  rejected the continuing violation theory to overcome the presumption against
• 8:30
  retroactive application of Section fifteen ninety five. For the two
• 8:34
  thousand three Amendment mL versus Craigslist twenty twenty WL five
• 8:40
  four nine nine nine zero three at nine Western District, Washington,
• 8:44
  twenty twenty, citing De Tullio six sixty two ft three
• 8:48
  d At eleven oh one, the Ninth Circuit has held
• 8:51
  that the continuing violation theory was not sufficient to overcome
• 8:55
  the land graft presumption against retroactivity for a provision creating
• 8:59
  new civil liifas abilities to Tulio at eleven oh one.
• 9:03
  Five First second third coas failure to allege knowledge of venture.
• 9:08
  The first, second and third causes of action coas are
• 9:12
  premised upon Section fifteen ninety five A. The FAC's vague
• 9:15
  pleading fails to satisfy the knowledge element as to the
• 9:19
  particular sex trafficking venture SJ versus Choice Hotels. The statutory
• 9:25
  text speaks in singular terms participation and a venture which
• 9:28
  that person should have known has engaged in enact in
• 9:31
  violation of this chapter. Therefore, knowledge or wilful blindness of
• 9:36
  a general sex trafficking problem does not satisfy the men's
• 9:39
  rea requirements of the TVPR. Once again, the FAC's group
• 9:44
  pleading is fatal. Here the FAC does not allege that
• 9:47
  mister DeJong had the requisite knowledge of a specific sex
• 9:50
  trafficking venture. Accordingly, coas one to two fail to allege
• 9:55
  the knowledge element as to particular venture under the TVPR,
• 9:59
  and therefore it must be dismissed. In Noble versus Weinstein,
• 10:02
  three thirty five f Dot supp three D fiveh four
• 10:06
  five twenty five SDN Y twenty eighteen, a TVPR a case,
• 10:11
  this court held that guilt or in this case, liability,
• 10:15
  cannot be established by association alone. Plaintiff must allege specific
• 10:19
  conduct that furthered the sex trafficking venture. Such conduct must
• 10:23
  have been undertaken with a knowledge or in reckless disregard
• 10:27
  of the fact that it was furthering the alleged sex
• 10:29
  trafficking venture. In other words, some participation in the sex
• 10:32
  trafficking act itself must be shown. Defendants mere membership in
• 10:36
  the venture is insufficient if he's ignorant of the ventures,
• 10:39
  sex trafficking activities and the means and methods thereof. As
• 10:43
  in noble factual allegations implicating mister DeJong as a participant
• 10:47
  in Epstein's conduct toward each plaintiff is required. The FAC
• 10:52
  fails to meet this standard. All right, we're going to
• 10:55
  wrap up this episode here and in the next episode
• 10:57
  we're going to pick up with six second coas no
• 11:00
  aiding and abetting liability under Section fifteen ninety five. All
• 11:04
  of the information that goes with this episode can be
• 11:07
  found in the description box.