Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 3)

Transcript

The Brad Edwards Affidavit In Support Of Epstein Related Transparency (Part 3) · 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 picking up where we
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: left off with Brad Edwards and is cvra Affi David
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: RFP Number ten requests documents regarding the victims allegations that
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: the FBI was led to believe that their investigation of
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution, and
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: that the FBI was also misled by the US Attorney's
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: Office about the status of the case. The government has
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: argued that these documents are not relevant to the case
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: because the only issue is whether the government misled victims,
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: but the government fails to recognize that the victims received
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: information about the case through the FBI. These documents are
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: therefore needed to demonstrate that the victims received an accurate
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: information about the status of the case, an accurate information
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: caused by the US Attorney's Office negotiation with Epstein. If
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: the FBI agents were not accurately informed about the progress
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: of the case, then they could not have accurately informed
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: the victims about the progress of the case, a central
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: point in the victim's argument. Moreover, these documents would show
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: a common scheme or plan, something made admissible in a
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: trial by operation of FED are evidence four four B.
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: Of course, if the U S Attorney's Office was misleading
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: the FBI about the NPA, it would have been part
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: of the same scheme or plan to mislead the victims
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: as well. The documents are also needed to support specific
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: allegation in the victim's summary judgment. Motion. RFP number eleven
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: requests documents regarding various meetings that the government, including FBI agents,
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: had with the victims. These documents are needed to prove
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: that during those meetings the government did not disclose to
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: the victims or their attorneys that a non prosecution agreement
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: had been negotiated with Epstein, and even if signed with
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: Epstein that related to their cases allegations that the victims
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: have advanced in their summary judgment. Motion RFP number twelve
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: requests all documents connected with a request from the US
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office to me Bradley J. Edwards to write a
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: letter concerning the need for filing the federal charges against
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: Epstein and follow up to that letter. These documents are
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: needed to show that this request was made to ME
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: without disclosing the existence of the non prosecution agreement. Thus,
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: just as Jane Do number one and Jane Do number
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: two were deceived about the NPA, I was deceived as well.
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: It's also needed to contradict the government's apparent position that
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: it disclosed the existence of the NPA to me and
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: to the victims. The government admits that when Epstein was
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: pleading guilty to the state charges discussed in the non
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein's defense attorneys sought to
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: keep the document memorializing the non prosecution agreement confidential, but
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: denies that they sought at that time to keep the
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: existence of the non prosecution of go agreement confidential. RFP
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: Number thirteen request documents regarding how Honor about June twenty seventh,
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, the government learned that Epstein would
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: be entering his plea to stay charges honor about June thirtieth,
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: two thousand and eight. The documents are needed to describe
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: the course of proceedings in the case and to prove
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: both the government and Epstein's awareness that he would be
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: entering a guilty plea and thus blocking prosecution of other
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: crimes without the victims full knowledge of what was happening.
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: RFP number fourteen requests documents relating to the government and
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: Epstein working together to keep the existence of the non
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: prosecution agreement secret, including declining comment about the existence of
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: such an agreement when asked about it when his guilty
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: plea in State Court became public knowledge. These documents are
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: needed to prove the victim's allegation that the government concealed
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: the MPa from them and to contradict what appears to
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: be the government position, namely that the victims were aware
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: of the NPA shortly after it was negotiated. Government answers
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: to RFA thirteen B claiming that the USAO had communicated
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: with Jane do One about the non prosecution agreement that
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: Bard conferring with victims about the agreement. RFP number fifteen
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: request documents pertaining to the feasibility of notifying the victims
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: about the NPA, along with information concerning how the victims
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: came to receive a corrected notification letter on or about
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: September three, two thousand and eight, months after Epstein had
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: pled guilty. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: government had no valid reason for failing to provide notice
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: to the victims. It's also needed to demonstrate why the
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: victims at the first received inaccurate information about the NPA,
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: as well as Epstein's involvement in that inaccurate notice. RFP
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: number sixteen requests documents regarding Bruce Reinhardt, a senior prosecutor
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: who was present in the US Attorney's Office during the
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: time that the the office negotiated the NPA with Epstein,
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern District
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: of Florida. In RFP number sixteen, the victims have sought
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential non public information about
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: the Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhardt has
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: filed a sworn affid David with this Court in which
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: he flatley declared that while he was a prosecutor in
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: the office, I never learned any confidential non public information
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: about the Epstein matter. When Rehinhart made that statement, it
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: seemed improbable to me because Rehinehart was in close contact
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: with other prosecutors in the office and would seem likely
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: that he would have discussed the high profile Epstein case
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: with him. Additionally, I learned through a public record that
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: while still a prosecutor at the office. Mister Reinhart established
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: his criminal defense office at the exact address the exact
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: suite number as Jeffrey Epstein's personal business address. However, I
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: did not have any direct way of contradicting Rehinehart's warrens.
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: Since then, however, in answering the victim's request for admissions,
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: the government has admitted that it possesses information that rein
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: Hart learned confidential non public information about the Epstein case
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: and that he discussed the Epstein case with other prosecutors.
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: Of course, this means that the government has documents that
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: rein Hart filed the false affidavid with the court. This
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: gives rise to the reasonable inference that if rein Hart
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: was willing to provide false information about this subject, he
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: may have additional information about the case that's being concealed
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: as well. Material about Reinhart are also needed to support
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: the victim. Some rejudgment motion. Reinhart's affidavid with the court
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: also states, because I did not have any I did
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: not share non public confidential information about the Epstein investigation
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: with any of Epstein's attorneys. Because the government has information
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: demonstrating that the first part of this statement is false.
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: It may well be that the second part of this
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: state is false as well. Given that mister Reinhart established
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: a business address identical to Epstein's business address at a
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: time while he was still serving and working at the
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: US Attorney's Office, and that mister Reinhart ultimately represented several
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: of Epstein's co conspirators, jet pilots, and staff during the
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: civil litigation, any involvement mister Reinhardt had with mister Epstein's
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: case while working at the office is highly relevant. The
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: government has further admitted that it possesses documents reflecting contact
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: between Bruce Reinhart and persons or entities affiliated with the
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein case before Reinhart left his job at the
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: US Attorney's Office. As stated above, Reinhart left the US
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office to start a private firm that was located
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: in the same address as Epstein's personal business, where he
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: was daily This would appear to be a violation of
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: the Florida Rules of Ethics for attorneys. Information about Reinhart's
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: connection to Epstein is critical to the victim's allegations in
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: the case. If Reinhart was helping Epstein gain insight about
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: the prosecutions efforts. That would provide a motive for Reinhart
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: and other prosecutors not to properly notify the victims and
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: not to confer with them. Also, if Epstein was improperly
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: receiving information about the prosecution's efforts against them or lack thereof,
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: that could be highly relevant to the remedy stage of
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: the case, in which the victims will ask, among other things,
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: to have the NPA agreement invalidated. Epstein has already indicated
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: that he will raise a double jeopardy argument against that effort. However,
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: double jeopardy considerations do not apply in situations where the
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: defendant was not truly in jeopardy of prosecution. In addition,
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: the court may wish to consider in crafting a remedy
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: Epstein's culpability for the violation of the MPa. Evidence that
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: Epstein was improperly obtaining information about the prosecution's efforts against
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: them would be highly relevant to that culpability assessment. It's
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: also relevant to the estoppel defense that the government and
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: perhaps Epstein as well, intends to raise. Evidence concerning Reinhardt's
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: connections include in proper connections to Epstein is also relevant
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: to bias and motive in the case. It would show,
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: for example, that Reinhardt had a reason to encourage others
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: in the US Attorney's office to give Epstein a more
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: lenient deal than the one he was entitled to. RFP
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Number sixteen requested information not only about improper connections between
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: Epstein and Reinhardt, but more broadly about such connections with
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: any prosecutors. Of course, if the government possesses such information,
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: it would be highly relevant to the victims allegations for
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: the reasons just discussed. In its answers to the victim's
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: request for admission, the government admits that it has information
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: about personal or business relationships between Jeffrey Epstein and another
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: prosecutor involved in the case, Matthew Minchell. Answers to requests
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: for admission at twenty the government should be required to
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: disclose all of those documents so that the victim can
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: determine whether there was anything improper about those relationships. In
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: my experience, it's highly unusual for federal prosecutors to work
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: on a case prosecuting someone such as Epstein and then
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: shortly thereafter leave the employment of the federal government and
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: enter into a business relationship with the person who was
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: being prosecuted. RFP number seventeen asked for documents concerning the
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: investigation into Epstein's prosecution undertaken by the Justice Department's Office
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: of Professional Responsibility OPR in Washington, d c. The investigation
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: was undertaken at the request of the victims, who asked
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: the Justice Department to determine whether improper influence were brought
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: to bear during the negotiations involving the possible prosecution and
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: ultimately the non prosecution of Epstein. It's apparent from the
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: privileged logs that the government has produced that OPR generated
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: a great deal of correspondence at least forty six pages
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: regarding this request. Of course, improper influence being brought to
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: bear on the ens Epstein prosecution would support the victim's
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: allegations that they are not being properly notified. Moreover, OPR
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: may well have investigated the specific allegations that are at
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: issue in the case, or directed others to undertake such
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: an investigation. Here, again, this information would be critical to
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: supporting the victim's case. In fact, because OPR has presumably
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: investigated many of the precise actions and actors about which
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: the victims complain in the litigation and have already gathered
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: many of the documents needed. The production of the OPR
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: case file could probably shortcut this litigation and discovery process.
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: There is no other way to obtain this information from OPR.
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: On May six, twenty eleven, nearly half a year after
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: the victim's request of December tenth, twenty ten for an investigation,
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: OPR sent a letter to my COCOONSIL professor Paul Kassel,
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: in which it stated that it regretted it could not
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: be of assistance in providing information about the allegations. All right, folks,
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here, and in the
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: where we left off. All of the information that goes
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.