← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Former Gov. John De Jongh And His Battle With Epstein Survivors Over Jurisdiction
00:19:46
In the case Does 1-6 vs. Gov. John de Jongh, Jr., et al., the defense counsel for Gov. John de Jongh, Jr. submitted a supplemental briefing in compliance with the court’s order to address topics discussed during a prior conference and highlight...
Loading summary
Transcript6 lines
- [00:00]
A
What's up everybody? It's Bretzky and America is turning 250 and I can't think of a better way to celebrate that than playing on an American owned social casino. Spinquest.com with all of your favorite games, live crafts, bubble craps, live blackjack, there's no better place to play for free and win real cash prizes. Spinquest.com Spinquest is a free to play
- [00:26]
B
social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. So we've been focusing a little bit on the Diddy situation, but don't think for a minute that I haven't been paying attention to what's going on down in the US Virgin Islands as the lawsuit continues to make its way through the system. And today we have a letter from Jean De Jong's lawyers addressed to Judge Submarine. So let's just dive right in and let's see what John De Jong has to say for himself. Case number 123cv10301 Dear Judge Submaranian, we represent defendant governor John de Jong Jr and we submit this supplemental briefing on topic discussed at the conference pursuant to this Court's order and to highlight particular cases or arguments, including those made at the conference by Plaintiff's counsel. We also join in and incorporate the other arguments made by the co defendants in their respective letter submissions. While Jean De Jong JDJ has elected to focus here primarily on venue arguments, JDJ still maintains that the second amended Complaint should be dismissed for the reasons argued by JDJ and and other defendants. If it is not dismissed, including for improper venue, the case should be transferred to the District of the Virgin Islands. 1. Plaintiff's inadequate responses to Venue Questions this case should be dismissed or transferred because Plaintiffs filed this case in the wrong venue U.S. code 28 Section 1406 A, 1391 B and this court lacks jurisdiction U.S. code 28 Section 1631. Even if venue is proper in the SDNY, the case should still be transferred pursuant to U.S. code 28 Section1404. The court addressed the venue issues at the hearing, asking plaintiff's counsel Mr. Merson, let me ask you a practical question. You could avoid all of these personal jurisdiction issues simply by filing this case in the US Virgin Islands or by consenting to transfer to the US Virgin Islands. Is there a reason why you don't want to do that? The Court appears to have determined that the first part of the two part test under U.S. code 28 section 1404 is satisfied the case might have been brought in the transferee venue. Franzway vs Bac Servicing, 2014 WL138, 3261 SDNY 2014. Mr. Mersan did not dispute that the case might have been brought if in the USVI either. Instead, Mr. Mersan responded, claiming there's a whole bunch of reasons why plaintiffs didn't file in the usvi. But in fact that bunch of reasons does not support venue in the SDNY. A conclusory statements about fear of the DVI Mr. Merson's lead argument was a conclusory assertion that all plaintiffs are afraid to go back to the DVI. Mr. Merson the main reason is we have clients who are afraid to go back to the US Virgin Islands and and litigate their case there. First, Mr. Merson's conclusory statement that the plaintiffs are afraid to go back to the USVI is not evidence. See Big Vision vs. E.I. dupont Dinamores, 1 F. Supp. 3d 224, 255 n.36 SDNY 2014, noting the lack of any evidence in the record supporting a party's allegations other than counsel's case inclusory assertions at oral argument, which of course is not evidence LCM 22 vs. Serta Simmons Betting 2021 WL 918-7054 SDNY 2021 statements that oral arguments are not evidence. Second, the plaintiff's apprehension about litigating in a forum where she was injured cannot categorically render the forum improper, especially because the status of the incident is is normally the basis of the venue. In Pajic v. Choice Hotels International, the plaintiff brought claims related to sexual assault against the defendant who sought a venue transfer pursuant to U.S. code 28 section 1404. The plaintiff and the conclusory assertion that San Juan, Puerto Rico, is not the proper forum for this matter. 2019 WL13234, 105, at 3, Southern District, Florida, 2019 and in response to defendant's analysis of the public and private Factors under section 1404, a plaintiff merely stated she suffered severe physical and emotional trauma at the hands of defendants in San Juan, Puerto Rico and so should not be forced to litigate in Puerto Rico, the District Court concluded that, in short, plaintiff failed to aid the court in any other respect in explaining why a transfer of venue should not be granted. Similarly, in Montante vs. LaHood, the District Court granted the defendant's motion to transfer venue pursuant to U.S. code 28 section1404 the plaintiff opposed stating that she feared emotional and physical harm from an unknown public that may disagree with her case. 2013 WL 12184149 at 4 N.2, Southern District of California, 2013 however, because plaintiff did not explain why she feared such harm in the transferee district, the court did not afford strong weight to plaintiffs contention. Mr. Merson's lead argument against transfer is his conclusory assertion in open court that the plaintiffs all fear returning to the usvi. This statement is not evidence and not a sufficient ground for opposing a venue transfer. B. Everything Did Not Happen in New York Mr. Meerson stated that the second reason plaintiffs chose not to file in the SDNY was that with respect to Epstein, everything has happened in New York. Where was Epstein? Where did Epstein live? Where was he supposed to stand trial? Later, Mr. Merson repeated everything has happened in New York. At another point, Mr. Merson qualified his position somewhat asserting everything occurred in New York except the actual sexual abuse. TR at 51, apparently admitting no alleged sexual abuse occurred in New York. Plaintiff's position at oral argument is directly refuted by plaintiff's own opposition and the SAC itself. In the opposition, the plaintiff concedes that the immunity afforded to Epstein also occurred in the USVI. ECF at 148N.1, at 10, emphasis added. Taken together, the plaintiff concedes that the abuse and the acts of many mostly John Doe defendants conferred immunity on Epstein, all in the usvi. But the SAC itself ultimately conflicts with counsel's in court statements and their own opposition. The SAC alleges substantial conduct exclusively in the USVI. For example, the defendants John Does 1 through 100 constitute 92% of the 108 defendants. Everything the SAC alleges the John Doe defendants did necessarily occurred only in the usvi. This is because the SAC alleges their conduct as USVI customs agents and or officers at 51 USVI air traffic controllers and employees of the USVI airport baggage check agent, employees of the usvi, employees of the USVI and USVI Coast Guard agents. There are many other examples of substantial conduct in addition to the sex abuse alleged to have occurred exclusively in the USVI. For example, SAC126 alleges no sexual assault, but instead alleges Jane Doe 3 and Epstein's substantial interactions with unidentified USVI officials in the usvi. To procure travel documents in the usvi. The SAC alleges that US Customs officials on the USVI never examined either the passport or luggage of anyone arriving on Epstein's private jet. USVI officials directed law enforcement officers, airport personnel, customs officials, and any other government employees to extend any courtesy or assistance to Epstein and his affluent customers and guests as part of their official duties. SAC at 173. All of these things happened only in the USVI. The alleged efforts to protect Epstein procure his travel documents, communications with non party customs, airport and other officials occurred nearly entirely in the USVI, according to the SAC. The SAC itself negates Mr. Mersan's assertion that everything has happened in New York. Nearly everything occurred in the USVI, according to the SAC. CEG Kreinberg First Dow Chemical Co. Dow 946 F. Supp. 2d 329331, SDNY 2007 transferring venue after finding that most of the operative events at issue took place in the transferee venue and concluding that it's likely that most of the witnesses and documents are located there. Collins vs. Aikman Corporation Secretary Litt, 438 F. Supp. 2d 392, 395, 397 SDNY 2006 transfer motion granted. Where numerous party and non party witnesses resided in the transferee forum, most relevant documents were located in the transferee forum and the transferee forum is where the subject conduct alleged happened. In this case, the ties to the USVI outweigh any connection this litigation may have to New York. C. Plaintiffs Counsel Admits to Forum Shopping the third reason Mr. Mersan offered for why the plaintiffs filed in the SDNY instead of the DVI was that if the case is bumped to the US Virgin Islands, the next thing you are going to hear is that the cases should have a $25,000 limit under the Virgin Islands Tort act, so that is clearly inadequate compensation for my clients. Mr. Meerson admits to forum shopping in the SDNY but for advantageous state law. However, Mr. Meeran is wrong on the law that will apply. It's true that after a transfer from an improper venue to a proper venue under section 1406, the transferee court applies its own law as if the case had been originally filed there, I. E. The plaintiff does not get the benefit of form shopping. Grant vs. Kia Motors, 2014 WL 6680686 citing GBJ v. East Ohio Paving, 139 F.3d 1080, 1085 Sixth Circuit, 1998. If the state law in the forum in which the action was originally commenced is applied following a section 1631 or 1406 transfer, the plaintiff would benefit from having brought the action and an impermissible forum Choquette vs. Sanfilippo, 2001 WL 1266305, at 4. As the sixth circuit in Martin Ver. Stokes recognized, plaintiffs would thereby be encouraged to file their actions in federal district court where the state law was most advantageous, regardless of whether that district court was the proper forum. If venue is improper in the sdny, plaintiffs were never entitled to New York law to begin with. They have lost nothing in that event. Plaintiffs would not be harmed by the DVI applying USVI law. However, if the court determines venue was proper in the SDNY but transfers for convenience, a court receiving a matter from a transfer court under section 1404 applies the law of the transfer court. Kelly Brown vs Winfrey, 2013 WL 657, 4918, at 1. SDNY 2014 the plaintiff gets the benefit of forum shopping grant 2014 668, 0686, at 2. So if the case is transferred, Mr. Mersan's clients may still seek the benefit of the New York law they perceive as more advantageous. D Epstein and Wealthy Abuser Friends Are Not Parties While the SAC alleges substantial conduct by Epstein and his wealthy abuser friends, none of them are named as defendants. The SAC fails to allege a sufficient nexus, conspiracy or otherwise, between the named defendants and Epstein and his abuser friends. Without this nexus, the plaintiffs cannot use non party conduct as a jurisdictional hook upon JDJ and other named USVI defendants. If the SAC does not allege a conspiracy, at best it alleges a conspiracy by non parties and not JDJ or the name defendants in the case. E Sexual Abuse is the Most Substantial Part of the case. Mr. Merson's argument that everything occurred in New York except the actual sexual abuse minimizes the fact that the alleged sexual abuse is the most substantial part of the case. Gray vs Acadia Healthcare 408 F. Sup. 3d 1250, 1255 DNM 2019 Venue proper in district where rape occurred Goldschmied vs Briffell 2018 WL 6430545 what's up everybody?
- [14:12]
A
It's Bretzky and America is turning 250 and I can't think of a better way to celebrate that than playing on an American owned social casino. Spin quest.com with all of your favorite games Live crabs, bubble craps, live blackjack, there's no better place to play for free and win real cash prizes. Spinquest.com Spin Quest is a free to
- [14:36]
B
play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details at 4 CD California 2018 venue proper where sex harassment and assault occurred Gerson vs Logan River Academy, 2020 WL 473134 at 3 Central District, California 2020 Although plaintiff was kidnapped from California and transported to Utah, each of her claims stemmed from the alleged sexual child abuse that took place at Logan's Academy. Accordingly, the operative facts did not substantially occur in the forum selected by plaintiff. More Moreover, because Plaintiff was sexually abused in Utah, the subject matter of the litigation is not substantially connected to California. Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiff's choice of forum is diminished and is entitled to only minimal consideration. Chesapeake Climate Action Network vs Imperial Bank, 2013 WL 605-7824 at 2 Northern District, California 2013 noting that deference to Plaintiff's choice of forum is substantially reduced where the forum lacks a significant connection to the activities alleged in the complaint, even if the plaintiff is a resident of that forum. FSAC 107 defendants evidence and incident sites in the USVI each of the 108 defendants, including John Does 1 through 100, are potential witnesses. They are all located in the USVI, save Plasket. All their evidence and documents are located in the usvi. Furthermore, the SAC identifies critical locations in the USVI which may be the location of documents, the subjects of inspection during discovery, or even a site visit at trial. These include Cyril King Airport, Epstein's Private Island, Epstein's Red Hook Office, and Although it's likely that all relevant documents can be transported from the state to state, at least in some fashion for purposes of deciding transfer, the fact that the documents are all currently located in Ohio favors transfer to Ohio. Royal Insurance vs. U.S. 998F. Supp. 351, 353 and 54 SDNY 1998. While photos or videotapes of the scene could be introduced at trial in any forum, and inspection of the site by the trier of fact could only be accomplished if the case were tried in California. G Court Empowered to Transfer Even if no Personal Jurisdiction Even if this court determines it does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants, it may still transfer this case to the dvi. This court has the power to transfer this suit to a district where it might have been brought in even though the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants. 2. Sovereign immunity applies to Governor JDJ JDJ joins the GVI and other defendants. Sovereign Immunity Agreements Territorial Sovereign immunity applies not only to the gvi, but also to the individuals sued in their official capacities as territorial officials. 3. Response to plaintiff CPLR 302A1 personal jurisdiction argument in their 1042024 letter, plaintiffs continue to argue that receiving a single payment in another state without maintaining a New York account gives rise to jurisdiction. Again, this is not always true. It can be true based on the nature of the financial relationship. Plaintiff site to the first Manhattan Energy first Meyer 150 AD 3521 but Meier was designated in the escrow agreement as the assigned escrow agent and he accepted the funds pursuant to the agreement. This is very different from a defendant receiving payment from Epstein that happens to come from a New York bank, especially when it's simply not plausible that any defendant requested money from a New York account. 4 Not plausible that defendants Requested money specifically from New York accounts Plaintiffs argue in their letter brief that requesting money from New York accounts in exchange for unrestricted trafficking of New York women with New York customers via a New York plane is sufficient for personal jurisdiction. It is not plausible that defendants requested money specifically from New York bank accounts or knew or cared from what state the money came. It's also not plausible that defendants specifically knew that the customers were New York customers or that the plane was a New York plane. Indeed, the SAC itself alleges that conduct happened in New York, Florida, USVI, and around the world. SAC301,305 the SAC also alleges that the defendants sought access to money and influential people from around the world and not just ny. Plaintiff's argument of targeted NY conduct in their letter brief is directly contradicted by the allegations that in the SAC the alleged payments and conclusory statements are insufficient to show that the defendant solicited money specifically from NY bank accounts. Rosner v. BOC 349 Federal Appendix 637, 639 Second Circuit 2009 finding a lack of factual allegations that point to actual knowledge of the fraudulent source of the deposited money since the bank's relationship with the perpetrators also of the underlying fraud did not extend beyond the banking relationship in agape litigation. 773 F. Suppp. 2d 298, 317 Eastern District, 2011, a banking relationship alone is insufficient to show that the funds held at the bank were obtained through fraudulent means. Defendant JDJ respectfully requests that the SAC be dismissed or in the alternative, transferred to the District Court of the Virgin Island St. Thomas vicinity. This was signed by Daniel Savalos and It was dated October 4, 2024. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the Description box.
- [20:48]
C
Hey guys, Lady Luck here. Are you going on any road trips this summer? I know I'm going to be going on a bunch of road trips and being that I'm going to be Passenger Princess, I Love playing on Spinquest.com Spinquest has all of my favorite slot games. Live blackjack, live craps. Head on over to Spinquest right now and get yourself a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.
- [21:11]
B
Spinquest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.