← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: Brad Edwards And The Battle Over The CVRA (Part 1) (6/12/26)
00:49:32
The affidavit submitted by attorney Bradley J. Edwards in the Southern District of Florida lays out a detailed argument for why the U.S. government should be compelled to produce documents related to the federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case....
Loading summary
Transcript17 lines
- [00:01]
Bluff
What's going on everyone? It's Bluff here and we're driving through the states in the Bluff Mobile and the best thing that we can do is play our favorite casino style games on Spin Quest. They have over a thousand games including live dealer blackjack and craps. With tons of slots and unlimited options. You can get a 30 coin pack for just $10. For new users. Sign up today. Go to spinquest.com right now Spinquest is
- [00:24]
Spin Quest Announcer
a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [00:30]
Bradley J. Edwards
What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're going to continue taking a look at some more court documents in regard to the CVRA and the non prosecution agreement. And this time we're taking a look at the affidavit of Bradley Edwards regarding need for the production of documents. Case number 908-cv-8736 Kam Jane Do 1 Jane Do 2 versus the United States of America the Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards I, Bradley J. Edwards, do hereby declare that I'm a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. Along with co counsel, I represent Jane Doe Number one and Jane Doe Number two and as referred to as victims in the above listed action to enforce their rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act. I also represented them in several other victims in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am also familiar with the criminal justice system, having served as a state Prosecutor in the Broward County State Attorney's Office. The affidavit covers factual issues regarding the government's assertions of privilege to more than 13,000 pages of documents it has produced for in camera inspection in the case. This affidavit provides factual information demonstrating that the government's assertions of privilege are not well founded. It further demonstrates that the victims have a compelling and substantial need for the information requested and have no other way of obtaining that information. Background Regarding Unsuccessful Efforts to reach Stipulated Facts with the government on July 7, 2008, I filed a petition to enforce the CVRA rights of Jang Do 1 and Djangdo 2 with regard to sex offenses committed against them by Jeffrey Epstein while they were minors. The course of the proceedings since then is well known to the court. For purposes of this affidavit regarding privileges, it's enough to briefly recount the efforts of the victims to reach a stipulated set of facts with the government efforts that the government has blocked. The court first held a hearing on victims petition on July 11, 2008, the court discussed a need to have complete record. And this is going to be an issue that's going to go to the 11th Circuit. So it may be better to have a complete record as to what your position is and the government's is to what actions were taken. The court concluded that the hearing with the following instructions. So I'll let both of you confer about whether there is a need for any additional evidence to be presented. And that was the transcript we did previously. So this is building on that. The victims in the U. S. Attorney's office then attempted to reach a stipulated set of facts underlying the case. The U. S. Attorney's office offered a very abbreviated set of proposed facts and the victims responded with a detailed set of proposed facts. Rather than respond to the victim's specific facts, however, the U.S. attorney's office suddenly reversed course. On July 29, 2008, it filed a notice to court regarding absence of need for evidentiary hearing. The U.S. attorney's office took the following position. After consideration, the government believes that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary. The office asserted that the court need only take judicial notice of the fact that no indictment had been filed against Epstein to resolve the case. On August 1, 2008, the victims filed a response to the government's notice given a proposed statement of facts surrounding the case. The victim's response also requested that the court direct the government to confer with the victims regarding the undisputed facts of the case and produce the non prosecution agreement and other information about the case. On August 14, 2008, the court held a hearing on the case regarding the confidentiality of the non prosecution agreement. The court ultimately ordered production of the agreement to the victims. After the U.S. attorney's office made the non prosecution agreement available to the victims, the victims reviewed it and pursued further discussion with the U.S. attorney's Office. Ultimately, however, the U.S. attorney's office declined to reach a a stipulated set of facts with the victims and declined to provide further information about the case. With negotiations at an impasse, the victims attempted to learn the facts of the case in other ways. In Approximately May of 2009, counsel for the victims propounded discovery requests in both states and federal civil cases against Epstein, seeking to obtain correspondence between Epstein and and prosecutors regarding his plea agreement, information that the U.S. attorney's office was unwilling to provide to the victims and information that was highly relevant both to the victim's civil suit and their CVRA enforcement action. Epstein refused to produce the information and as the court is aware, extended litigation to obtain the Materials followed. The court rejected all of Epstein's objections to producing the materials. On June 30, 2010, counsel for Epstein sent to counsel for victims approximately 358 pages of email correspondence between Criminal Defense Counsel and the U.S. attorney's Office regarding the plea agreement that had been negotiated between them. These emails began to disclose for the first time the extreme steps that had been taken by the U.S. attorney's office to avoid prosecuting Epstein and and to avoid having the victims in the case learn about the non prosecution agreement that had been reached between Epstein and the government. While the court ordered that all of the correspondence be turned over to the victims, Epstein chose to disobey that order and instead only produced the correspondence authored by the government and redacted all correspondence authored by him or his attorneys. In mid July 2010, Djangdo 1 and Djangdo 2 settled their civil lawsuits against Epstein. Then, armed with new information, they turned to moving forward in the CVRA case. On September 13, 2010, the victims informed the court that they were preparing new filings in the case. On October 12, 2010, the court entered an order directing the victims to provide a status report on the case by October 27, 2010. That same day, Counsel for the victims of again contacted the U.S. attorney's office about the possibility of reaching a stipulated set of facts in the case. That Same day the U.S. attorney's office responded, we don't have any problem with agreeing that a factual assertion is correct if we agree that is what occurred. On October 23, 2010, the victims emailed to the U.S. attorney's office a detailed proposal statement of facts that many of the facts now documented by the correspondence between the U.S. attorney's office and Epstein's counsel, the victims requested that the U.S. attorney's office identify which facts it would agree to. In a letter to the U.S. attorney's office, the victim stated if you believe that any of the facts they proposed are incorrect, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Do 2 would reiterate their long standing request that you work with us to arrive at a mutually agreed statement of facts. As you know, in the summer of 2008, Jane Doe 1 and and Jane Doe too were working with you on a stipulation of facts when you reverse course and took the position that no recitation of the facts was necessary. I hope that your email means that you will at least look at our facts and propose any modifications that you deem appropriate. Having that evidence quickly available to the court would help move the case to a conclusion. That same day, the U.S. attorney's office agreed to forward the proposed statement of facts to to the appropriate Assistant U.S. attorney for review. On October 26, 2010. Rather than stipulate to undisputed facts, the U.S. attorney's office contacted the victims attorneys and asked them to delay the filing of their motion for a two week period of time so that negotiations could be held between the office and the victims in an attempt to narrow the range of disputes in the case and hopefully reach a settlement resolution without the need for further litigation. Negotiation between the victims in the U S Attorney's Office then followed over the next two days. However, at 6:11pm on October 27, 2010, the date on which the victim's pleading was due, the U S Attorney's Office informed the victims that it did not believe that it had time to review the victim's proposed statement of the facts and advise which were accurate and which were inaccurate. The office further advised the victims that it believed that the victims did not have a right to confer with their office under the CVRA in this case because in its view, the case is civil litigation rather than criminal litigation. As a result, purely as an accommodation to the U.S. attorney's office, on October 27, 2010, the victims filed a report with the court in which they agreed to delay filing their motion and accompanying facts for up to two weeks to see if negotiations can resolve or narrow the disputes with the U.S. attorney's office. Discussions with the U.S. attorney'S office dragged on, including a personal meeting between Jang do won and the U.S. attorney in December of 2010. After further discussion failed to produce any agreement or other visible progress, the victims informed the U.S. attorney's office that that they would file their summary judgment motion with the court on March 18, 2011 and requested further cooperation from the office on the facts. Ultimately, after months of discussion, the U.S. attorney's office informed counsel for the victims that contrary to promises made earlier to stipulate to undisputed facts no such stipulation would be forthcoming. Instead, on March 15, 2011, the U.S. attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, Wilfredo A. Farah, sent a letter to the victims declining to reach any agreement on the facts because as a matter of law, the CVRA is inapplicable to this matter in which no federal criminal charges were ever filed. Your request for the government's agreement on a set of proposed stipulated facts is unnecessary and premature. That is because whether the rights in 18 U.S. code Section 3771A attached prior to the filing of a charge in federal court is a matter of statutory interpretation. Resolution of that question is not dependent upon the existence of any certain set of facts other than whether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey EPSTEIN in the U.S. district Court for the Southern District of Florida. And while this office remains willing to cooperate, cooperation does not mean agreeing to facts that are not relevant to the resolution or of the legal dispute at issue.
- [11:33]
Lady Luck
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 Spin Quest right now and get yourself a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.
- [11:56]
Spin Quest Announcer
Spin quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [12:04]
Bradley J. Edwards
Letter from Wilfredo A. Ferrer to Paul G. Cassell Accordingly unable to work with the government to reach a resolution of the facts On March 21, 2011, the victims filed a motion for summary judgment alleging 53 undisputed facts along with some evidentiary support for each of the facts. The victims also filed a motion to have their facts accepted because of the government's failure to contest their facts. The victims also filed a motion to have the court direct the government not to withhold relevant evidence. Following a hearing on the motions on September 26, 2011, the court rejected the government's argument that the CBRA was inapplicable in the case because the government had never filed charges against Epstein. The court, however, rejected the victim's argument that it should accept their facts because of the government's failure to contest the facts. Instead, the court directed that discovery could proceed in the form of requests for admissions and document production requests. The court reserved ruling on the victim's motion that the government should be directed not to withhold evidence. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode, we're going to pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off with the Brad Edwards affidavit in regards to CVRA and documents not being produced by the government. In light of the Court's order, on October 3, 2011, the victims file requests for production with the government. The request included 25 specific requests and each of which linked very directly to the facts that the victims were attempting to prove in the case. On November 7, 2011, the day when the government's responses were due, rather than produce even a single page of discovery, the government filed a motion to dismiss the victim's petitions. On that same day, the government filed a motion to stay discovery. The victims filed a response arguing that the government's motion was a stall tactic. The victims also filed a motion to compel production of all their discovery requests. The government filed a reply arguing that it was not stalling. Indeed, the government told the court that the United States has agreed to provide some information to the victims even during the pendency of this day of discovery and is undertaking a search for that information contrary to that representation. However, over the next 17 months, the government did not produce any any information to the victims, despite the victims reminding the government of that statement made to the court. Ultimately, after some additional motions and rulings, on June 19, 2013, the court denied the government's motion to dismiss and lifted any stay of discovery. That same day, the court entered an order granting the victim's motion to compel and directing the government to produce all correspondence between it and Epstein, all the communications between the government and outside entities, and every other document requested by the victims. With respect to the third item, the court allowed the government to assert privilege by producing the items in question for in camera inspection and filing a contemporaneous privilege log. The court required that the privilege log must clearly identify each document by the author, address, recipient, date, and and general subject matter. On July 19 and July 27, 2013, the government made its production with regard to item number one, correspondence with Epstein. The government withheld the correspondence pending the ruling from the 11th Circuit on Epstein's motion to stay production of these materials. With regard to the other items, the government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the court for in camera inspection, but turned over only 1,357 pages to the victims. Thus, the government asserted privilege to more than 90% of the documents in question. The documents that the government produced were almost worthless to the victims as they included such things as the victim's own letters to the government, court pleadings filed by the victims themselves or other victims by Epstein or by news media organizations, public court rulings on Epstein related matters, public newspaper articles, and similar materials already available to the victims. It also included roughly 400 pages of notices sent to the various other victims in the case, notices that were substantively indistinguishable from the notices the victims themselves in this case had already received. Almost without exception, the documents the government produced do not go to the disputed issues in the case. The government made one last production of material in the case on August 6, 2013. This involved roughly 1500 pages of documents that were largely meaningless in the context of the contested issues in the case. They included public documents in the case, such as the crime victim's own pleadings copy of the victim's redacted summary judgment motion. Curiously, while the government has produced these documents that would likely fall into irrelevant category of documents, they have simultaneously refused production of hundreds of other documents that are responsive to our requests. On the basis of relevance, the victims have tried to obtain information on all relevant subjects through requests for admission. The government, however, has refused to admit many of the victim's central allegations in the case. A copy of the victim's request for admissions and the government's response is attached to this affidavit so the court can see that the victims have diligently tried to pursue this avenue for developing the facts in the case. The victims have also tried to obtain information on subjects related to their suit by voluntary requests for interview with persons who are no longer employed by the Justice Department. For example, I've sent letters to both Bruce Reinhardt and Alex Acosta, who both have information about the Epstein case, requesting an opportunity to discuss the case with them. Both of them have ignored my letters. The need for materials Requested by the victims the documents that the victims requested that the government produced to them on October 3, 2011, are all highly relevant to their CVRA enforcement action. We would not have requested them otherwise. The victims also have no other means of obtaining the requested material. This section of the affidavit explains why the materials are needed by the victims. For the convenience of the court, the affidavit will proceed on a section by section basis concerning the need for material. Also, for the convenience of the court, a copy of the October 3, 2011 request for for production is attached to the affidavit. Also attached is the victim's supplemental discovery request of June 24, 2013. As the court will note from reviewing the request for production, most of the requests specifically recount the allegations that the requested documents would support in an effort to eliminate any dispute from the government that the documents were not relevant to the case. Many of the requests for production of linked directly to specific paragraphs in the victim's previously filed summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the victims have a very specific need for these documents to support the allegations in the summary judgment motion found at DE 48 at 323. The court has previously concluded that the victim's proof of their claims is at this point in the case, inadequate. Instead, the Court has ruled whether the evidentiary proofs will entitle the victims to that relief of setting aside the non prosecution agreement is a question properly reserved for the determination upon a fully developed evidentiary record. The Court has further indicated that it'll be considering estoppel argument raised by the government as a defense in the case. The Court has noted that this argument implicates a fact sensitive equitable defense which must be considered as the historical factual context of the entire interface between Epstein, the relevant prosecutorial authorities and the federal offense victims, including an assessment of the allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiations between Epstein and the federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non prosecution agreement to them. The victims have a compelling need for information about the government's action to show what the entire interface was and to respond to the government's estoppel arguments as well as other defenses that it appears to be preparing to raise. Requests for Production Number one Requests information regarding the Epstein investigation These documents are needed to support the victim's allegation that the government had a viable criminal case for many federal sex offenses that it could have pursued against Epstein. RFP number two requests information regarding crime victim notification in the case. These documents are needed to support victims allegations that their rights under cvra, their right to notice and to confer with the government were violated in the case. In particular, these documents are needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly notified about the non prosecution agreement entered into by the government and Jeffrey Epstein and that the government did not confer with the victims about the agreement. RFP Number three requests information about the npa, including in particular its confidentiality provision. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the confidentiality provision precluded disclosing the agreement to Jane Doe number one and and J no. 2 as well as to other victims. These documents are further needed to demonstrate that Jeffrey Epstein specifically orchestrated the secrecy of the agreement, thereby deliberately causing the government CVRA violation in the case. RFP Number four request documents relating to negotiation between the government and Jeffrey Epstein concerning the court and or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter and any guilty plea, including in particular any negotiation concerning concluding the plea in Miami or other location outside of West Palm Beach. These documents are relevant to the victim's allegations that the government was interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would effectively keep Epstein's victims, most of whom resided in or about Palm beach, from learning what was happening through the press. RFP Number five request documents pertaining to negotiation between the government and and Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation of the victims in civil cases by Epstein. These documents are needed to prove the victim's allegation that part of the plea negotiation with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts to make sure that victims would be represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not experienced personal injury lawyer or by someone familiar to Epstein and his legal team. RFP number six requests documents concerning the government and or Epstein's awareness of discussions of possible public criticism and the victim objections to the non prosecution agreement that they negotiated. The documents are needed to prove the victim's allegation that the government wanted the non prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been disclosed and and or the possibility that victims would have objected in court and convinced the judge not to accept the agreement. They are also relevant to bias and motive by the authors or subjects of other documents in the case. RFP Number seven requests documents regarding the government's awareness of its potential CVRA obligation in the case and regarding any discussion between government and Epstein concerning the the CVA obligations in the case. The documents are needed to approve the victim's allegation that the government was aware that it potentially had obligations under the CV to notify the victims about the non prosecution agreement and any related state court plea agreement. RFP Number eight requests documents regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and or non prosecution agreement, including efforts on his behalf by former President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. These materials are needed to prove the victim's allegation that after Epstein signed the non prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he used his significant social and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a more favorable plea deal. These materials are also needed to establish the course of proceedings in the case, which is necessary in light of the government's letters to the victims concerning the status of the case. All right folks, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with Brad Edwards and his CVRA affidavit.
- [25:48]
Spin Quest Promoter
Whether it's slots or live dealers, Spinquest.com has the fun and action you're looking for with Spin Quest exclusives. Blackjack, roulette, Baccarat and even live dice with craps and bubble craps. The games never stop so you don't have to and right now, new users get $30 coin packs for just 10 bucks. Play now@spinquest.com Spin Quest is a free
- [26:13]
Spin Quest Announcer
to play social casino. Void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [26:20]
Bradley J. Edwards
RFP number 10 requests documents regarding the victim's allegations that the FBI was led to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution and that the FBI was also misled by the U S Attorney's Office about the status of the case. The government has argued that these documents are not relevant to the case because the only issue is whether the government misled victims. But the government fails to recognize that the victims received information about the case through the FBI. These documents are therefore needed to demonstrate that the victims received inaccurate information about the status of the case. Inaccurate information caused by by the U.S. attorney's Office Negotiation with Epstein. If the FBI agents were not accurately informed about the progress of the case, then they could not have accurately informed the victims about the progress of the case, a central point in the victim's argument. Moreover, these documents would show a common scheme or plan, something made admissible in a trial by operation of Fed R evidence 404B. Of course, if the U.S. attorney's office was was misleading the FBI about the NPA, it would have been part of the same scheme or plan to mislead the victims as well. The documents are also needed to support specific allegations in the victim. Summary judgment motion RFP 11 requests documents regarding various meetings that the government, including FBI agents had with the victims. These documents are needed to prove that during those meetings the government did not disclose to the victims or their attorneys that a non prosecution agreement had been negotiated with Epstein and even if signed with Epstein that related to their cases. Allegations that the victims have advanced in their summary judgment motion RFP number 12 requests all documents connected with a request from the U.S. attorney's office to me, Bradley J. Edwards, to write a letter concerning the need for filing the federal charges of against Epstein and follow up to that letter. These documents are needed to show that this request was made to me without disclosing the existence of the non prosecution agreement. Thus, just as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were deceived about the NPA. I was deceived as well. It's also needed to contradict the government's apparent position that it disclosed the existence of the NPA to me and to the victims. The government admits that when Epstein was pleading guilty to the state charges discussed in the non prosecution agreement, the USAO and Epstein's defense attorneys sought to keep the document memorializing the non prosecution agreement confidential, but denies that they sought at that time to keep the existence of the non prosecution agreement confidential. RFP number 13 requests documents regarding how on or about June 27, 2008, the government learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to stay charges on or about June 30, 2008. The documents are needed to describe the course of proceedings in the case and to prove both the government and Epstein's awareness that he would be entering a guilty plea and thus blocking prosecution of other crimes without the victim's full knowledge of what was happening. RFP number 14 requests documents relating to the government and Epstein working together to keep the existence of the non prosecution agreement secret, including declining comment about the existence of such an agreement when asked about it when his guilty plea in state court became public knowledge. These documents are needed to prove the victim's allegation that the government concealed the MPA from them and to contradict what appears to be the government position, namely that the victims were aware of the MPA shortly after it was negotiated. Government answers to RFA 13B claiming that the USAO had communicated with Jang Do1 about the non prosecution agreement that barred conferring with victims about the agreement. RFP 15 requests documents pertaining to the feasibility of notifying the victims about the npa, along with information concerning how the victims came to receive a corrected notification letter honor about September 3, 2008, months after Epstein had pled guilty. These documents are needed to demonstrate that the government had no valid reason for failing to provide notice to the victims. It's also needed to demonstrate why the victims at the first received inaccurate information about the NPA as well as Epstein's involvement in that inaccurate notice. RFP number 16 requests documents regarding Bruce Reinhart, a senior prosecutor who was present in the U S Attorney's office during the time that the office negotiated the NPA with Epstein blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern District of Florida. In RFP number 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhardt learned confidential non public information about the Epstein matter. The court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this court in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the office, I never learned any confidential non public information about the Epstein matter. When Reinhart made that statement, it seemed improbable to me because Reinhardt was in close contact with other prosecutors in the office and would seem likely that he would have discussed the high profile Epstein case with him. Additionally, I learned through public record that while still a prosecutor at the office, Mr. Rinehart established his criminal defense office at the exact address, the exact suite number, as Jeffrey Epstein's personal business address. However, I did not have any direct way of contradicting Reinhart's sworn statement. Since then, however, in answering the victim's request for admissions, the government has admitted that it possesses information that Reinhardt learned confidential non public information about the Epstein case and that he discussed the Epstein case with other prosecutors. Of course, this means that the government has documents that Reinhart filed the false affidavit with the court. This gives rise to the reasonable inference that if Reinhart was willing to provide false information about this subject, he may have additional information about the case that's being concealed as well. Material about Reinhart are also needed to support the victim's summary judgment motion. Reinhart's affidavit with the court also states, because I did not have any, I did not share non public confidential information about the Epstein investigation with any of Epstein's attorneys. Because the government has information demonstrating that the first part of this statement is false, it may well be that the second part of the statement is is false as well. Given that Mr. Reinhardt established a business address identical to Epstein's business address at a time while he was still serving and working at the U.S. attorney's office, and that Mr. Reinhardt ultimately represented several of Epstein's co conspirators, jet pilots and staff during the civil litigation, any involvement Mr. Reinhardt had with Mr. Epstein's case while working at the office is highly relevant. The government has further admitted that it possesses documents reflecting contact between Bruce Reinhart and persons or entities affiliated with the Jeffrey Epstein case before Reinhardt left his job at the U. S. Attorney's office. As stated above, Reinhardt left the U. S. Attorney's office to start a private firm that was located in the same address as Epstein's personal business where he was daily. This would appear to be a violation of the Florida rules against of ethics for attorneys. Information about Reinhardt's connection to Epstein is critical to the victim's allegations in the case. If Reinhardt was helping Epstein gain insight about the prosecution's efforts that would provide a motive for Reinhardt and other prosecutors not to properly notify the victims and not to confer with them. Also, if Epstein was improperly receiving information about the prosecution's efforts against him, or lack thereof, that could be highly relevant to the remedy stage of the case in which the victims will ask, among other things, to have the NPA agreement invalidated. Epstein has already indicated that he will raise a double jeopardy argument against that effort. However, double jeopardy considerations do not apply in situations where the defendant was not truly in jeopardy of prosecution. In addition, the court may wish to consider, in crafting a remedy, Epstein's culpability for the violation of of the MPA evidence that Epstein was improperly obtaining information about the prosecution's efforts against him would be highly relevant to that culpability assessment. It's also relevant to the estoppel defense that the government, and perhaps Epstein as well, intends to raise evidence concerning Reinhart's connections. Including proper connections to Epstein is also relevant to bias and motive in the case. It would show, for example, that Reinhart had a reason to encourage others in the U.S. attorney's office to give Epstein a more lenient deal than the one he was entitled to. RFP16 requested information not only about improper connections between Epstein and Reinhart, but more broadly about such connections with any prosecutors. Of course, if the government possesses such information, it will be highly relevant to the victim's allegations for the reasons just discussed. In its answers to the victim's request for admission, the government admits that it has information about personal or business relationships between Jeffrey Epstein and another prosecutor involved in the case. Matthew Menshel answers to requests for admission at 20. The government should be required to disclose all of those documents so that the victims can determine whether there was anything improper about those relationships. In my experience, it's highly unusual for a federal prosecutor is to work on a case prosecuting someone such as Epstein and then shortly thereafter leave the employment of the federal government and enter into a business relationship with the person who was being prosecuted. RFP number 17 asked for documents concerning the investigation into Epstein's prosecution undertaken by the Justice Department's Office of Professional responsibility in Washington, D.C. the investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims, who asked the Justice Department to determine whether improper influence were brought to bear during the negotiations involving the possible prosecution and ultimately the non prosecution of Epstein. It's apparent from the privilege logs that the government has produced that OPR generated a great deal of correspondence, at least 46 pages regarding this request. Of course, improper influence being brought to to bear on the Epstein prosecution would support the victim's allegations that they are not being properly notified. Moreover, OPR may well have investigated the specific allegations that are at issue in the case or directed others to undertake such an investigation. Here. Again, this information would be critical to supporting the victim's case. In fact, because OPR has presumably investigated many of the precise actions and actors about which the victims complain about in the litigation and have already gathered many of the documents needed, the production of the OPR case file could probably shortcut this litigation and discovery process. There is no other way to obtain this information from OPR. On May 6, 2011, nearly half a year after the victim's request of December 10, 2010 for an investigation, OPR sent a letter to my co counsel, Professor Paul Cassell, and in which it stated that it regretted it could not be of assistance in providing information about the allegations. Alright folks, we're gonna wrap up right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with Brad Edwards and and his CBRA affidavit.
- [38:29]
Spin Quest Announcer
Ugh. I have had no luck lately. Wait.
- [38:32]
Lady Luck
Lady Luck Bretzky. I got you. I've had so much luck on spinquest.com they have all of my favorite games, slot games, live blackjack, craps and bubble craps. You can even get a $30 coin pack for just 10 bucks.
- [38:46]
Bradley J. Edwards
10 bucks for 30.
- [38:48]
Spin Quest Announcer
I'm headed over to spinquest.com right now. Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.
- [38:58]
Spin Quest Promoter
Foreign
- [39:02]
Bradley J. Edwards
asks for information about why the U S Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was conflicted out of handling various issues related to the Epstein case. This information is needed to show why the victims did not receive proper notification about the NPA that the Office negotiated with Epstein. It appears that the conflict of interest led that has been recognized may have had to do with the Office's treatment of the victims. Moreover, in its production of documents and in follow up correspondence, the U.S. attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida has indicated that there are no responsive documents being held by the U.S. attorney's office in the other district that is handling conflict matters. It appears that this other office in the middle District of Florida the this appears to be improbable because the Conflict matters would presumably generate many documents covered by the victim's discovery requests, including the OPR investigative file. Accordingly, the conflict matter is highly relevant to determining whether the U.S. attorney's office has provided complete production to the victims. A conflict of interest would also be highly relevant to the motivations of the government attorneys throughout the handling of the Epstein case. RFP19 asked for information supporting allegations made in March of 2011 by former U.S. attorney Alexander Acosta. He sent a three page letter to the news media in which he claimed that when government attorneys began investigating Epstein, Epstein launched a year long assault on the prosecution and prosecutors. This information is needed to explain why the U.S. attorney's office would have withheld notifications from victims about the npa. If prosecutors were being assaulted as Acosta has said they were, then they would have reason to disregard their obligations to crime victims. In addition, this would show improper behavior by Epstein which would be relevant at the remedy stage of the case. In determining the scope of any remedy, these allegations would also bear strong on motive and bias. RFP number 20 requests documents between the government and state and local prosecutors and police agencies, including the Palm Beach Police Department, regarding the non prosecution agreement. Because this involves information outside of the department, it is the victim's understanding that the government has already turned over all of this information to them as the court has directed. For the sake of completeness. However, it's worth noting that this information is needed to demonstrate that the victims were not properly informed that Epstein's plea to state charges would trigger the NPA and preclude prosecution for crimes committed against them. RFP number 21 requests correspondence regarding the NPA. Here again, the victims understand that the government is prepared to produce all of this information to them once the stay pending action by the 11th Circuit is lifted. Again, for the sake of completeness, it's worth noting that the correspondence is needed to demonstrate the victim's claims that the government was concealing the existence of the NPA from them and that this was done at Epstein's behest. The court has specifically noted that the victims have a need for information that will allow them to argue to the court in support of their allegation of a deliberate conspiracy between Epstein and federal prosecutors to keep the victims in the dark on the pendency of negotiation between Epstein and federal authorities until well after the fact and presentation of the non prosecution agreement to them. RFP number 22 requests information about consideration that Epstein provided or offered to provide to any individual within the government. Here again, the victims understand that this information is being provided to them. If again worth noting, however, that this information is highly relevant to explaining why the U.S. attorney's office would not have properly notified the victims about what's happening in their case. An allegation that is at the center of the victim summary judgment motion RFP 23 asks for documents that will assist Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in protecting their rights under the CVRA. The request links to the government's obligation under the CVRA to use its best efforts to protect victims rights U.S. code 18, Section 3771. The direct connection between this request and the victim's case is self explanatory. RFP24 request correspondence related to the Epstein prosecution that the government had with entities outside the federal government. Here again, it's my understanding that these materials have already been ordered produced. See DE192. For the sake of completeness, this information is again relevant to showing the course of the Epstein investigation and why the victims were not properly notified about the event during that investigation. RFP25 requests all initial productions that are required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is a protective request to ensure that should it be determined that the Civil Rules apply, they then receive all material to which they are entitled. In June of 2013, the victim sent a supplemental request for production asking the government to provide any information concerning any investigation that the Department undertook concerning the treatment of the victims during the investigation in the case, including any FBI grand jury, OPR, or other investigation in the Southern District of Florida, Middle District of Florida, or elsewhere. Here again, this information is critically needed as it would go directly to proving the victim's allegations that their rights were violated during the investigation of Epstein. This information would also go directly to defeating the government's estoppel argument. The information would also show motive and bias. Inadequate Privilege Log the government has produced a privilege log that violates the court's order in the case. I have been greatly hampered in responding to the government's assertions of privilege because of that inadequate log. Indeed, in many cases it's impossible to determine whether the government's assertions of privilege are even plausible because of the inadequacy of the log. The court has directed the government to produce a privilege log that clearly identifies each document as to which privilege is asserted by the authority, addressee, recipient, date, and general subject matter. Many of the entries into the privilege log fail to meet the requirement. A good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log comes from the very first entry in the log covering box number one. Some 39 pages of documents. Yet the only description of these 39 pages is file folder entitled corr re gj subpoenas containing correspondence related to various grand jury subpoenas and Attorney Vilafana's handwritten notes. Another good illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log is provided on page 20 of the first privilege log. With regard to box number three, the government asserts privilege here regarding 90 pages of documents, yet the only description of these 90 pages is file folder entitled Key Documents containing Correspondence between a USA and Case Agent Regarding Indictment prep questions Victim Identification information Corrections to Draft Indictment Indictment preparation timeline Key Grand Jury materials There are many other illustrations of the inadequacies of that privilege log that the Court will see when it examines it. I have also filed contemporaneously a response to the Government's privilege log which identifies many situations of an inadequate privilege log as well as other responses that are needed to respond to the Government's log. The Government has never contacted me or co counsel about any burdens associated with producing a privilege log that complied with the Government directives. At all times relevant to this case. I would have been willing to work with the Government counsel to minimize any excessive burden from from producing an adequate privilege log. The request for production that I sent to the Government specifically invited discussions to avoid any excessive burden. Failure to Prove Factual Underpinning of Privilege Claim Many of the Government's privilege assertions require factual premise such as the existence of an attorney client relationship and the rendition of legal services within that relationship. Yet the government has not provided the factual underpinnings of of any of its privileged assertions. An illustration of the problem is found on page one of the Supplemental Privilege Log. With regard to supplemental box number three, the entry here reads 71008 emails between Jay Sloman, Emery Vilafana, Kay Atkinson and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter Victim Notification the log then indicates that the Government is asserting attorney client privilege, which work product privilege and deliberative process privilege. The Government, however, does not provide any document for any of the factual underpinnings of any of these claims. For example, with regard to the attorney client claim, the Government does not explain who the attorney is and who the client is. With regard to the work product claim, the Government does not explain what litigation this document contemplated and with regard to the deliberative process, the the government does not explain what deliberative process was involved. There are many other illustrations of the Government's failure to prove the factual underpinnings of the privileged assertions which the court will see when it examines the victim's responsive log. Waiver of confidentiality. Some of the privileges that the government asserted have been waived. Of course, a requirement of a privilege is that confidentiality be maintained. Some of the materials have been circulated outside of any confidential circle, thereby waiving privilege. An illustration of waiver found on page one of the supplemental privilege log with regard to supplemental box number three. The entry here reads 7808email from Marie Villefana to Alex Acosta Jay Sloman Atkinson An FBI re proposed response to Goldberger's letter victim notification. The log then indicates that the government is asserting attorney client privilege with the email. But the emails were not internal to the u. S. Attorney's office but were also sent to the FBI. This is another illustration of the inadequacies of the privilege log because who in the FBI the materials were sent to is not disclosed. But the FBI is a law enforcement investigative agency, not an agency that provides legal advice. Accordingly, any attorney client privilege would be waived by dissemination of these emails outside of the attorney's office. Another illustration, a waiver is found on page three of the supplemental privilege log with regard to supplemental box number three. The entry here reads file folder labeled meeting with Ken Starr raajs drew containing handwritten notes by a Marie Vilafana and and of course a defense attorney who represented defendant Epstein. Recording information provided by a defense attorney is not part of any governmental attorney client privilege. Another illustration of waiver is found on page seven of the supplemental privilege log with regard to the supplemental box number three. The entry here reads file folder entitled notes plea negotiations containing nine 1707 email form from Maria Vilafana to Jay Richards and Kuykendall re Status update Undated and typed handwritten notes by Marie Vilafana. Items to be completed on case, strength of case, victim interviews, summary of evidence guideline calculations. The government is asserting attorney client privilege. Regarding this email, I understand the reference to Richards and Kuykendall to be references to FBI agents, not attorneys, and in the u. S. Attorney's office. Accordingly, the attorney client privilege would not extend to this email. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're going to pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
- [51:32]
Spin Quest Promoter
Happy birthday, America. It's time to celebrate and play your favorite Las Vegas casino games by American owned spinquest.com what's better than fireworks and American pie? Hitting a blackjack in the palm of your hand and you won't lose your fingers. Over a thousand games, including slots and live dealers and $30 coin packs are on sale for 10 spinquest.com buy American players for American players, Spin Quest is
- [51:58]
Spin Quest Announcer
a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more details.