← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: The Order Remanding Jeffrey Epstein To The Care Of The State (3/27/26)
01:12:16
In July 2019, following his arrest on federal sex trafficking and conspiracy charges, Jeffrey Epstein was formally ordered remanded to custody after a detention hearing before Judge Richard Berman. Prosecutors argued that Epstein’s extraordinary...
Loading summary
Transcript35 lines
- [00:02]
A
Bubba Wallace here from 2311 Racing. You know what's slower than a pace car waiting at the car wash? That's when I fire up Chumba Casino. It turns those slow minutes into fast fun. With new games every week, you'll never get bored. Next time you're stuck in the slow
- [00:19]
B
lane, speed up with Chumba.
- [00:20]
A
Play now@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba sponsored by Chumba Casino. NO purchase necessary VGW Group Void where prohibited by law 21/ terms and conditions apply Every day the world gets a little weirder and a lot more awesome. Cool Stuff Daily takes a look at everything from mining in space to the latest in the fight against cancer to how AI is basically changing everything. It's all the cool stuff you didn't know you needed to know. Join us for Cool Stuff Daily as we take a quick look at science tech and the Wait what stories that make you sound way smarter at dinner. Subscribe to Cool Stuff Daily now because the future's happening fast and it's way too fun to miss one.
- [01:06]
B
And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to start taking a look at the decision and the order to remand Jeffrey Epstein to custody after he was arrested in 2019. Case number 19cr 490rmb United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein. Background this ruling follows the Court's bail hearing held on July 15, 2019. The issue before the court is whether the defendant should continue to be remanded, incarcerated pending trial, or whether he should be granted release while the case proceeds. No matter the answer to this question and no matter what has been said in court in analyzing the matter, this is a criminal case and the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is innocent of the federal charges alleged against him now, and until such time, if it comes, that a jury in a court finds, after fair and thorough consideration of the facts and the law, that he is guilty. See transcript dated July 8, 2019. It should also be borne in mind that the court has not yet been presented with a motion to dismiss the indictment. This is a federal as opposed to a state case. We proceed under federal law and federal rules. The key federal statute that applies Here is US 18, section 1591, which sets forth the crime of sex trafficking with which Mr. Epstein is charged. Mr. Epstein is also charged with conspiring with others to commit sex trafficking under US Code 18, Section 371. So he's allegedly conspiring with others here, but nobody else gets charged. There's no RICO case. I wonder why with respect to the issue of remand versus release, US Code 18, Section 3142 applies. It sets forth a presumption in favor of remand, an exception to the presumption in most cases which favors pretrial release. Section 3142 states that if there is probable cause to believe that the person committed an offense involving a minor victim under section 1591, then it shall be presumed that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community. U.S. code 18, Section 3142 e.3d. See United States v. Martyr, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 Second Circuit 1986. The indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury, thus establishing probable cause that the defendant committed the crimes of sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy. See United States v. Contreras, 776 F.2d 51, 55, 2d 2nd Circuit 1985. An indictment returned by a duly constituted grand jury conclusively establishes the existence of probable cause for the purpose of triggering the rebuttal presumptions set forth in section 3142. In most federal cases, the rebuttal presumption that applies favors pretrial release, not remand. There is another very important issue to be considered in this case. It has to do with victims of the crimes charged in the indictment. Victims refer to the minor girls who were alleged to have been sexually trafficked by the defendant. Under U.S. code 18, Section 3771. Victims are entitled to be heard in court, including on the question of whether the defendant is to be released or remanded. Victims have, among other things, been given the opportunity to testify at the bail hearing. Counsel Submissions the Government's letter application, dated July 8, 2019, requests that the court remand Mr. Epstein. It argues that Mr. Epstein poses an acute danger to the community and, grounded in past experience with the defendant, that if Mr. Epstein is allowed to remain out on bail, the defendant could attempt to pressure and intimidate witnesses and potential witnesses in this case, including victims and their families, and otherwise attempt to obstruct justice. Docket 11, example 1. The government also contends that in light of the strength of the government's evidence and the substantial incarceratory term the defendant would face upon conviction, there is an extraordinary risk of flight, particularly given the defendant's exorbitant wealth, his ownership and access to private planes capable of international travel, and his significant international ties. The government also provides the following background information in or about 2005, the defendant was investigated by local police in Palm Beach, Florida in connection with allegations that he committed similar sex offenses against minor girls. The investigation ultimately also involved federal authorities, namely the U.S. attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and the FBI's Miami office, and included interviews with victims based in the Palm beach area, including some of the alleged victims relevant to count one of the instant indictment. In the fall of 2007, the defendant entered into a non prosecution agreement with the Southern District of Florida in connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation, which the non prosecution agreement identified as including investigations into the defendant's abuse of minor girls in the Palm beach area. Idea 3 In June 2008, the defendant pleaded guilty to Florida state count to one count of procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution, a felony, and one count of solicitation of prostitution, also a felony. As a result, the defendant was designated a sex offender with registration requirements under the National Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. The Defense moved on July 11, 2019 for pretrial release of Mr. Epstein, arguing that Mr. Epstein's strict compliance with the various monitoring requirements associated with the sex offender registration actually decreases any danger that he might otherwise pose and also that Mr. Epstein has never once attempted to flee the United States. The defense proposes what they describe as a stringent set of 14 conditions that will effectively guarantee Mr. Epstein's appearance and debate any conceivable danger that he's claimed to present. Id. At 1. The 14 conditions do not include private security guards. 247 the 14 conditions do 1. Home detention in Mr. Epstein's Manhattan residence with permission to leave only for medical appointments as approved by Pretrial Services, including at the court's discretion, the installation of surveillance cameras at the front and rear entrance to ensure compliance electronic monitoring with Global Positioning System. 3. An agreement not to seek or obtain any new passport during the pendency of this matter. 4. Consent to the US extradition from any country in waiver of all rights against such extradition. 5. A substantial unspecified personal recognizance bond in the amount set by the court after reviewing additional information regarding Mr. Epstein's finances. 6. The bond shall be secured by a mortgage on the Manhattan residence valued at roughly $77 million. Mr. Epstein's private jet can be pledged as further collateral. 7. Mr. Epstein's brother will serve as a co surety of the bond, which shall be further secured by a mortgage on Mark's home in West Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Epstein's friend David Mitchell will also serve as a co surety and pledge his investment interest in two properties. To secure the bond, Mr. Epstein shall deregister or otherwise ground his private jet. 9. Mr. Epstein shall demobilize, ground and or deregister all vehicles or any other means of transportation in the New York area, providing particularized information as to each vehicle's location. 10. Mr. Epstein will provide Pretrial Services and or the Government random access to his residences. 11. No person shall enter the residences other than Mr. Epstein and his attorneys without prior approval from Pretrial Services and or the court. 12. Mr. Epstein will report daily by telephone to Pretrial Services or any other schedule the court deems appropriate. 13. A trustee or trustees will be appointed to live in Mr. Epstein's residence and report any violation to to Pretrial Services and or the court. 14. Any other conditions the court deems necessary to reasonably assure Mr. Epstein's appearance. Idea 3 and 4 the defense also proposes as a fallback, round the clock, privately funded security guards which will virtually guarantee, not just reasonably assure Mr. Epstein's presence in the circumstances of the case. The bail package originally was not accompanied by a financial statement reflecting Mr. Epstein's finances. However, on July 12, 2019, the defense filed a one page document which includes five groups assets owned by Mr. Epstein totaling $559,120,954. The government responded to the defense motion on July 12, 2019, arguing, among other things, that Mr. Epstein has a history of obstruction and manipulation of witnesses, including as recently as within the past year when media reports about his conduct in Florida reemerged docket at 11 and 1. The government filing was made against a backdrop of significant and rapidly expanding evidence, serious charges and the prospect of a lengthy prison sentence. It contends that the defendant's proposed conditions of release are woefully inadequate. The court also received a letter from the government dated July 16, 2019, providing, among other things, details about allegedly suspicious payments made by the defendant in 2018. A Palm Beach, Florida police report Mr. Epstein's expired Austrian passport in another name, but with Mr. Epstein's photo and a pile of cash and diamonds found in Mr. Epstein's safe. For example, the government says records from Institution 1 show that on or about November 30, 2018, two days after the series in the Miami Herald began, The defendant wired $100,000 from a trust account he controlled to an individual named as a potential co conspirator. End on or about December 3, 2018, the defendant was wire $250,000 from the same trust account to an individual who was also named as a potential co conspirator. Two According to the government, the second individual is also one of the employees identified in the indictment, which alleges that she and two other identified employees facilitated the defendant's trafficking of minors by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant at his residences in Manhattan and and Palm Beach, Florida. By letter dated July 16, 2019, defense counsel states, among other things, that the Court should reject the idea that there is literally nothing a person of Epstein's means could say, do or pledge to rebut the operative presumption and make himself eligible for release. Epstein contends that section 1591 and the concomitant remand presumption do not contemplate or even cover the core conduct at issue here, performing sexual massages for money. Defense Counsel also states that Epstein certainly recognizes the Court's request for further transparency and is committed to providing a complete and accurate disclosure. Accordingly, we propose that the Court preliminarily accept the initial financial disclosure proffered last Friday and, if intending to grant bail in, include a release condition directing Epstein to tender a comprehensive forensic accounting of his finances as expeditiously as practicable.
- [13:44]
A
Tyler redick here from 2311 racing another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Chumba. Jump in@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba. No purchase necessary. BTW Group void where prohibited by law. CTNC21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino Hi, this is Alex Canceroitz. I'm the host of Big Technology Podcast, a longtime reporter and an on air contributor to cnbc. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial intelligence is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology, I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it, asking where this is all going. They come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon, and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, in meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology Podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Josh Spiegel, host of the podcast Lunatic in the Newsroom. If you enjoy journalism that drifts into mild panic, wild overthinking, and a guaranteed nervous breakdown, Lunatic in the Newsroom is for you. It's news like you've never heard before. The only newsroom with a panic button. You'll laugh, you'll cry and gasp in horror as the show spirals completely out of control. It's not just news, it's emotionally unstable lunatic in the newsroom. Listen today.
- [15:05]
B
Four by letters dated July 16 and July 17, 2019, defense counsel also submitted information regarding Epstein's New Mexico sex offender registration status. Defense counsel also stated that Epstein traveled extensively over the last eight months and invariably returned to the United States. That inescapable reality emphatically proves he won't flee and and entitles him to release on any and all conditions the court deems appropriate. The Indictment A grand jury voted to indict Mr. Epstein on or about July 2, 2019. The indictment charges Mr. Epstein with two felonies involving minor girls, some as young as 14. Count one includes conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor girl in violation of U.S. code 18, Section 371 and count to include sex trafficking of minor girls in violation of U.S. code 18, Section 1591. It states from at least in or about 2002 up to and including at least in or about 2005, Jeffrey Epstein enticed and recruited and caused to be enticed and recruited to visit his mansion in Manhattan, New York and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida to engage in sex acts with him, after which he would give the victims hundreds of dollars in Cash. Indictment dated July 2, 2019. Moreover, and in order to maintain and increase his supply of victims, Epstein paid certain of his victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly abused by Epstein. In this way, Epstein created a vast network of underage victims for him to sexually exploit and in locations including New York and Palm Beach. The indictment also charges that his victims were as young as 14 years old at the time that they were abused by Mr. Epstein and were, for various reasons, often particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Mr. Epstein intentionally sought out minors and knew that many of his victims were in fact under the age of 18 because in some instances minor victims expressly told him that their age. Following his arrest on Monday, July 8, 2019, Mr. Epstein was arraigned and presented with the indictment by Magistrate Judge Henry Pittman. Legal principles governing release versus remand under the Bail Reform Act US Code 18, Section 3142, a court can order a defendant's detention if it determines that the defendant is either 1 a danger to the community or or 2 a risk of flight. 18 U.S. code Section 3142. A court does not need to find both bases are proven to order a defendant's detention. CID United States v. Blanco, 570F, Appendix 7678 Second Circuit, 2014. Dangerousness means that the defendant is a danger to the safety of any person or the community. U.S. code 18, Section 3142. A finding of dangerousness must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, 542 Second Circuit, 1995. Where there is a strong probability that a person will commit additional crimes if released, the need to protect the community becomes sufficiently compelling that detention is, on balance, appropriate. United States v. Chemmenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 2nd Circuit, 1985. Even a single incident of witness tampering may be sufficient to revoke. Bell LaFontaine, 210F.3d at 134. To order detention based upon flight risk, the court must find a preponderance of the evidence that no conditions could reasonably assure the defendant's presence at trial. CEG United States v. Jackson, 823 F.2d4.5, 2nd Circuit, 1987 U.S. code 18, Section 3142. The constitutional limits on a detention period based on dangerousness to the community may be looser than the limits on a detention period based solely on the risk of flight. In the former case, release risks injury to others, while in the latter case release risks only the loss of a conviction. United States v. 4 F.3d 1038, 1048 Second Circuit, 1993 quoting United States vs. 1986 F.2d 628, 631 Second Circuit, 1993. A bail package that may reasonably assure the appearance of a defendant at trial will not necessarily assure the safety of the community. United States Vers. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 89 2nd Circuit
- [20:03]
A
1991 hello, it is Ryan and we could all use an extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we? Just to make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes, counting your steps. You know, all the mundane stuff. That is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino. Chumba Casino has all your favorite social casino style games that you can play for free, anytime, anywhere with daily bonuses. So sign up now@chumbacasino.com that's chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary. VGW Group void where prohibited by law. 21 plus terms and conditions apply. This is Mike Bolo of Lexicon Valley and I'm Bob Garfield. Are you one of those people who sometimes uses words? Do you communicate or acquire information with, you know, language hey, us too. So join us on Lexicon Valley to chew over the history, culture, and many mysteries of English. Plus some lice cracks. Find us on one of those apps where people listen to podcasts the Bail
- [21:04]
B
Reform act sets forth the following four factors to be considered in the release remand 1. The nature and circumstances of the crimes charged 2 the weight of the evidence against the person 3 the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the person's character and financial resources and 4 the seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant's release. U.S. code 18, Section 3142. The weight afforded to each factor under Section 3142 is within the special province of the district court. United States v. Palino, 335 F.3d 6006, 10 SDNY 2018 quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 Second Circuit 1987. The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and consideration of information at the release remand hearing. U.S. code 18 section 3142F.2. For example, the government is entitled to present evidence supporting remand by way of proffer, among other means. U.S. code 18 Section 3142F and 2 see also U.S. v. La Fontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 Second Circuit, 2000. Bail hearings are typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery. U.S. code 18, Section 3142 F.2B expressly states that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at bail hearings. Thus, courts often base detention decisions on hearsay evidence. United States v. Aberama, 389 F.3d 309, 321 n.7, 2nd Circuit 2004. District courts are afforded wide discretion regarding the scope of of such United States v. Bartok, 472 F. Apx. 25, 27 Second Circuit 2012. The presumption of remand in U.S. code 18 section 1591 cases a U.S. code 181591 case involving sexual victimization of a minor is unusual in that it includes a presumption in favor of of pretrial detention reflecting the significant harm caused by such a crime. U.S. code 18, Section 3142e, 3 and e the presumption is that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure against flight or danger to the community. United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 Second Circuit 2010 quoting U.S. code 18, Section 3, 142e, 3 and e. Mr. Epstein may rebut the presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a flight risk. United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 2nd Circuit 2001 the government remains the ultimate burden of persuasion that Mr. Epstein presents a danger to the community by clear and convincing evidence and that Mr. Epstein presents a flight risk by a preponderance of evidence. Even if rebuttal evidence is presented, the presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely. Idea 436 it remains a factor to be considered among those who weighed by the district court. Mr. Epstein poses a danger to others and to the community. The court begins with dangerousness because that concept is at the heart of this case. It finds that the government has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Epstein threatens the safety of another person and of the community as follows on pages 1021 victims have advised the court that they would fear for their safety if Mr. Epstein was released. Victims have specifically conveyed to the government that any form of release of the defendant, including home detention with full time private guards, could result in their harassment and abuse. At the bail hearing on July 15, 2019, two victims movingly testified about their past sexual encounters with Epstein when they were minors age 14 and 16 respectively. At 22. In enacting the CVRA, Congress stated that victims deserve the right to be heard at specific points in the criminal justice process, including bail hearings. Giving victims a voice not only improves the quality of the process but can also be expected to often provide important benefits to the victims. Ms. Annie Farmer was introduced by her counsel, David Boies, and stated that she was only 16 years old when she had the misfortune of meeting Jeffrey Epstein in New York on 715 19. Ms. Farmer said that Mr. Epstein flew her to New Mexico and was inappropriate with her. She was reluctant to go into details about her experience with Mr. Epstein. Ms. Farmer opposes Mr. Epstein's pre trial release because she believes other Epstein victims would continue to be victimized and that Mr. Epstein's wealth and privilege and notoriety would make it difficult for other victims to come forward. Id. At 72. Ms. Courtney Wilde was introduced by her counsel, Brad Edwards, and said she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein starting at the age of 14. Id. At 73 and 74. She asked the court to keep Mr. Epstein in detention for the safety of any other girls out there that are going through what she's going through. Ms. Wild said that Mr. Epstein is a scary person to have walking the streets. Mr. Epstein poses a threat to additional girls if he is released. At the remand release Hearing on Monday, July 15, 2019, the court heard poignant testimony from two of Epstein's alleged victims about their fears and anxiety over his potential release even if under strict conditions of home confinement. The court is also concerned for new victims. Mr. Epstein's alleged excessive attraction to sexual conduct with or in the presence of minor girls, which is said to have included his solicitation and receiving massages from young girls and young women perhaps as many as four times a day, appears likely to be uncontrollable. See United States v. Manicci, 128 F. 827, 829, 832nd Circuit 2005. Defendants alleged sex crimes were of an addictive sexual nature that cannot be suppressed simply by a restrictive set of bail conditions. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein and his past sexual conduct is not likely to have abated or been sexually suppressed by fierce determination as his defense counsel suggests. Defense counsel contends that he wasn't a predator that couldn't control his conduct. He disciplined himself. Defense counsel also argues that appreciating the gravity of these charges, putting aside the age of these witnesses and putting the consent issue aside, it's not like Epstein is an out of control rapist. See the transcript at 36. It seems fair to say that that Mr. Epstein's future behavior will be consistent with past behavior, including the trove of lewd photographs of young looking women or girls which were recently uncovered during the July 6 and 7, 2019 search of Mr. Epstein's 71st street mansion. See docket 11. The search results suggest the possibility that the defendant could target another vulnerable victim. See United States v. Baker, F. Supp. 3d 11, 11, 13, 1135d and M. 2018 where the defendant was alleged to have specifically target vulnerable women and where he attempted to contact an alleged victim. The court was persuaded that the defendant would be a danger to society if released despite having been convicted of the above mentioned two Florida sex crimes in 2008 involving an under age girl. Mr. Epstein has noted that maintained at his New York residence a vast trove of sexually suggestive photographs of nude, underage and adult girls. Docket 11, example 1, at 9. That is during the July 6, 2019 authorized search of Mr. Epstein's NYC residence, the FBI found a substantial collection of photographs trophies of his victims and other young females. Doc. At 11, at 10. This evidence includes compact discs labeled Young Misc Nudes 1 and Girls Pics Nudes. The government contends that this evidence includes hundreds or perhaps thousands of sexually suggested photographs of nude underage girls and women, and that it is corroborative in nature and it is consistent with the victim recollection of the inside of Mr. Epstein's residence. Docket 11, example 1. 9. This newly discovered evidence also suggests that Mr. Epstein poses ongoing and forward looking danger. See Docket 11, at 10. See also Baker, 349 Supp. 3d at 1135 United States vs Goodwin, 2015 WL 6386, 568 at 3wd KY October 21, 2015 Tyler Redick here from
- [30:43]
A
2311 Racing Victory Lane yeah, it's even better with Chumba by my side. Race to chumbacasino.com let's Chumba no purchase necessary. VTW group void where prohibited by law. CTNC's 21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino Hey, I'm Josh Spiegel, host of the podcast Lunatic in the Newsroom. If you enjoy journalism that drifts into mild panic, wild overthinking, and a guaranteed nervous breakdown, Lunatic in the Newsroom is for you. It's news like you've never heard before. The only newsroom with a panic button. You'll laugh, you'll cry and gasp in horror as the show spirals completely out of control. It's not just news, it's emotionally unstable. Lunatic in the Newsroom Listen today. Every day the world gets a little weirder and a lot more awesome. Cool Stuff Daily takes a look at everything from mining in space to the latest in the fight against cancer to how AI is basically changing everything. It's all the cool stuff you didn't know you needed to know. Join us for Cool Stuff Daily as we take a quick look at science Tech and the Wait, what Stories that make you sound way smarter at dinner. Subscribe to Cool Stuff Daily now because the future's happening fast and it's way too fun to miss
- [32:05]
B
the section 1591 presumption of pre trial remand reflects the seriousness of Mr. Epstein's alleged crimes. The significant harms and dangers of sex crimes involving minors animated Congress to create the statutory presumption of detention. United States vs Hardy 2019 WL 221, 1210@10.ddc May 22, 2019 the presumption of remand reflects Congress substantive judgment that particular classes of offenders should ordinarily be detained prior to trial. United States v. Stone 600, 8 F.3d 939, 945 6th Circuit, 2010. Other serious offenses that are accompanied by the presumption of remand are kidnapping, U.S. code 18, Section 1201 aggravated sexual abuse U.S. code 18, section 2241 sexual abuse U.S. code18, section 2242 offenses resulting in death U.S. code 18, § 2245 the sexual exploitation of children U.S. code 18, §§ 2251 selling or buying children U.S. code 18, §§ 2260 coercion and enticement U.S. code 18, SECTION 2422 transport of minors U.S. code 18, Colony 2423 use of interstate facilities to transmit information about a minor, U.S. code 18 section 2425 and U.S. code 18, section 3142 e. 3. The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutted. Martyr, 782 F.2d at 1144. If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger the community or flee the jurisdiction, the presumption is not erased. See the United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707, 7 Circuit 1986. Rather, the presumption remains in the case as an evidentiary finding militating against release to be weighted along with other evidence. United States v. Hur, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086 Ninth Circuit, 2008. Also see Martyr, 782 F.2d at 1144. The concern underlying the presumption applies to the general class of defendants charged with one of the specified offenses, not merely to defendants who fail to produce rebuttal evidence. Were the presumption to vanish upon any showing, courts would be giving too little deference to Congress findings regarding this class. The U.S. pretrial Services Department recommends to the court that Mr. Epstein continue to be remanded. The Pretrial Services report, dated July 8, 2019, concludes following pretrial services interview of Mr. Epstein that there is no condition or combination of conditions that can reasonably assure the safety of the community if Mr. Epstein is released. Pretrial Services report, dated July 8, 2019, at 4. Pretrial Services also concluded that Mr. Epstein is a flight risk and recommends that he be detained for that reason as well. In support of the assessment of Mr. Epstein's dangerousness, Pretrial Services cites the the nature of Mr. Epstein's currently charged instant offense, I.e. sex trafficking and conspiracy involving minor girls Mr. Epstein's prior arrest, for example, in Florida in 2006, Mr. Epstein's history and conviction involving a sex offense, which Principally refers to defendants 2008 conviction for procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution and for solicitation of prostitution, also a felony Mr. Epstein's status as a registered sex offender in New York, Florida and the Virgin Islands and Mr. Epstein's pattern of similar criminal activity. The seriousness of the crimes that Mr. Epstein has been charged with is also reflected in the fact that the crimes involve minor children. Mr. Epstein is said by the government to be a serial sexual predator who allegedly victimized dozens or more minor girls, including a 14 year old girl. He was involved in and undertook the alleged sexual activity in several locations, including his mansion in Manhattan and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida. Indictment 2 by actively encouraging certain minor victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly sexually abused, Mr. Epstein is said to have created a vast network of underage victims for him to exploit. The government alleges that Mr. Epstein intentionally sought out and knew that he was abusing minors. Indeed, in some instances, his victims expressly told him that they were underage before or during the period in which he abused them. The crimes with which Mr. Epstein are charged with carry a maximum sentence of 45 years of incarceration. The deprivation of liberty imposed by imprisonment makes that penalty the best indicator of whether the legislature considered an offense to be serious. United States v. Dugan, 667 F.3d 84, 86 Second Circuit, 2011 quoting Lewis vs. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 326, 1996 and the crimes Mr. Epstein has been charged with are among the most heinous in the law, principally in the court's view, because they Involve Minor Girls. U.S. code 18, Section 3142. See also Roger Pryzliski, Chapter 5 Adult sex offender Recidivism Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative Researchers widely agree that observed recidivism rates are underestimates of the true re offense rates of sex offenders. Hitting offending presents significant challenges for professionals working in sex offender management as it is difficult to know whether offenders who appear to be non recidivists based on official records are truly offense free. Mr. Epstein or his representatives have intimidated, threatened and or made payments to potential witnesses. The government's evidence includes Florida police reports describing harassment and intimidation of witnesses involved in the Florida State criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein in 2006 and emails dated September 13, 2007 and September 19, 2007 from Mr. Epstein's former counsel to federal prosecutors in Florida discussing the option of Mr. Epstein pleading guilty to witness tampering for harassment and or obstruction of justice. A Palm beach police report dated July 19, 2006 states that one of Mr. Epstein's victims reported that Mr. Epstein's representative said to her, those who help Mr. Epstein will be compensated and those who hurt Mr. Epstein will be dealt with. Docket example 3, at 2. The report also states Mr. Epstein's representatives assured the victim that she would receive monetary compensation for her assistance in not cooperating with law enforcement. Another undated Palm Beach Police incident report states that the parent of one of Mr. Epstein's alleged victims contacted the Palm beach police to report that Mr. Epstein's private investigator had aggressively driven the parent's car off the road. Docket 11 example 2. This same report states that the parent of another victim was reported being followed aggressively by Mr. Epstein's private investigator. The government contends that these reports together suggest that an associate of Epstein's was offering to buy victim silence during the course of the prior investigation and demonstrate Mr. Epstein's willingness to use intimidation and aggressive tactics in connection with a criminal investigation. Docket 11 the government also submits email evidence attached to this order as Exhibit 1 of plea discussions in 2007 between Florida federal prosecutors and Mr. Epstein's attorneys that confirmed that Mr. Epstein considered pleading guilty to witness tampering, harassment, and or obstruction of justice in a case involving alleged sex crimes with Minor Girls. On September 13, 2007, prosecutors wrote to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they have been spending some quality time looking for misdemeanors that Epstein could plead guilty to, including U.S. code 18, 15, 12d, a federal witness tampering statute, a felony, and U.S. code 18, section 403, a federal statute criminalizing the violation of the privacy protection of child victims and child witnesses, a misdemeanor. Doe v. United States 08 Civ. 80756, Southern District Florida, Docket 361. 11 Epstein's counsel replied, already thinking about the same statutes. On September 18, 2007, a federal prosecutor told Mr. Epstein's counsel that if Mr. Epstein pled guilty to an obstruction of justice charge, the factual proffer could rely on the incident where Mr. Epstein's private investigators followed a victim's father, forcing him off the road. See Docket 361, at 10. On September 19, 2007, Mr. Epstein's counsel proposed that Mr. Epstein admit that he verbally harassed victims or the family of victims in connection with his attempt to delay their voluntary receipt of process in a civil action against Mr. Epstein in violation of a Federal Witness tampering statute docket361.9 and the government recently contended that on November 28, 2018 and on December 3, 2018, very soon after the publication of a three part investigative report in the Miami Herald authored by Julie K. Brown Relating to Mr. Epstein's Florida non prosecution agreement dated September 24, 2007, Mr. Epstein paid $100,000 to a company founded and run by Individual No. 1 and he paid $250,000 to Individual No. 2. The government states that Individual 1 was a potential co conspirator from whom Epstein obtained protection in the npa. Individual Number one was named and featured prominently in the Miami Herald. See Julie K. Brown, Even From Jail Sex Abuser Manipulated the System His Victims Were Kept in the dark Miami Herald, November 28, 2018. The government states that individual two was also a potential co conspirator for whom Epstein also obtained protection in the npa. She is one of the employees identified in the indictment which alleges that she and two other identified employees facilitated the defendant's trafficking of minors by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with a defendant at his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida. Individual 2 was also named and featured prominently in the Miami Herald report. The government states there is good reason to infer that Mr. Epstein was attempting to influence these two individuals who were close to him during the time period charged in this case and who might be witnesses against him and at a trial. Neither of these payments appear to be reoccurring or repeating during the approximately five years of bank records presently available to the government. This course of action, and in particular its timing, suggests the defendant was attempting to further influence co conspirators who might provide information against him. In light of recently re emerging allegations, a court may order detention if there is a serious risk that the defendant will will attempt to threaten, injure or intimidate a prospective witness or juror. U.S. code 18, Section 3142 F.2B. Even a single incident of witness tampering has been traditional ground for pretrial detention by the courts. LaFontaine, 210 F.2d at 1:32, 34 affirming then U.S. district Judge Michael B. Mukase's denial of bail to a defendant who had met with a prospective witness in an effort to persuade the witness to give untruthful testimony and where there was no evidence of influence, harassment or intimidation. See Also United States vs Singh, 2012 WL 32602323 Eastern District of New York August 8, 2012 and that's pretty funny that it's Mukase here, considering Mukase was the guy who really signed off on Epstein's deal. When all was said and done, it wasn't Acosta, it was Mukazi. Mr. Epstein has not always been compliant with his legal obligations as a registered sex offender.
- [45:33]
A
Tyler Redicure from 2311 racing another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Chumba. Jump in@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba no purchase necessary VT Group void where prohibited by law. CTNC21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino hi, this is Alex Canceroitz. I'm the host of Big Technology Podcast, a longtime reporter and an on air contributor to cnbc. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial intelligence is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology, I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it, asking where this is all going going. They come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, in meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology Podcast wherever you get your podcasts. This is Mike Bolo of Lexicon Valley and I'm Bob Garfield.
- [46:27]
B
Are you one of those people who sometimes uses words?
- [46:31]
A
Do you communicate or acquire information with, you know, language? Hey, us too. So join us on Lexicon Valley to
- [46:41]
B
true over the history, culture and many
- [46:43]
A
mysteries of English, plus some lice cracks. Find us on one of those apps where people listen to podcasts.
- [46:53]
B
Defense counsel has contended that Mr. Epstein has been scrupulously fulfilling his obligations in every jurisdiction in which he was required to register as as a sex offender since his 2008 Florida convictions. Counsel argues that this shows that he is no longer a danger to anyone and will faithfully obey all conditions of release if ordered. Docket six at number three, the record shows that Mr. Epstein has challenged his sex offender level in at least one jurisdiction since 2008 in an effort to minimize his reporting obligations. And one recent press account states that Epstein is not in compliance in New York State. See Elizabeth Rosner, Tina Moore, Larry Salona and Bruce Golding, NYPD led convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein skip judge order check ins New York Post, July 10, 2019 Jeffrey Epstein never once checked in with city cops in eight plus years since a Manhattan judge ordered him to do so every 90 days. Mr. Epstein is a level three sex offender in New York State, which is the highest category of risk to reoffend this designation, requires Mr. Epstein to report his presence in New York to law enforcement authorities every 90 days. As discussed at the July 15, 2019 bail hearing, counsel for Mr. Epstein made an application in the New York State Supreme Court in 2011 to reduce Mr. Epstein's sex offender registration status from Level 3 to Level 1. If granted, this reduction would have allowed Mr. Epstein to avoid his reporting obligations in a Sex Offender Registration act hearing on January 11, 2018, held before the Honorable Ruth Pickholtz. Mr. Epstein's application was firmly denied, principally because it had been established by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. See People v. Epstein, indictment number 301-292-2010 New York Supreme Court SORA hearing transcript at the hearing, New York County Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Gaffney joined a defense counsel's appeal to review and overturn the decision of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and achieve a downward modification of Mr. Epstein's sex offender status. IDEA2.15 Judge Pickholtz appeared to be stunned by by the Joint Defense Counsel District Attorney application stating, I am just a little overwhelmed that the people are making this application. I have done many soras much less troubling than this one, where the people would never make a downward adjustment argument like this. I have never seen the prosecutor's office do this. I have to tell you, I am shocked. Id. At 4 and 5. Judge Pickholtz also ordered Mr. Epstein to report as a level two sex offender every 90 days in New York. I am sorry Mr. Epstein may have to come here every 90 days. He can give up his New York home on East 71st street if he does not want to come every 90 days. Epstein appealed, but Judge Pickholt's decision was unanimously affirmed on November 17, 2011 by a panel of five judges of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court. People v. Epstein, 89 A.D. 3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d 239 N.Y. appellate Division, 2011. Notwithstanding Judge Pickolt's order, according to a July 10, 2019 investigative report by the New York Post. As noted, Mr. Epstein has never reported as a sex offender to New York law enforcement. See July 10, 2019, New York Post article. The NYPD cop assigned to monitor Epstein has repeatedly complained to the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit that Epstein wasn't in compliance, according to a source familiar with the matter. Mr. Epstein's alleged failure to comply with his New York sex offender obligations would appear to undermine defense counsel's premise that Mr. Epstein's perfect compliance and meticulous obedience, docket six at one and five, to his sex offender registration obligations should lead to his release. See LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 135 and 6, where the court ordered detention, noting that the defendant had previously disregarded court orders. The court has also read the story in the July 17, 2019 New York Post, in which attorney Brad Edwards contends that while Epstein was serving his Florida state sentence after pleading guilty to procuring a minor under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution, Epstein was allowed to leave the jail on work release. While on work release, he was having female visitors and continuing to engage in sexual conduct while he was in jail. Mr. Edwards is counsel to one of Mr. Epstein's victims, C. Reuven Fenton and Kate Sheehy Epstein Had Sex Den While Serving Time, New York Post, July 16, 2019. The court is also aware of an article published by Palm Beach CBS Local News which reports that the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office disputes the claim that Jeffrey Epstein had sex on work release. A spokeswoman for the Sheriff's Office is quoted as saying, if he violated any conditions of his release, he would have been brought back to the stockade and work release would have been terminated. Chuck Weber Disputes Claim that Epstein Had Sex on Work Release New Mexico, Florida and the Virgin Islands with respect to Mr. Epstein's sex offender status in New Mexico, defense Counsel has submitted a letter dated August 19, 2010 from Regina Chacon, Assistant Bureau Chief, Law Enforcement Record Bureau of New Mexico Department of Public Safety, which states that Mr. Epstein is not required to register as a sex offender with the State of New Mexico at this time for his 2008 Florida conviction of procuring a person under 18 for prostitution. Docket 25, example A. The court requested from the defense all application materials that Mr. Epstein may have submitted to the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, believing that the Department would not initiate the waiver of Mr. Epstein's sex offense registration on its own. No such materials have been received by the court as of this date. And just to interject, and that's because New Mexico is just a whole hotbed of corruption when it comes to Epstein. The whole reason he chose to go to New Mexico is because there was no sex offender registration for him. The Court understands that Mr. Epstein is also a registered sex offender in the Virgin Islands Level 1 and Florida Level 1. It has received no material from the defense regarding sex offender applications or proceedings in those two jurisdictions. In sum, based upon all the proffers and evidence set forth at page 1021 above, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Epstein poses a danger to other persons and to the community. Mr. Epstein also poses a flight risk. In the section that follows, the court considers risk of flight even though it has already determined Mr. Epstein presents a danger to the community. A finding of either danger to the community or a risk of flight will be sufficient to detain the defendant pending trial. United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 488, 11 Circuit, 1988, quoting United States v. Portis, F.2d 765, 7th Circuit, 1985, the court finds that the Government has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Epstein is a flight risk. Factors to be considered in analyzing the risk of flight are the same factors that apply when analyzing dangerousness. They are 1. The nature and circumstances of the crimes charged 2 the weight of the evidence against the defender 3. History and characteristics of the defendant, including the person's character and financial resources and 4. The seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant's release. See U.S. code 18, section 3142. The weight afforded to each factor under section 3142 is within the special province of the District Court. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. At 610. At the outset, it should be noted that the Pretrial service report dated July 12, 2019, concludes that the defendant poses a risk of non appearance for the following 1. Mr. Epstein's extensive foreign travel and possession of travel documents Mr. Epstein's residential and financial ties outside this district and country 3. Mr. Epstein's employment ties outside the country 4. Mr. Epstein's unexplained assets 5. Mr. Epstein's criminal history, including his conviction for a sex offense with minors in Florida in 2008. Pretrial Services Report dated July 12, 2019, at 4 the crimes charged against Mr. Epstein Mr. Epstein has been charged with among the most serious crimes recognized by US federal law. The government has alleged that Mr. Epstein is intentionally sought out and sexually abused minor girls, including those particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Docket 11 example 1. He did this in multiple locations, including New York and Palm beach, and Mr. Epstein allegedly worked and conspired with others, including employees and associates, who facilitated his unlawful conduct by contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters. Indictment 4. These crimes, as already noted, carry a maximum sentence of 45 years of incarceration and give rise to a presumption of pretrial remand. U.S. code 18, Section 3142E, 3 and E. See United States vs Hardy, 2019 WL 2211, 210. 10 DDC May 22, 2019. The significant harms and dangers of these crimes and animated the Congress to create the statutory presumption of detention. The nature and circumstances of the crimes charged and the severity of the potential punishment support a finding that defendant poses a serious flight risk and that no conditions can be set to reasonably assure his appearance for trial. United States v. Sillins, 2013 WL 3802012 ATT2SDNY, July 19, 2013. The Weight of the Evidence the government's evidence against Mr. Epstein appears strong. The evidence includes testimony of victims, some of whom were minor girls when they were allegedly sexually abused by Mr. Epstein. Other witnesses include potential co conspirators, physical evidence including passports reflecting extensive foreign travel, sexually suggestive photographs of nude underage girls, plea discussions, and police reports describing witness tampering and intimidation. See United States v. Fama, 2013 WL 2467985, at 3 SDNY, June 7, 2013. The Court recognizes the difficulty inherent in assessing the government's case before trial and is mindful not to reach any conclusion about the defendant's guilt or innocence. Indeed, some courts have described the weight of the evidence factor as the least important of the statute 3142g factors for these reasons. See also Her, 517F.3d at 1090.
- [58:54]
A
Tyler Redick here from 2311 Racing Victory Lane yeah, it's even better with Chumba by my side. Race to chumbacasino.com let's Chumba. No purchase necessary. VT void where prohibited by law. CTNC's 21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino the
- [59:10]
B
sun's shining, birds are singing, and all feels right in the world. Until the season changes and suddenly you lose your motivation to get out of bed.
- [59:20]
A
In fact, one in five people experience
- [59:22]
B
some form of depression no matter the season or time of year. At the American Psychiatric association foundation, our vision is to build a mentally healthy nation for all because we want you to live your best life and be your best you all year round.
- [59:36]
A
Please visit mentallyhealthynation.org to learn more.
- [59:40]
B
Quieres mejor Internet Cox Internet de tresientas megas tiene las velocidades rapidas e com
- [59:45]
A
fiables que buscas perfecto para streaming y gaming y tra bajardes de casa todo porso cuernte y cinco Dolores Alme es con do Agregas Cox mobo inclusia quipo de Wifi y guaranti a depresio de
- [59:57]
B
dos sanos en tu plan. History and characteristics of the defendant, including his financial resources. Mr. Epstein pled guilty to two state felonies involving minor girls in Florida. He also held plea discussions regarding witness tampering in Florida in 2008. He's registered as a level three sex offender in New York and registered as a sex offender in Florida Level 1 and the Virgin Islands Level 1. Mr. Epstein is 66 and is reported to be a self made millionaire. He did not graduate from college. Mr. Epstein's vast wealth, including substantial liquid assets, multiple residences, private planes, an $8,672,823 residence in Paris, France and relatively limited family ties to the United States in the sense that he is single with no children and his parents are deceased. He has a brother who Defense counsel asserts his offer to serve as a guarantor for Mr. Epstein by pledging his home in West Palm Beach. The court notes that the pretrial Service's report, dated July 12, 2019, states that the defendant stated he maintains minimal contact with his brother Mark Epstein, and that his exact location is unknown at this time. Mr. Epstein engages in extensive overseas travel, often relying on his own planes. The government argues persuasively that there is an extraordinary risk of flight, particularly given the defendant's exorbitant wealth, his ownership of and access to private planes capable of international travel, and his significant international ties. Indeed, the arrest of the defendant occurred when he arrived in the United States on his private jet after having returned from a multi week stay abroad. In the past 18 months alone, the defendant has traveled abroad via private jet, either into or out of the country on approximately more than 20 occasions. In a recent search of the defendant's New York home, law enforcement seized an expired Austrian passport belonging to Mr. Epstein, having his photo on it but not his name. The passport is in another name. The Austrian passport lists residences in Saudi Arabia, according to the government. Defense counsel declined to respond when asked by the government if the defendant is currently or has been in the past a citizen or legal permanent resident of a country other than the United States. Docket 23. Defense counsel contends that defendant has one active passport that was surrendered and and that Mr. Epstein has no foreign passports. Docket 6 at 3. With regard to the Austrian passport, the defense explains that Epstein acquired the passport in the 1980s when hijackings were prevalent in connection to Middle east travel. The passport was for personal protection in the event of travel to dangerous areas, only to be presented to potential kidnappers, hijackers, or terrorists should violent episodes occur. Docket 24, at 8. Details about how the passport was procured by Mr. Epstein in the name of another individual were not provided and are not known to the government. See docket 23, at 2. The government is attempting to obtain additional information about the foreign passport, including how it was obtained and whether the passport is genuine or fabricated. But the defendant's possession of what purports to be a foreign passport is issued under an alias gives rise to the inference the defendant knows how to obtain false travel documents and or assume other foreign identities. This adds to the serious risk of flight posed by the defendant. The government also argues that the passport contains numerous ingress and egress stamps, including stamps that reflect use of the passport to enter France, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s. Docket 30. By submission dated July 18, 2019, the defense explains Epstein was given the passport at issue by a friend. He never used the document to travel internationally and never presented it to any immigration or customs authority. The passport stamps predating his receipt of the document do not reflect Mr. Epstein's entries or exits. Docket 31 defense counsel has submitted a one page document called an asset summary, June 30, 2019. It indicates Epstein has cash in the amount of $56,547,773 fixed income value at $14,304,679 equities valued at $112,679,138 hedge funds and private equity valued at $194,986,301 properties located in New York, New Mexico and Palm beach, as well as France. See docket number 14. The court has advised defense counsel that this cursory asset statement is insufficient to support a bail package for the reasons, among others, that it is not verified and and does not show expenses, indebtedness or liabilities. Law enforcement has informed the government that a safe in the defendant's New York home very recently contained more than $70,000 in cash. 48 loose diamond stones ranging in size from approximately 1 carat to 2.38 carats, as well as a large diamond ring. The government is currently unaware of whether the defendant maintains similar amounts of cash and and or jewels at his multiple properties or other locations. Such ready cash and loose diamonds are consistent with the capability to leave the jurisdiction at a moment's notice the defendant's vast wealth and influential contacts have provided him with the means to pay individuals to assist him in unlawful endeavors, including potentially fleeing the jurisdiction. In the past, the defendant worked with others, including employees and associates, who facilitated his exploitation of minors by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant both in New York and Florida. Docket 11, example 1 and 2. David Boies, who as noted represents identified victims in this case, advised the court that while the civil case was proceeding against the defendant, we had situations in which we had witnesses who were cooperating with us and then were contacted by either Mr. Epstein or his lawyer and then who stopped cooperating with us. C. United States vs. Bustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 346 edny, 2019. The combination of the defendant's alleged deceptive actions, access to substantial financial resources, frequent international travel, complete lack of ties to the United States, and extensive ties to a foreign country without extradition demonstrates defendants poses a serious risk of flight. United States v. Epstein, 155 F. Supp. 2d 323, 326 ed. Penn, 2001. The crucial factor, however, is defendant's lack of ties to the United States and his extensive ties to Brazil, with which no extradition treaty exists. In our view, his forfeiture of $1 million worth of assets in the United States would not deter him from flight. When in Brazil, he has a significant wealth, a lucrative job, a presence of his family, and insulation from ever being forced to stand trial. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the government has shown by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant is a serious risk of flight and that no conditions can be set in that will reasonably assure his appearance at trial. While other judges in this district have found that an armed security guard may be sufficient to assure a defendant's appearance even when he is a serious risk of flight, this court does not believe that the condition, even coupled with additional conditions proposed, would be sufficient. United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 380-20123. The danger posed by the defendant's release, as demonstrated infra Mr. Epstein's dangerousness, is considerable and includes sex crimes with minor girls and tampering with potential witnesses. The discussion at page 1021 is incorporated here by reference. C. Minowa, 128F. APX. At 8:29 and 8:30. The alleged activities were of an addictive sexual nature, the that cannot be suppressed simply by a restrictive set of bail conditions. See also Milan, 4 F.3d at 1049. The protection of the community can be assured only by the continued detention The Court has carefully considered the issue of the defendant's ability and motivation for fleeing the U.S. jurisdiction. The court finds that the Government has proven by a preponderance of evidence that, among other things, the defendant's limited family ties to the United States, his residence in Paris, his extensive overseas travel, his significant wealth and his substantial resources, including private planes, and the potential 45 year term of imprisonment that may be imposed should there be a conviction in this case provide incentive, motive and wherewithal to flee. Indeed, these factors render him a classic flight risk. CEG United States v. Abdullah for 488 F. Supp. 2d 433445 DNJ 2007. After reviewing the totality of the evidence, the Court has reached the inescapable conclusion that the government has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions exist that will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance at trial. The defendant faces serious criminal charges and the Defendant faces potential 10 year prison sentence and involuntary deportation. The defendant does not have permanent long standing ties to this area, he has the means and incentive to flee and he has family ties and a place to live in an oversea country that will not extradite him to the United States. H. The Defendant's Proposed Bail Package having determined that Mr. Epstein is a flight risk and also a danger to the community, the Court next examines the defendant's proposed bail package. See U.S. code 18, Section 3142 BFIN 2. The court finds the defendant's proposed bail package is inadequate. Among its deficiencies are 1. The bail package is not accompanied or supported by audited or certified financial statements, including details of income and and expenses and debt obligations. There is no affidavit from Mr. Epstein. As noted, defense counsel submitted a cursory one page asset summary June 30, 2019 on Epstein's behalf in which he discloses several categories of assets totaling $559,120,954. The defense states that it would be impossible for Epstein given, among other impediments, his detention, inability to quickly assess pertinent records, and inability to quickly make a precise valuation of particular assets to provide a sufficient financial statement by the court's 5pm deadline. The absence of accurate and comprehensive financials sworn to by the defendant does not allow the Court meaningfully to assess defendant's own proposed bail package, nor would it enable the Court to fashion a bail package on its own, the court would not be able to determine what level of bail in relation to Epstein's finances would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance. Defense counsel proposed at the bail hearing on July 15, 2019, that it would take a few days to prepare accurate financials for Mr. Epstein. He also suggested that he would do so only if the court were agreeable to granting bail. This offer appears disingenuous, but for a person as wealthy and experienced in financial matters as Mr. Epstein 1519 at 50 court there needs to be a fuller financial picture to know what would be appropriate. Defense Counsel, let me be blunt. It was our first effort. That Mr. Epstein does not have a financial statement, including liabilities and expenses readily available is difficult to understand.
- [72:55]
A
Tyler redick here from 23xi Racing another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Chumba. Jump in@chumbacasino.com let's chumba no purchase necessary BTW Group void where prohibited by law. CTNC21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino the sun
- [73:12]
B
shining, birds are singing and all feels
- [73:15]
A
right in the world until the season changes and suddenly you lose your motivation
- [73:20]
B
to get out of bed.
- [73:21]
A
In fact, one in five people experience
- [73:23]
B
some form of depression no matter the season or time of year. At the American center at the Psychiatric Association Foundation, Our vision is to build a mentally healthy nation for all because we want you to live your best life and be your best you all year round. Please visit mentallyhealthynation.org to learn more. 2. The defense bail package proposes excessive involvement of the Court in routine aspects of Mr. Epstein's proposed home confinement. This is not the Court's function. See United States vs Zurab, 2016 WL 3681423 DNY June 16, 2016. The bail package proposed by the defense is not reasonable because in too many respects it substitutes judicial oversight and management for more appropriate reliance upon trained, experienced and qualified professionals from the U.S. bureau of Prisons and U.S. marshals Service. The defense package components would embroil the Court in issues, among others, relating to the level of force that may be used to secure the defendant who may enter the residence daily reporting by Mr. Epstein and reporting by so called trustees designated to live with and supervise Mr. Epstein. See United States vs. Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d 283, 295 Eastern District of New York, 2014 the questions about legal authorization for the private security firm to use force against the defendant should he violate the terms of his release, and the questions over whether the guards can or should be armed underscore the legal and practical uncertainties. Indeed, the imperfections of the private jail like concept envisioned by the defendant as compared to the more secure option of of an actual jail. 3. The defense proposal to give advance consent to extradition and waiver of extradition rights is, in the Court's view, an empty gesture, and it comes into play only after Mr. Epstein has fled the court's jurisdiction. According to the government, the Department of Justice's Office of International affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an anticipatory extradition waiver binding. And of course, the defendant could choose to flee to a jurisdiction with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty. 4. Although the defense has stated that Mr. Epstein would be agreeable to putting up any amount of collateral or signing any bond that the court would require, there has to date been no concrete pledge of any real assets or any concrete proposal to turn over deeds to real property or or to provide a specific amount of cash. C. 71519 at 50. I am authorized to say to the court that whatever BOND you want Mr. Epstein to sign, whether it's 100 million or an amount close to the amount of the assets that we have provided, Mr. Epstein is prepared to sign it. The court, as noted, has no detailed information regarding the extent of the defendant's assets, including the nature, value and location of all of his assets. There is no mention of any expenses, liabilities, or indebtedness. And there has been no persuasive defense counter to the government's argument that even were the defendant to sacrifice literally all the current assets, there is every indication that he would immediately be able to resume making millions or tens of millions of dollars per year outside of the United States. He already earns at least 10 million per year, according to records from Institution 1 while living in the U.S. virgin Islands, traveling extensively abroad, and residing in part in Paris, France. There would be little to stop the defendant from fleeing, transferring his unknown assets abroad, and then continuing to do whatever it is he does to earn his vast wealth from a computer terminal beyond the reach of extradition. The defendant, it should be noted, is already at risk of losing some of the real property because the indictment contains a forfeiture allegation regarding any property that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the sex trafficking offenses. And that includes, but is not limited to the property located at East 71st street in New York. 5. The appointment and role of trustees, who will presumably live with Mr. Epstein and monitor his compliance with Bail conditions are unacceptably vague. They do not, for example, address the conflict that is created by the salary the trustees are earning from the defendant and their purported role as independent monitors. The same problem arises in relation to private 247 security guards. This is especially problematic where, as here, it is alleged that employees of the defendant may have engaged in unlawful acts with and on behalf of the defendant. According to the government, the defendant was work with others, including employees and associates, who facilitated his exploitation of minors by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant, both in New York and in Florida. Docket 11, examples 1 and 26 as a fallback, the defense suggests the utilization of and the funding of a private security guard agency to virtually guarantee Mr. Epstein's presence in court and and presumably also to supervise his behavior. This contingency plan is not part of Mr. Epstein's 14 point proposal. Nevertheless, the court is asked by the defense to revisit its legal viewpoint as expressed in an earlier decision concerning 247 private home security guards. Each bail package in each case is considered and evaluated on its individual merits by the court. And in view of the court's finding of dangerousness, a new Bell proposal likely would be futile. CEG United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 544. No conceivable conditions could ensure the safety of the community. 986F.2D at 6, 32. We do not agree that the bail conditions set by the district court eliminate the danger to the community or are superior to detention or for purposes of the Bail Reform Act. United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96, 1002d 1985. These conditions are clearly inadequate to protect the public from one found for bail purposes to be a danger to the community. Conclusion and Order Based upon the foregoing, the government's motion for remand detention is granted and the defense motion for pretrial release is denied. This was dated July 18, 2019 and it was signed by Richard Berman. Alright folks, that's gonna do it for this one. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.
- [80:20]
A
Tyler redick here from 2311 Racing game
- [80:22]
B
night's fun until someone spends five minutes lining up one shot.
- [80:26]
A
Chalk. Breathe, rechock. Still aiming while they figure it out, I fire up Champa casino.
- [80:33]
B
I can spin anywhere, anytime and there's always a new social casino game every week.
- [80:37]
A
Spins happen way faster than that shot. Play now@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba. Sponsored by Chumba Casino. No purchase necessary. VGW Group Voidware prohibited by law. 21 terms and conditions apply.