← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Paperwork Over Predators: How New York Tried to Soften Jeffrey Epstein’s Crimes
00:17:57
New York prosecutors once advanced an argument that bordered on the surreal: that Jeffrey Epstein’s status as a sex offender should be downgraded because his conduct, they claimed, did not fit the most severe classification under New York law. Rather...
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
What's up, everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to take a look at the argument made by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team trying to get his offender status in New York knocked down to the lowest level. And to do that, we're gonna jump right into the transcript from the hearing in front of Judge Ruth Pickholtz. For the defense, you have Kirkland Ellis. That's Jeffrey Epstein's legal team. It's going to be Jay Lefkowitz and Sandra Musamichi. And then for the government or for the state of New York, I should say, you have Jennifer Gaffney and Cyrus Vance. So after they're all sworn in, Jennifer Gaffney begins. Your Honor, this is a case on a sorry hearing this afternoon. The people did receive the board recommendation of a level 3. However, we received the underlying information from them and also had some contact with Florida. And we don't believe that we can rely on the entire probable cause affidavit. I don't know if the board sent that to you as well, the court. I don't know why you can't rely on it, Ms. Gaffney. Because in Florida, all of the victims in that probable cause affidavit, they actually only went forward on one case. There was only an indictment for one victim. And. And that is what the defendant pled to. So it's unlike a situation where everything was indicted and then we get to sort of assess points for all of the victims. If it was part of a plea bargain, they did not actually choose to go forward on any except for the one victim. So under the board guidelines, the risk assessment interim guidelines, it actually says, you know, by the way of contrast, if an offender is not indicted for an offense, it's strong evidence that the offense did not occur. And I don't think the court cuts her off. Do you find that if somebody is not indicted, it's strong evidence that it did not occur? Ms. Gaffney, I don't know that we can rely on it as clear and convincing evidence if the prosecutor's office never went forward with it. The prosecution said that the victims, although they spoke to the police early on, did not cooperate with them. So we, we don't have any follow up information, the court, but the board found a level three. I have to tell you, I'm a little overwhelmed because I have never seen the prosecutor's office do anything like this. I have never seen it. I had a case with one instance, it was a Marine who went to a bar And I wish I had that case before me, but he went to a bar and a 17 year old, he was an adult, obviously he was a Marine. A 17 year old came up to him, and one thing led to another, and. And he had sex with her. And people would not agree to a downward modification on that. So I'm a little overwhelmed here because I see. I mean, I read everything here. I'm just a little overwhelmed that the people are making this application. I could cite many, many. I have done many soras much less troubling than this one, where the people would never make a downward argument like this. Ms. Gaffney. I agree with your honor. It's incredibly unusual for us to make a downward argument. But the problem is, the one thing that we have from the board, it seems to be a contradiction to their own guidelines, which if something was not indicted, you're not supposed to rely on it. The court, they obviously took that into consideration, Ms. Gaffney. And I tried to reach. I reached the authorities in Florida to try to see if they had all the interview notes or other things that we can then subsequently rely on that might be considered clear and convincing evidence if they had interviewed these women on their own. And they never did. No one was cooperative, and they did not go forward on any of the cases, and none of them were indicted. So I don't know the court. And you spoke to the prosecutor, Ms. Gaffney, the actual prosecutor, left the office. I spoke to the prosecutor that took over the case. The court. Maybe you can find the prosecutor that left office. You've done more in other cases looking into it. I have never seen the prosecutor's office do this. I have to tell you, I'm shocked, Ms. Gaffney. Right. But I spoke to the prosecutor that took over the case, and they don't have anything. Any affidavits, any statements, any notes. And just to interject here, you guys see what I mean about the fix being in? Once again, the paperwork proves it. The court. Why don't you speak to the prosecutor that did the case? I'm sure you could find that prosecutor, Ms. Gaffney. I can find her, but based upon what the other prosecutor said, they did not speak to that prosecutor either. The court. You didn't speak to the prosecutor yourself. You didn't speak to them. That's hearsay. You did not speak to the prosecutor that handled the case, Ms. Gaffney. That's right. The court. I don't think you did much of an investigation here, Ms. Gaffney. I mean, I called the prosecutor. Even the first prosecutor that left, presumably the prosecutor's office has the files. The court. I would still call the prosecutor. Ms. Gaffney. Anything from these women would have forwarded it to us. The court. I don't know that. I think you have to speak to the prosecutor. But be that as it may, I hear your argument. Anything else, Ms. Gaffney? I mean, that's why I don't think I can. Or we can. I don't think we're entitled to rely on this. Because they did not go forward, the court. The board made a recommendation. Ms. Gaffney. Correct. Ms. Musamichi, one of the lawyers for Epstein. May I speak? Your honor, the court. Yes. Ms. Musamichi, good afternoon. I would like to bring a few additional points to your honor's attention that don't come across in the board recommendation. The first is that Mr. Epstein is not a resident of New York. Unlike most of these out of state, he has not changed his address and moved to New York. He maintains a vacation home in New York. His primary residence is the US Virgin Islands. Another bunch of bullshit. He's registered in the US Virgin Islands. He has been since his release from jail. He notifies the US Virgin island authorities every time he leaves that jurisdiction. Virgin island authorities rated him at the lowest level of registration. Oh, I bet they did, because they were all being paid by him. I mean, are you guys not disgusted yet? And. And don't you have more questions for Stacy Plasket and everybody down in the usvi? Probably a good idea to focus there, huh? He also registered in Florida, which is the state of this particular offense. And the only reason that this conviction is even before. Your honor, the offense for which he was convicted is not a registrable offense in New York. So picking up a little girl in New York is not a registerable offense. And that was the whole point of them kicking it down to state. They didn't want this to be a real thing. They didn't want this to follow Epstein to other places. So they manipulated the whole situation and made it a state charge that never had any teeth. And guess what? That's not speculation. That's fact. He is only registerable here, arguably, because based on the provision of the SORA that says if a crime is registrable in the state of conviction, then it's registerable here in New York. And the Florida authorities that considered that rated him the lowest level of their Soros statute. He additionally has a vacation home in New Mexico and is registered in New Mexico. The new Mexican authorities when they considered his offenses determined that he not register at all. Nevertheless, he has voluntarily registered with New Mexico and maintains that registration. Additionally, because of his possession of a vacation home in New York, he. He has been voluntarily registered with New York somu, the Sex Offender Monitoring Unit, since May of this year. He notifies them whenever he comes to travel to New York. He never comes to New York for more than seven days, or at least he has not since he has been registered. He has no intention to ever be here for a longer period of 10 days. Like I said, he does notify the authorities when he's here. He fully understands the reason for voluntary registration. He wants to be compliant with the federal SORA law, which requires wherever you own a property, to register. Cool. Let's see all those logs. I want to see every single time he checked in. That's part of the files, right? Let's see it. That's not national security. I want to know who was and who wasn't doing their job. To require Mr. Epstein to register as a Level 3 offender in New York, where would actually require him to come to New York more than he actually does. It would require him to come every 90 days and renew his registration. He is very diligent in registering with New York authorities. All the other jurisdictions that have considered his case have determined that he is either not to register at all or register at the lowest level, and that he has been more than compliant with all of those requirements. Your Honor, we would join in the prosecutor's application. Now think about that for a minute. The prosecutor and Epstein together. The city of New York, by the way. Cy Vance, Jennifer Gaffney, and the New York prosecutor's office all arguing in favor of making Epstein register at the lowest level. Now chew on that for a little while. The court. I'm sure you would, Ms. Musamichi. By the way, a background. We have been in contact with the prosecutor's office on this matter since I believe certainly Mr. Epstein got his notification, which I believe was in August. We have met with the prosecutor and provided numerous material for the prosecutor to consider. We have included in that a deposition from the detective who headed this investigation, who acknowledged in a sworn deposition that the lead prosecutor who originally had the case, whose name I cannot pronounce, Lana Bella Hovlik. I apologize for the mispronunciation. Said to the detective after her investigation that are no real victims here. So, Lana Bella Hovlik, you're next up on the chopping block, bro. Why isn't this lady being called before Congress? Why isn't this lady being forced to give a sworn statement? And how much money did Jeffrey Epstein pay her and her friends? That's basically where I'm going with this. Now, I can't prove that, but what else is going to motivate somebody to give Jeffrey Epstein the homie hookup? All of the alleged conduct that is cited in the board's write up was of commercial value. All of the alleged conduct. The women went voluntarily. There are no allegations of force, Certainly none. The court. There was no allegation of force in the Marine either who met a girl in a bar, a young girl, 17. There was no force there. Ms. Musamichi. It's our understanding that a prosecutor in Florida conducted a full investigation, as full as she was able with the cooperation afforded by these complaints and determined that there was only one case that that she could present to the grand jury Was this indictment for non registerable offense. Then. And the judge cuts her off mid sentence. The court. But it is registerable here. I don't know what you mean. Not a non registerable offense. Ms. Musamichi. Let me explain. Your honor. Mr. Epstein pled to two charges. One was an indictment which is an offense that is not registerable. It is a Florida indictment for cut off again by the court. Then why does he have to register here? Ms. Musamichi? It was the second offense that he pled to the court. That is registrable. Ms. Musamichi. That is registrable. That offense was by information and that is the only registrable offense. That is what the DA's office is considering in doing their scoring. The indictment, which was the only case that the prosecutor even prosecuted through grand jury is not even a registrable offense. The court. He pled guilty to a registerable offense. Miss. Yes. The court. What did he plead guilty to? Ms. Gaffney? He pled guilty to procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution. The court. Procuring a person under 18 for prostitution. Ms. Gaffney Wright. The court. How old was she? Ms. Gaffney? It appears the first time they met she was either 16 or 17. Then for the remainder of their relationship, she was probably 17. The court how long was their relationship? Ms. Gaffney? She met him. She gave him approximately 15 massages, including with sexual contact and ultimately when she was 17, had intercourse with them. The court. She is still a child. Ms. Musamichi. Your honor, I would note that under Sora, it's clear that prostitution offenses are only registerable when in fact by clear and convincing evidence. The women or victim is 17. Is. Is under 17. I can't believe they're even making this argument. It's really disgusting. And the fact that they let them get away with this down in Florida is the whole entire problem, the whole entire issue here is that they're saying that it was prostitution. But the big problem for them is this. If you're underage, you can't consent, you can't be a prostitute. So it's not prostitution. It's child abuse. It's underage child abuse. That's what it is. Why don't we just call it what it is? The court. Well, she met him at 16. He procured her at 16. From what I read, Ms. Musamichi. There's evidence that we challenged the court. He pled guilty to that, didn't he, Ms. Musamichi? He pled guilty to under 18, which is the law in Florida, which is a different standard than the law in New York. And there is no evidence, There is no clear and convincing evidence as to her specific age at the time of the specific conduct. The court. Well, the DA just told me she was most likely 17. She just said it on the record. Ms. Musamichi. Your Honor, we agree that the evidence is that she was 17 on the one occasion he had consensual intercourse with him. And 17 is not registerable or criminal under New York law. And the prostitution aspect of having intercourse with the 17 year old is not registerable conduct. Oh, yeah. I guess not everything's all good. Do you think she'd be saying the same thing about her 17 year old daughter? The court. Why does he have to register here, Ms. Gaffney? Because it's a registerable offense in Florida. New York State Board of Examiners. The court recognizes it. Ms. Gaffney recognizes it? Yes. The court. I have had many cases like that where it was not registerable here, but it was in the state where the person came from. And New York recognized that. Ms. Musamichi. Your Honor, we're not saying that we should not register. Mr. Epstein has already registered and recognizes his duty to register the court. I'm glad of that. I am very glad of that. I'm sorry that he may have to come here every 90 days. He can only give up his New York home if he does not want to come. Every 90 days. Anything else? I rely on the board. Ms. Mutsumichi. Your Honor, we would reserve our right to appeal your honor's ruling. The court, of course, do so, Miss Gaffney. For the record. Your honor, P. Is going to be deemed a level three offender with no designation. Correct the court? Correct, Ms. Musumichi? For purposes of the appeal, I believe that. Your honor, the court. Give me the board scoring. The board has scored use of violence the least 10. Sexual contact with victim 25. I agree. Number of victims? Three or more. He only pled guilty to one. But apparently the there were more than one. And I think the people concede that although they say it was not reliable. Duration of the offense? Conduct with victim continuing the course of sexual misconduct. The people have told me it was continuing. For 20 points. Age of victim 11 through 16. He got 20 points for that and she was 16 at the time. Other victim characteristics? There was no mental disable or helplessness. I agree. Relationship with victim, stranger. 20 points. Age at first act of sexual misconduct, 20 or less. They scored him zero on that number. And nature of prior crimes? No history. They scored him five on that. Recency of prior offense, less than three years. They gave him zero. Drug or alcohol abuse history. They gave him zero. Acceptance of responsibility. They gave him zero. Conduct while confined. They gave him zero. And supervision? They gave him zero. Living employment situation, zero. They gave him one hundred and thirty points, which is the highest level. And I agree with that. Now, Mr. Lefkowitz, one of Epstein's other lawyers chimes in, if I could be heard for one moment. It appears that the state board made its determination based on access to a police report in Florida. The prosecutor, the lead prosecutor, the lead sex crimes prosecutor in Palm beach made a determination that the complaints in the police report itself was not credible and decided not to prosecute on the basis of all of that. And right there in itself is a big problem. None of this was believable or credible. The only thing that's not credible is the whole ass investigation from top to bottom. So yeah, save the. Save the lies, save the gaslighting, save the bullying. Shut the up and release the files. In addition, there has been through the course of the last few years some civil litigation, as you might imagine, involving these matters. And now we have sworn testimony and evidence for from the complainants themselves, disclaiming much of what appears in the police report. So your honor, we would submit, and this is not to make light in any way of the conduct of Mr. Epstein did or what Mr. Epstein pled guilty to. But with respect to everything. And that's why Mr. Epstein voluntarily registered in New York, even though there is a question about whether he has any obligation, just as jurisdictional matter. But your honor, with respect to the appropriate level for him to register. We would submit, your honor, that the evidence simply does not support the foundation of the state's determination. The court. You have made a very clear record, and you have a right to appeal. I feel the board looked into all of this, made their recommendation, found them to have 130 points, and I see no reason to disturb that. Thank you. And with that, the hearing ends. But the fact that the state of New York actually got on board and tried to argue this is just straight up disgusting. And I think that everybody's in agreement at this point. Save the bullshit nonsense. Save the narrative and release the files. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.