The Moscow Murders and More

The USVI's Motion To Strike JP Morgan's Affirmative Defenses (12/31/24)

In the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) against JPMorgan Chase regarding the bank's alleged facilitation of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations, the USVI has filed a motion to strike several of JPMorgan's affirmative defenses. These defenses suggest that the USVI government itself was complicit in enabling Epstein's activities.

JPMorgan argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the extent of the USVI's involvement and alleged complicity in Epstein's crimes. The bank claims that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, facilitated Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and spreading his influence throughout the government. The bank also alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background.

The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is seen by JPMorgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. The USVI, on the other hand, maintains that JPMorgan's defenses are baseless and intended to deflect from the bank's failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior.

(commercial at 7:44)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.4.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Duration:: 25m
Broadcast on:: 31 Dec 2024
Audio Format:: other

The January jumpstart sale is here at Big R. Mark your calendars for January 23rd through 27th and save big with deals like 30% off Milwaukee batteries, a plaque diamond rolling chest for 99.99 25% off men's cowboy hardware apparel and up to $10 off neutral dog food. Visit your local Big R store or shop online at BigR.com to explore all the amazing deals. Want more savings? Join the Big R Insider program for exclusive offers. Don't miss out. Big R has got everything you need this season. Your time and expertise are valuable, making focus one of the most important resources to have at work. These days, professionals spend nearly half the work week on written communication, and it can be difficult to stay on task with all the emails and documents you have to get through. With Grammarly is your AI writing partner, you can stay focused and quickly get through your work with relevant real-time suggestions wherever you write. It works across 500,000 apps and websites, so it can help with everything, from brainstorming presentation ideas to sounding more confident and persuasive in emails and reports. For 15 years, Grammarly has offered best-in-class communication support and enterprise-grade security on a business model that doesn't sell your data. 93% of professionals report that Grammarly helps them get more work done. Download Grammarly for free at Grammarly.com/podcast. That's G-R-A-M-M-A-R-L-Y.com/podcast. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles! In this episode, we're going to take a look at some more core documents, and this time, we're going to be diving into the government of the United States, Virgin Islands, Memorandum of Law, in support of motion to strike defendants affirmative defenses five through eight. Case number 122-CV-10904-JSR. The government of the United States, Virgin Islands versus JPMorgan Chase and JPMorgan Chase versus James Edward Staley. Introduction, plaintiff, the government of the United States, Virgin Islands government, brought this civil action against defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, as part of its ongoing effort to protect public safety and to hold accountable those who facilitated or participated in the Trafficking Venture or Enterprise of Jeffrey Epstein. The government's investigation has revealed that JP Morgan knowingly, recklessly and unlawfully, provided and pulled the levers through which Epstein's recruiters and victims were paid and was indispensable to the operation and the concealment of Epstein's trafficking. Financial institutions can connect or choke human trafficking networks and Attorney General's public enforcement actions are essential to prevent trafficking ventures like Epstein's from flourishing in the future. JP Morgan had real-time information on Epstein's activity that the government did not have and had specific legal duties to report this information to law enforcement authorities which had intentionally decided not to do. The government's remaining claims are for the violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, U.S. Code 18, Section 1581-1597, TVPA. Section 1595 provides the state Attorney General a right of civil action as Paran's Patreon for appropriate relief to protect the interests of state residents that have been threatened or adversely affected by any person who's violated U.S. Code 18, Section 1591. The government alleges that JP Morgan knowingly participated in and benefited from Epstein's trafficking venture by holding his accounts, processing payments to victims and recruiters, and concealing these suspicious transactions from law enforcement in violation of U.S. Code 18, Section 1591-A2. Second amended complaint, docket 119, 2AC, 102-119, count 1. The government further alleges that JP Morgan, concealment of Epstein's suspicious transactions from law enforcement constitutes unlawful obstruction of TVPA enforcement in violation of U.S. Code 18, Section 1591-D. The government seeks appropriate relief as Paran's Patreon under U.S. Code 18, Section 1595-D, including all available equitable and legal remedies. JP Morgan answered the second amended complaint on April 24, 2023, answered a second amended complaint and statement of affirmative defenses. In addition to its admissions and denials of the government's allegations, JP Morgan also pleads 25 separate affirmative defenses, ID at 26-29. Among JP Morgan's defenses are those asserting that the government's TVPA claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands and latches, ID at 26, defenses 5-7, collectively the equitable defenses. JP Morgan also asserts that the government's damages should be barred or reduced in accordance with the doctrines of comparative and contributory negligence or fault, ID defense 8. JP Morgan's equitable and fault-shifting defense to the government's TVPA, Paran's Patreon claim should be stricken. First, the court and others long have held that the equitable defense, including the unclean hands and latches, do not apply against government plaintiffs suing to vindicate public rights. CEG City of New York vs FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. 314 FRED, 348-357, N58, SDNY 2016, where plaintiffs are acting in law enforcement capacity in their roles as government entities and not in the capacity akin to that of a private entity. This falls squarely into the line of authority prohibiting equitable defenses from applying to government actors exercising broad discretion to discharge statutory duties, internal quotation marks and citations omitted. The government asserts its TVPA, Paran's Patreon claim is sovereign acting in its law enforcement capacity. JP Morgan's equitable defense, therefore, do not apply and should be stricken. Second, the court and others also have held that fault-shifting defenses, including contributory or comparative negligence, address to law enforcement or regulatory acts, or omissions likewise do not apply against government plaintiffs suing to vindicate public rights. CID at 359. The court premise of the defense is that plaintiffs were negligent in their discretionary tax enforcement, a contention that is impermissible where the government seeks to vindicate the public interest via enforcement of a public statutory right. FTC vs. Crescent Public Group Inc. 129 F.SUPP 2D311, 324, SDNY 2001, as a general rule, neglect of duty on the part of officers of the government is no defense to a suit, buy it to enforce a public right, or protect a public interest. Quoting Nevada vs. U.S. 463 U.S. 110-141 1983. JP Morgan's fault-shifting defense, therefore likewise, does not apply and should be stricken. Legal Standard. The court may strike from a pleading and insufficient defense, Fedarsiv P-12F. The standard for striking and affirmative defense is three-pronged. One, there must be no question of fact that might allow the defense to succeed. Two, there must be no substantial question of law that might allow the defense to succeed. And three, the plaintiff must be prejudiced by the inclusion of the defense. Specialty minerals incorporated for a Stauffer AG 395 F.SUPP 2D 109, 111 SDNY 2005. In determining whether to grant the motion to strike a court will deem the non-moving parties well-placed facts to be admitted, draw all reasonable inferences in the pleater's favor and resolve all doubts in favor of denying the motion. Judasmen, theaters, LLC vs FDIC, FSUPP 3D, 2023 WL, 2366-789, at 8, SDNY March 6, 2023. A plaintiff is prejudiced for purpose of a motion to strike where inclusion of a facially deficient defense would require additional discovery and/or expand the length and scope of the trial. Specialty minerals 395 F.SUPP 2D at 114, see also coach incorporated vs Kmart corpse 756, F.SUPP 2D 421-426 SDNY 2010. Increased time and expense of trial may constitute sufficient prejudice to warrant striking and affirmative defense. Moreover, inclusion of a defense that must fail as a matter of law, prejudice is the plaintiff because it will needlessly increase the duration and expense of litigation. Estee Lauder, Inc versus Fragrance, Counter, Inc. 189 FRD, 269-272 SDNY 1999. Increased time and expense of trial may constitute prejudice to warrant granting plaintiffs rule 12 F motion. The argument. A. The equitable defenses should be stricken. It is well established within the Second Circuit and elsewhere that the government's plaintiffs suing to vindicate public rights are not subject to equitable defenses that may be invoked against private plaintiffs. In the City of New York vs FedEx Supra, this court addressed equitable defenses including latches and unclean hands, 314 FRD at 356 as follows. Once again given the body of case law involving government plaintiffs and these equitable defenses, a basic principle emerges. Courts have routinely held that when acting in a capacity to enforce public rights in the public interest and discharge statutory responsibilities, government entities are not subject to all equitable defenses such as latches or estoppel that could ordinarily be invoked against a private actor. ID at 357, quoting State of New York vs United Parcel Service Inc. 160F.SUPP 3D, 629-640 SDNY 2016. Vacated in part on other grounds by 2016, WL-10672-074 at 1, June 21, 2016, granting partial reconsideration, vacating orders striking different non-equitable defenses. The court in City of New York vs FedEx struck the defendant's equitable defense legally in applicable to the city and state government's plaintiffs public enforcement claims under US Code 18, Section 2346B, part of the contraband cigarette trafficking act, US Code 18, Section 2341. The court explained that the CCTA authorizes state and local governments to seek various types of relief to restrain CCTA violations, but it does not provide a private right to action. With respect to the CCTA claim, therefore, plaintiffs are acting in law enforcement capacity in their roles as government entities and not in the capacity akin to that of a private entity. This situation thus falls squarely into the line of authority prohibiting equitable defenses from applying to government actors, exercising broad discretion to discharge their statutory duties. The government's TVPA parens' "patri-eye" claims, like the CCTA claims, in the City of New York vs FedEx, are public law enforcement claims. Compare US Code 18, Section 234B1 and 2, providing state or local government plaintiff right of action in federal court to prevent and restrain violations to this chapter by any person and for other appropriate relief, including civil penalties, money damages, and injunctive or other equitable relief. With US Code 18, Section 1595D, providing state attorney general right of action in federal court as parens' "patri-eye" to obtain appropriate relief, for violations of US Code, Section 18, 1591, and docket 135/1/2023, opposition and order, at 17. Government satisfies parens' "patri-eye" standing requirements that it (1) allege an injury to a quasi-sovereign interest that affects a sufficiently substantial segment of its population, and (2) seek relief to the territory's injury that would be unavailable to individual plaintiffs. The government's TVPA claims, therefore, are not subject to JP Morgan's equitable defenses. The general rule prohibiting equitable defense to government plaintiff's public enforcement claims applies here to JP Morgan's affirmative defense of latches 7th defense. Latches bars the party's claim in equity where the party has unreasonably delayed in a prejudicial manner, City of New York v. FedEx, 314FRD at 356. Controlling the persuasive authority, establishes that the defense of latches does not apply to claims by the government to enforce public rights, CEG, United States v. Summerlin, 310, US 414, 416, 1940. It's well settled that the United States is not subject to the defense of latches in enforcing its rights, Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. v. City of New York 594, F.3D 94, 111 Second Circuit 2010. Principles of latches, or East Stoppel, do not bar a municipality from enforcing ordinances that have been allowed to lie fallow. Quoting Latriest Restaurant and Cabaret Inc. v. The Village of Porchester, 40, F.3D 587, 590, Second Circuit, 1994, United States v. Angel, 292, F.3D, 333, 338, Second Circuit, 2002. Latches is not available against the federal government when it undertakes to enforce public right or protect the public interest, City of New York v. FedEx, 314FRD at 358. Striking latches defense to state and city government plaintiffs, CCPA, public enforcement claims, United States v. Philip Morris Inc. 300, F.SUPP, 2D61, 72, DDC 2004. As a general rule, latches or neglect of duty on the part of officers of the government is no defense to a suit by it to enforce a public right or protect a public interest. Quoting Utah Power and Light Company v. US 243, US 389, 409, 1917, ID at 74, granting summary judgment for federal government on Philip Morris's latches defense. The general rule prohibiting equitable defense to government public enforcement claims also applies to JP Morgan's affirmative defenses of unclean hands, fifth and sixth defenses. Unclean hands prohibits awarding equitable relief to a party that has acted fraudulently or deceitfully to gain an unfair advantage. City of New York v. FedEx, 314FRD at 356 and 57. Substantial authority holds that these defenses do not apply to a government plaintiff's claims enforcing public rights, CID at 358. When, as here, the government acts as the public interest, the unclean hands doctrine is unavailable as a matter of law. The January jumpstart sale is here at Big R. Mark your calendars for January 23rd through 27th and save big with deals like 30% off Milwaukee batteries, a plaque diamond rolling chest for $99.99, 25% off men's cowboy hardware apparel, and up to $10 off neutral dog food. This is a true local Big R store or shop online at BigR.com to explore all the amazing deals. Want more savings? Join the Big R Insider program for exclusive offers. Don't miss out. Big R has got everything you need this season. Welcome to where the five to nine more than makes up for the nine to five. Where you check your worries the moment you walk in. Where every day feels lucky, even at night, welcome to the chance to savor every moment, every time you're here. For 50 years in counting, we've delivered legendary Boyd hospitality. So join us for our 50th anniversary with special celebrations all year long. Welcome to Boyd casinos. Welcome to where you want to be. Hello, it is Ryan and I was on a flight the other day playing one of my favorite social spin slot games on Chumba Casino.com. I looked over the person sitting next to me and you know what they were doing. They're also playing Chumba Casino. Everybody's loving having fun with it. Chumba Casino is home to hundreds of casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere. So sign up now at Chumba Casino.com to claim you're free. Welcome bonus. It's Chumba Casino.com and live the Chumba life sponsored by Chumba Casino. No purchase necessary. VGW group for where prohibited by law 18 plus terms and conditions apply. Quoting United States versus Philip Morris 300 F S U P P 2 D at 75 76 State of New York versus UPS at 160 F dot S U P P 3 D at 6 47 and 48. Granting motion to strike on clean hands defenses to CCTA public enforcement claim as not cognizable as matter of law. United States versus Vineland Chemical Company Incorporated 692 F dot S U P P 415 423 D NJ 1988. The equitable doctrine of unclean hands may not be asserted against the United States when it acts in its sovereign capacity to protect the public welfare. SEC versus electronics warehouse incorporated 689 F dot S U P P 53 73 Connecticut 1988. The doctrine of unclean hands may not be invoked against the government agency which is attempting to enforce a congressional mandate in the public interest. Quoting SEC versus Gulf Western 502 F dot S U P P 343 348 DDC 1980. Since the government here is acting in its sovereign capacity to enforce public rights under the TVPA, JP Morgan's equitable defenses are not cognizable as a matter of law. Moreover, maintaining these legally in applicable defenses would prejudice the government by requiring additional discovery and expanding trial time on questions about the government's actions or inaction that are irrelevant to and distracting from the material questions of whether and how JP Morgan violated the TVPA. Indeed, JP Morgan has specifically cited its in parry delicato defense as justification for discovery requests in this litigation, signaling that JP Morgan intends to second guess the USVI's discretionary governance decisions. But that type of argument and the discovery it entails is precisely what the above authority precludes. Given the necessity that government actors have discretion in making policy judgments and given the multiplicity of factors that influence the exercise of this discretion, courts have correctly concluded that private litigants may not assert affirmative defenses that effectively seek to re litigate government policy decisions. For all these reasons, JP Morgan's equitable defense, unclean hands and latches should be stricken. B. The false shifting defense should be stricken. Government plaintiffs suing to vindicate public rights also are not subject to false shifting defenses. This includes JP Morgan's defense asserting that the government damages should be barred or reduced in accordance with the doctrines of comparative and contributory negligence or fault. Answer at 26 defense 8. This defense is both factually baseless and for purposes of this motion legally in opposite. In the city of New York versus FedEx, this court addressed the defendant's attempt to assert fault shifting defenses against the city and state defendants and ruled that the 18th defense is identical to the 17th defense, except that it also purports to raise what appears to be a defense of contributory or comparative negligence. The minor difference is of no import in the context of the CCTA claim. The core premise of the defense is that the plaintiffs were negligent in their discretionary tax enforcement, a contention that is impermissible where the government seeks to vindicate public interest via enforcement of a public statutory right. IDC also, FTC, versus crescent publications 129F, S.U.P.P. 2D at 324. As a general rule, neglect of duty on the part of the officers of the government is no defense to a suit, buy it, or to enforce a public right or protect the public interest. It is the attempt to assert contributory or comparative negligence defense against plaintiffs in their public enforcement role that the objectionable and compel striking of the 18th defense as to the CCTA claim, quoting Nevada 463 U.S. at 141. This court's recognition that false-shifting defenses are not available against government plaintiffs for alleged failure to enforce or regulate is consistent with the Virgin Islands law applicable to the government's policymaking and law enforcement activity. Courts applying Virgin Island law recognize the public duty doctrine, which precludes suit for governmental negligence based only on the government's failure to comply with a duty owed to the public in general, Perez versus government of the Virgin Islands 847F.2D104107 3rd Circuit 1988. See also DeJesus versus Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority 2011 WL 586 4552 at 4. V.I. Superior Court October 26, 2011. The public duty doctrine effectively immunizes the government and its officials from liability from a plaintiff's injuries, except where a special relationship exists between the plaintiff and the government or official, or where the official's acts are ministerial. Courts applying the law of other states similarly recognize that alleged failure to engage in regulatory or enforcement action is not grounds to pin fault on the government actor. The public duty doctrine generally applies when the government fails to adequately enforce criminal or regulatory laws for the benefit of the general public or protect the general public from somebody else's instrumentality. Quoting folks versus City of Urban Dell 956 NW 2D 469 475 Iowa 2021. McGohie versus District of Columbia 684 F.3D 1355 1358 D.C. Circuit 2012. Public duty doctrine barred claims against the government for failure to investigate rape allegation. Courts and juries are ill-equipped to review legislative and executive decisions about how to allocate limited municipal resources to best protect the public. Since JP Morgan's eighth defense seeks to shift fault to the government for alleged failure to prevent Epstein and JP Morgan's own trafficking-related activity, this defense is barred by the public duty doctrine and/or this court's decision-holding that alleged neglect of duty is no defense to government law enforcement actions. Here too, maintaining this legally inapplicable and factually incorrect defense would prejudice the government by requiring additional discovery and expending trial time on questions about the government's actions or inactions that are irrelevant to and distracting from the material questions of whether and how JP Morgan violated the TVPA. For all of these reasons, JP Morgan's defense of comparative or contributory negligence or fault should be stricken. Conclusion for all the reasons is set forth, the court should strike JP Morgan's affirmative defenses five through eight. This was dated May 8th, 2023 and it was signed by Linda Singer. Alright, that's going to do it for this one and this document as a whole. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. The January Jumpstart sale is here at Big R. Mark your calendars for January 23rd through 27th and save big with deals like 30% off Milwaukee batteries, a plaque diamond rolling chest for $99.99, 25% off men's cowboy hardware apparel and up to $10 off neutral dog food. This is your local Big R store or shop online at BigR.com to explore all the amazing deals. Want more savings? Join the Big R Insider program for exclusive offers. Don't miss out. Big R has got everything you need this season. It is Ryan here and I have a question for you. What do you do when you win? Like are you a fist pumper? A woohoo! A hand clap or a high fiver. If you want to hone in on those winning moves, check out Chumba Casino. Choose from hundreds of social casino style games for your chance to redeem serious cash prizes. There are new game releases weekly plus free daily bonuses so don't wait. Start having the most fun ever at Chumba Casino.com. Sponsored by Chumba Casino, no purchase necessary, VGW Group, voidware prohibited by law, 18 plus, terms and conditions apply.