Beyond The Horizon

JP Morgan's Memorandum In Law In Opposition To Jes Staley's Motion To Dismiss (Part 2) (7/7/24)

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley’s motion to dismiss addresses several key points:

Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.
Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.
Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.
Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.
Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank’s standing and operations.

The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conduct

(commercial at 7:43)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Duration:: 15m
Broadcast on:: 07 Jul 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

an official message from Medicare. A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. Maybe you can save too. With Medicare's Extra Help Program, my premium is zero and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp. Paid for by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 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 at ChumbaCassino.com. That's ChumbaCassino.com. Sponsored by Chumba Casino, no purchase necessary. VGW Group. Forward, we're prohibited by law. 18-plus Terms and Conditions apply. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're picking up where we left off with the JP Morgan, USB-I and Jess Staley Royal Rumble. Two, identification and contribution claims are permissible under the TVPA. The New York legislature established the statutory right of contribution that, by its plain language, encompasses JPMC's TVPA claim against Staley. New York permits contribution where two parties are subject to potential liability for damages for the same personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death. CNY, CPLR, section 1401. JPMC's contribution claims based on the TVPA fall squarely within that language and the New York common law similarly recognizes its identification claim. Staley fails to cite any case holding that the TVPA forecloses identification or contribution claims, nor could he. The sole authority squarely on point holds just the opposite. Under analogous Pennsylvania state law. In AB versus Marriott International Incorporated, the court held that the hotel chain, sued under the TVPA for knowingly benefiting from sex trafficking, could maintain third-party claims under Pennsylvania law for contribution and identity against local hotel franchises and sex traffickers. 2020 WL 364 2485 at 2-3 ED Pennsylvania July 6, 2020. Even though the TVPA did not directly address how to apportion liability, the court found Marriott's reading sufficiently supported by the axe text to permit the court to conclude that traffickers may be liable to Marriott if Marriott is found liable to AB under Pennsylvania law of identity and contribution. Idea 3, but C Ditolio versus Baum 2010 WL 11534265 at 2. District of Alaska 2010. Dictus stating that untimely third-party complaint seeking apportionment of damages under Alaska law would be futile. Staley argues that New York's contribution statute does not apply when the source of underlying liability is a federal statute rather than a state statute or a state common law, but the basis for liability upon which a contribution claim under section 1401 is predicated can arise from federal law. There is nothing in section 1401 to the contrary, New York state elections and gas corporation versus first energy corp 2007 WL 143 4901 at 7 N D NY May 11, 2007. Courts thus regularly apply the New York contribution statute to federal causes of action. C E G Jackson versus Ode Naught 9 F dot S U P P 3 D 342 366 SDNY 2014 the Lanham Act New York State Electric and Gas Corporation 2007 WL 143 4901 at 8 N D NY May 11, 2007 to incorporated versus Coles department stores, incorporated to 13 FRD 138 SDNY 2003 Lanham Act. Indeed, the New York contribution statute expressly carves out the workers compensation laws of the federal government and why CPLR section 1401 surplus usage were federal claims categorically exempted. Staley also goes through great pains to argue that any contribution claim in this case must be a matter of federal common law rather than state law, but that academic distinction is of no consequence here as Staley himself recognizes New York state law would supply the rule of decision for any contribution or identification claim that exists under the TVPA motion at seven and 12. And the legal reality is beyond reproach federal courts applying federal common law frequently adopt or borrow state common law as the federal rule of decision star international company versus Federal Reserve Bank of New York 906 F dot S U P P 2 D 202 233 SDNY 2012 the court here thus must engage in the familiar task of determining whether Congress intended to supersede or to supplement existing state remedies as in all other cases of preemption Northwest Airlines Incorporated versus Transportation Workers Union of America AFL CIO 451 U.S. 77 91 1981 matters left unaddressed in a federal statute even a comprehensive and detailed one are presumably left subject to the disposition provided by state law all Melvny versus Myers versus FDIC 512 U.S. 79 85 1994 citation and internal quotation marks omitted that presumption is overcome only by express preemption clause if Congress has occupied the field by creating a scheme so comprehensive that it leaves no room for supplementary state regulation international paper company versus OLED 4 79 U.S. 481 491 1987 word impossible simultaneously to comply with the federal and state law or if state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress goals felder versus Casey 487 U.S. 131 151 1988 implied preemption analysis starts with the assumption that the historic police powers of the state are not to be superseded unless that is the clear and manifest purpose of Congress Milwaukee versus Illinois and Michigan 451 U.S. 304 3 16 and 17 1981 quoting Jones versus Rath packaging company 430 U.S. 519 525 1977 as the Supreme Court is directed whether Congress intended to create a right of contribution is assessed by specificity factors relevant to this inquiry are the language of the statute itself its legislative history the underlying purpose and structure of the statutory scheme and the likelihood that Congress intended to supersede or supplement existing state remedies and W airlines incorporated versus transportation workers union of America AFL CIO 451 U.S. 77 91 1981 applying those factors here warrants denial of Staley's dismissal motion it's undisputed that the TVPA does not expressly preamp New York contribution and identification law nor does it do so impliedly quite the contrary the stated purpose of the TVPA is to combat trafficking in persons especially into the sex trade slavery and involuntary servitude pub L number 106 through 386 section 102 114 statute 1488 2000 and the TVPA's legislative history confirms that Congress enacted the TVPA to prevent trafficking in persons to ensure punishment of traffickers and to protect their victims HR rep number 108 through 264 to 2003 at two Staley's approach would shift liability entirely towards passive intermediaries accused of indirectly or unwittingly benefiting from sex trafficking while at the same time prohibiting them from holding those alleged to be direct perpetrators responsible for even a single dollar under Staley's interpretation JPMC could not even see contribution from Epstein himself where he's still alive an official message from Medicare a new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs you may be able to save too with Medicare's extra help program my premium is zero and my out-of-pocket costs are low who should apply single people making less than $23,000 a year or Mary couples who make less than $31,000 a year even if you don't think you qualify it pays to find out go to ssa.gov/extrahelp paid for by the US Department of Health and Human Services step into the world of power loyalty and luck i'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse with family canoles and spins mean everything now you want to get mixed up in the family business introducing the godfather at champa casino.com test your luck in the shadowy world of the godfather slots someday i will call upon you to do a service for me play the godfather now at champa casino.com welcome to the family no purchase necessary vdw group boy we're prohibited by law 18 plus terms and conditions apply as the second circuit explained and considering contribution under erisa there is no reason a party who is only partially responsible for a loss should bear its full brunt the likely inference from congress' silence on the contribution issue is that congress simply did not focus its attention beyond the rights of victims chamung canal trading company versus sovereign bank maryland 939 f.2d 12 16 18 second circuit 1991 so too here staly's reliance on cases in which no federal right to contribution was found does not yield a different result in each there was a clear congressional objective that would have been undermined by the allowance of contribution claims for example northwest airline super equal pay act in title seven and herman versus rsr security services ltd 172 f.3d 132 second circuit 1999 flsa both dealt with unemployment claims in that context the supreme court has made clear that underlying statutes were expressly directed against employers and that congress intended to regulate their conduct for the benefit of employees northwest airlines 451 us at 92 thus the court found that it would have flouted congressional objectives to allow offending employers a right of contribution the second circuit in herman relied on a similar analysis to reach the same conclusion for the flsa also finding that the statutory scheme preempted state law herman 172 3d at 143 here by contrast it simply cannot be said that congress enacted the tvpa with the targeted goal of regulating companies who may unintentionally and unwittingly participate in a sex trafficking venture organized and operated by a principal perpetrator and hit it by a faithless employee far from obstructing congressional purposes allowing contribution and identification would in this context ensure that the actors who engage in the most blameworthy conduct intentional and egregious conduct share in the sanction any other conclusion dilutes the deterrent effect against sex traffickers to a degree surely unimaginable to the tvpa's and actors texas industries versus radcliffe materials which addressed antitrust violations under the sherman in clayton axe is much the same 451 us 630 1981 there the court placed his positive reliance on the provision of treble damages action under the clayton act against participants in a conspiracy to restrain trade id at 639 the very idea of treble damages reveals an intent to punish passed and to deter future unlawful conduct the tvpa civil prohibition which again reaches any actor who benefits from a venture they should have known violated the tvpa no matter how attenuated their connection involves no such draconian statutory trouble damage penalty thus no inference is justified the second circuit in bernard versus made-off investment securities llc 721 f dot 3d 54 second circuit 2013 upon which staly relies is not to the contrary made-off did not address because the trustee did not contend as jpmc does here that the relevant federal statute implied a right to contribution rather the trustee made clear that he was not seeking contribution for violations of sippa or any other federal statute importantly made-off acknowledged that a federal statute may provide a right to contribution by id at 66 citing texas industry's supra which in turn relied on northwest airline supra and that is what the tvpa does here its structure and legislative history reflect that congress intended to ensure that traffickers would be held accountable and that congress therefore did not intend to displace state contribution law a conclusion that congressional silence overrides the clearly expressed intent of the new york legislature to permit contribution and identification under state law would turn the presumption against preemption on its head city of los angeles versus a comm services incorporated a 54 f dot 3d 1149 1156 50 ninth circuit 2017 congress intended no such result all right we're going to wrap up this episode here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with section three staly's additional attacks on jpmc's identity claim are meritless all of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box an official message from medicare a new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs maybe you can save too with medicare's extra help program my premium is zero am i out of pocket costs are low who should apply single people making less than 23 000 dollars a year or married couples who make less than 31 000 dollars a year even if you don't think you qualify it pays to find out go to ssa.gov/extrahelp paid for by the u.s department of health and human services hey there it is ryan seacrest with you you want to make this summer unforgettable join me at chumba casino it's this summer's hottest online destination they are rolling out the red carpet with an amazing welcome offer just for you so don't wait dive in now and play hundreds of social casino games for free your chance to redeem real prizes is just a spin away care to join me sponsored by chumba casino no purchase necessary vgw group void we're prohibited by law 18 plus terms and conditions apply