Beyond The Horizon

ICYMI: Jeffrey Epstein Is Remanded To Custody (Part 5)

Our dive into the sick and twisted underbelly of Epstein's decades long crime spree continues in this episode as we look at the courts order to remand Jeffrey Epstein to custody after his arrest.

(commercial at 14:31)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

Epstein-berman.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Duration:: 21m
Broadcast on:: 03 Jul 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

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. What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. We're going to pick up where we left off in this episode with the remand order of Jeffery Epstein. 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 3 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 Council asserts is offered to serve as a guarantor for Mr. Epstein by pledging his home in West Palm Beach. The court notes that the pretrial services 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 and 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 at 2 Defense counsel contends that defendant has one active passport that was surrendered 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. About the defendant's possession of what purports to be a foreign passport 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 Council 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 14. The court has advised Defense Council that this cursory asset statement is insufficient to support a bell package for the reasons, among others, that it is not verified and does not show expenses indebtedness or liabilities. Law enforcement has informed the government that is 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/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 Boyes, who, as noted, represents identified victims in this case, advised the court that while a 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. Let's see 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 vs. Epstein 155 F.SUPP 2D 323 326 EDPEN 2001 The crucial factor, however, is defendant's lack of ties to the United States and is 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 is shown by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant is a serious risk of flight and that no conditions can be set 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 vs. Collins 2013 WL 3802012 at 3 The danger posed by the defendant's release As demonstrated in for Mr. Epstein's dangerousness is considerable and includes sex crimes with minor girls and tampering with potential witnesses. The discussion at page 10-21 is incorporated here by reference. See Minawa 128F APX at 829 and 830, the alleged activities were of an addictive sexual nature that cannot be suppressed simply by a restrictive set of bail conditions. See also Milan, 4F.3D at 1049, the protection of the community can be assured only by the continued detention. The court is 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 versus Abdullah 488F.SUPP.2D/43/445. 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 bell 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 bell package, CUS Code 18, Section 3142-BF2. The court finds the defendant's proposed bell package is inadequate, among its deficiencies are these. 1. The bell package is not accompanied or supported by audited or certified financial statements, including details of income and expenses and debt obligations. There is no affidavit from Mr. Epstein, as noted Defense Council, 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 5 p.m. 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 bell package, nor would it enable the court to fashion a bell 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 Council 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 for a person as wealthy and experienced in financial matters as Mr. Epstein. CTR-715-19 at 50. Court, there needs to be a fuller financial picture to know what would be appropriate. Defense Council, 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. 2. The defense bell 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 v. Zorob 2016-WL 3681423 at SDNY June 16, 2016. The bell 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 US Bureau of Prisons and US Marshal 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 v. Valerio 9F-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 eviolate 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 an actual jail. You slept through your alarm, missed the train, and your breakfast sandwich, cold. Sounds like you could use some luck. I'm Victoria Cash, and Luckyland is where people go every day to get lucky. At Luckyland, you can play over a hundred casino-style games for free for your chance to redeem some serious prizes. Go to Luckylandslots.com and get lucky today. No purchase necessary, VTW Group, voidware prohibited by law, 18-plus terms and conditions apply. 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 is 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 to provide a specific amount of cash. C. 715-19. 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 a 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 24/7 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 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 in Florida, docket 11 examples 1 and 2. 6. 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 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 24/7 private home security guards. Each bell 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. C.E.G., United States v. Ferranti, 66, F.3D at 544. No conceivable conditions could ensure the safety of the community, orana 986 F.2D at 632. We do not agree that the bell conditions set by the district court eliminate the danger to the community or are superior to detention for purposes of the Bell Reform Act, United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2D 96 100 2D 1985. These conditions are clearly inadequate to protect the public from one found for bell 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 pre-trial release is denied. This was dated July 18, 2019, and it was signed by Richard Berman. Alright folks, that's going to do it for this one. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. It's time for today's Lucky Land horoscope with Victoria Cash. Life's gotten mundane, so shake up the daily routine and be adventurous with a trip to Lucky Land. You know what they say. Your chance to win starts with a spin, so go to luckylandslots.com to play over 100 social casino style games for free for your chance to redeem some serious prizes. Get lucky today! At luckylandslots.com No purchase necessary, VGW Group, void were prohibited by law, 18 plus terms of condition supply.