Beyond The Horizon

ICYMI: Jeffrey Epstein Is Remanded To Custody (Part 4)

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 8:54)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

Epstein-berman.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Duration:: 13m
Broadcast on:: 03 Jul 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

You slept through your alarm, missed the train, and your breakfast sandwich. Cool. 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, VGW Group, a void 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 diving right back in to the order of remanding Jeffrey Epstein the custody. Mr. Epstein has not always been compliant with his legal obligations as a registered sex offender. Defense counsel has contended that Mr. Epstein has been scrupulously fulfilling his obligations in every jurisdiction in which he was required to register 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. Doc at six at number three. The record shows that Mr. Epstein has challenged the 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. C. Elizabeth Rosner, Tina Moore, Larry Solona, and Bruce Golding, NYPD like convicted pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein skipped judge order check-ins. New York Post, July 10th, 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 15th, 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 three to level one. If granted, this reduction would have allowed Mr. Epstein to avoid his reporting obligations. In a sex offender registration act hearing on January 11th, 2018, held before the honorable Ruth Pickholz, Mr. Epstein's application was firmly denied, principally because it had been established by the board of examiners of sex offenders. See people versus Epstein in diamond number 30129, 2010, New York Supreme Court, SO RA 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. ID at two through 15, Judge Pickholz appeared to be stunned by the Joint Defense Council District Attorney application stating, I am just a little overwhelmed that the people are making this application. I have done many SO RAs, 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 four and five, Judge Pickholz 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 E-71 Street if he does not want to come every 90 days. Epstein appealed, but Judge Pickholz 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 versus Epstein, 89 AD, 3D, 570, 933, NYS 2D 239, NY Appellate Division, 2011. Notwithstanding Judge Pickholz 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. The 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 Council's premise that Mr. Epstein's perfect compliance and meticulous obedience, docket 6, at 1 in 5, to his sex offender registration obligations should lead to his release. C. Le Fontaine, 2, 10, F.3D at 1, 35, 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 K. Chihi, Jeffrey Epstein, had sex done 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, PBSO, 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 Council 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. Stockade 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 some based upon all the proffers and evidence at 4th, at page 10-21, above the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Epstein poses a danger to other persons and to the community. Gee, 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 risk of flight will be sufficient to detain the defendant pending trial. United States v. King 849F.2D 485 488 11 Circuit 1988 Voting United States v. Portis 786 F.2D 765 7 Circuit 1985 The court finds that the government has shown by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Epstein is a flight risk. The factors to be considered in analyzing the risk of flight are the same factors that apply when analyzing dangerousness. They are one, the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged, two, the weight of the evidence against the defender, three, history and characteristics of the defendant, including the person's character and financial resources, and four, the seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant's release. C. U.S. Code 18, Section 3142G The weight afforded to each factor under Section 3142G is within the special province of the district court, Paulino 335 F.SUPP At 610, 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. At the outset, it should be noted that the pre-trial service report dated July 12, 2019 concludes that the defendant poses a risk of non-appearance for the following reasons. 1. Mr. Epstein's extensive foreign travel and possession of travel documents, 2. 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. Pre-trial 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 U.S. federal law. The government has alleged that Mr. Epstein intentionally sought out and sexually abused minor girls, including those particularly vulnerable, two exploitation. Docket 11, example 1, at 2. He did this in multiple locations, including New York and Palm Beach, ID, 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. 4. These crimes, as already noted, carry a maximum sentence of 45 years of incarceration and give rise to a presumption of pre-trial remand. U.S. Code 18, Section 3142, E3 and E, C. United States vs. Hardy, 2019, WL 2211, 210, at 10, DDC, May 22, 2019. The significant harms and dangers of these crimes 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 vs. Silenz, 2013, WL 3802, 012, at 2, SDNY, 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 vs. 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 517 F.3D at 1090. Alright folks we're gonna wrap up this episode here and in the next episode we're gonna pick up where we left off. Good luck. [MUSIC PLAYING]