Beyond The Horizon

ICYMI: Jeffrey Epstein Is Remanded To Custody (Part 3)

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 9:11)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

Epstein-berman.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Duration:: 15m
Broadcast on:: 03 Jul 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

Step into the world of power, loyalty, and luck. I'm going to make him an orphan, he can't refuse. With family, canolis, and spins mean everything. Now, you want to get mixed up in the family business. Introducing the Godfather at Chompacocino.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 Chompacocino.com. Welcome to the family. No purchase necessary, VTW Group. We were 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 that's remanding Jeffrey Epstein to custody. So let's get back to it. The Section 1591 presumption of pretrial remand reflects the seriousness of Mr. Epstein's alleged crimes. The significant harms and dangers of sex crimes involving minors animated Congress to create the statutory presumption of detention. United States vs. Hardy, 2019. WL2211210 at 10, DDC May 22, 2019. The presumption of remand reflects Congress substantive judgment that particular classes of offenders should ordinarily be detained prior to trial. United States vs. Stone, 608F.3D, 939, 945, 6 circuit, 2010. Other serious offenses that are accompanied by the presumption of remand are kidnapping, US Code 18, Section 1201, aggravated sexual abuse, US Code 18, Section 2241, sexual abuse, US Code 18, Section 2242, offenses resulting in death, US Code 18, Section 2245, the sexual exploitation of children, US Code 18, Section 2251, selling or buying children, US Code 18, Section 2260, coercion and enticement, US Code 18, Section 2422, transport of minors, US Code 18, Section 2423, use of interstate facilities to transmit information about a minor, US Code 18, Section 2425, and US Code 18, Section 3142, E3, and E. The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutted. Martier 782F.2D at 1144. If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger the community or flee the jurisdiction, the presumption is not erased. See the United States versus Dominguez 783F.2D 702 707 7 circuit 1986. Rather, the presumption remains in the case as an evidentiary finding militating against release to be waited along with other evidence. United States versus her 517F.3D 1081 1086 9 circuit 2008. Also see Martier 782F.2D at 1144. The concern underlying the presumption applies to the general class of defendants charged with one of the specified offenses, not merely to defendants who fail to produce rebuttal evidence. Were the presumption to vanish upon any showing? Courts would be giving too little deference to Congress findings regarding this class. The US pretrial services department recommends to the court that Mr. Epstein continue to be remanded. The pretrial services report dated July 8th, 2019 concludes following pretrial services interview of Mr. Epstein that there is no condition or a combination of conditions that can reasonably assure the safety of the community if Mr. Epstein is released. Pretrial services report dated July 8th, 2019 at 4. Pretrial services also concluded that Mr. Epstein is a flight risk and recommends that he be detained for that reason as well. In support of the assessment of Mr. Epstein's dangerousness, pretrial services cites the following. The nature of Mr. Epstein's currently charged instant offense, i.e. sex trafficking and conspiracy involving minor girls, Mr. Epstein's prior arrest, e.g. in Florida in 2006, Mr. Epstein's history and conviction involving a sex offense, which principally refers to defendant's 2008 conviction for procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution, a felony, and for solicitation of prostitution, also a felony. Mr. Epstein's status as a registered sex offender in New York, Florida and the Virgin Islands and Mr. Epstein's pattern of similar criminal activity. The seriousness of the crimes that Mr. Epstein has been charged with is also reflected in the fact that the crimes involve minor children. Mr. Epstein is said by the government to be a serial sexual predator who allegedly victimized dozens or more minor girls, including a 14-year-old girl. He was involved in and undertook the alleged sexual activity in several locations, including his mansion in Manhattan and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, indictment number two. By actively encouraging certain minor victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly sexually abused, Mr. Epstein is said to have created a vast network of underage victims for him to exploit. The government alleges that Mr. Epstein intentionally sought out and knew that he was abusing minors, indeed, in some instances. His victims expressly told him that they were underage before or during the period in which he abused them. The crimes with which Mr. Epstein are charged carry a maximum sentence of 45 years of incarceration. The deprivation of liberty imposed by imprisonment makes that penalty the best indicator of whether the legislature considered an offense to be serious. United States versus Dugan, 667, F.3D-84, 82nd Circuit, 2011, quoting Lewis versus United States, 518 U.S., 322, 326, 1996. And the crimes Mr. Epstein has been charged with are among the most heinous in the law principally in the court's view because they involve minor girls. U.S. Code 18, Section 3142. See also Roger Pribbs-Lisky, Chapter 5, Adult Sex Offender Recidivism, Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative. Researchers widely agree that observed recidivism rates are underestimates of the true reoffense rates of sex offenders. Hitting offending presents significant challenges for professionals, working in sex offender management, as it is difficult to know whether offenders who appear to be non-recidivists based on official records are truly offense-free. Mr. Epstein or his representatives have intimidated, threatened, and/or made payments to potential witnesses. The government's evidence includes Florida police reports describing harassment and intimidation of witnesses involved in the Florida state criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein in 2006 and emails dated September 13, 2007 and September 19, 2007, from Mr. Epstein's former counsel to federal prosecutors in Florida discussing the option of Mr. Epstein pleading guilty to witness tampering, harassment, and/or obstruction of justice. Upon Beach Police Report, dated July 19, 2006, states that one of Mr. Epstein's victims reported that Mr. Epstein's representative said to her, "Those who help Mr. Epstein will be compensated and those who hurt Mr. Epstein will be dealt with." Docket, example number three at two. The report also states Mr. Epstein's representatives assured the victim that she would receive monetary compensation for her assistance in not cooperating with law enforcement. Another undated Palm Beach Police incident report states that the parent of one of Mr. Epstein's alleged victims contacted the Palm Beach Police to report that Mr. Epstein's private investigator had aggressively driven the parent's car off the road. Docket 11, example two. This same report states that the parent of another victim reported being followed aggressively by Mr. Epstein's private investigator, the government contends that these reports together suggest that an associate of Epstein's was offering to buy victim silence during the course of the prior investigation and demonstrate Mr. Epstein's willingness to use intimidation and aggressive tactics in connection with a criminal investigation. Docket 11 at 11. The government also submit email evidence attached to this order as exhibit one of plea discussions in 2007 between Florida federal prosecutors and Mr. Epstein's attorneys that confirm that Mr. Epstein considered pleading guilty to witness tampering, harassment, and/or obstruction of justice in a case involving alleged sex crimes with minor girls. On September 13, 2007, prosecutors wrote to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they have been spending some quality time looking for misdemeanors that Epstein could plead guilty to, including US Code 18, 1512D, a federal witness tampering statute, a felony, and US Code 18, Section 403, a federal statute criminalizing the violation of the privacy protection of child victims and child witnesses, a misdemeanor. Doe versus United States, 08 Civ, 80756, Southern District, Florida, Docket 36111. - 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. Epstein's counsel replied already thinking about the same statutes. On September 18th, 2007, a federal prosecutor told Mr. Epstein's counsel that if Mr. Epstein pled guilty to an obstruction of justice charge, the factual proffer could rely on the incident where Mr. Epstein's private investigators followed a victim's father forcing him off the road. See Docket 361 at 10. On September 19th, 2007, Mr. Epstein's counsel proposed that Mr. Epstein admit that he verbally harass victims or the family of victims in connection with his attempt to delay their voluntary receipt of process in a civil action against Mr. Epstein in violation of a federal witness tampering statute, Docket 369. And the government recently contended that on November 28th, 2018 and on December 3rd, 2018, very soon after the publication of a three-part investigative report, in the Miami Herald, authored by Julie K. Brown, relating to Mr. Epstein's Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement, dated September 24th, 2007, Mr. Epstein paid $100,000 to a company founded and run by individual number one and he paid $250,000 to individual number two. The government states that individual one was a potential co-conspirator from whom Epstein obtained protection in the NPA. Individual number one was named and featured prominently in the Miami Herald, C. Julie K. Brown. Even from jail, sex abuser manipulated the system. His victims were kept in the dark. Miami Herald, November 28th, 2018. The government states that individual two was also a potential co-conspirator for whom Epstein also obtained protection in the NPA, C. Docket 23 at two. She is one of the employees identified in the indictment, which alleges that she and two other identified employees facilitated the defendant's trafficking of minors by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant at his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida. Individual two was also named and featured prominently in the Miami Herald report. The government states there is good reason to infer that Mr. Epstein was attempting to influence these two individuals who were close to him during the time period charged in this case and who might be witnesses against him at a trial, Docket 11. Neither of these payments appear to be reoccurring or repeating during the approximately five years of bank records presently available to the government. This course of action and in particular its timing suggested defendant was attempting to further influence co-conspirators who might provide information against him in light of recently re-emerging allegations. A court may order detention if there is a serious risk that the defendant will attempt to threaten, injure or intimidate a prospective witness or juror. US Code 18, Section 3142, F2B. Even a single incident of witness tampering has been traditional ground for pre-trial detention by the courts, LaFontaine 210, F.2D at 132 through 34. Affirming then, US District Judge Michael B. Mukasey's denial of bail to a defendant who had met with a prospective witness in an effort to persuade the witness to give untruthful testimony and where there was no evidence of influence, harassment or intimidation. See also United States v. Singh 2012 WL-326-0232 at 3. Eastern District of New York, August 8, 2012. And that's pretty funny that it's Mukasey here considering Mukasey was the guy who really signed off on Epstein's deal when all was said and done. It wasn't Acosta, it was Mukasey. So we're gonna wrap up right here and then the next episode we'll pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. - Every day when you log in to Chumbakocino.com, the ultimate online social casino, you get a free daily bonus. Imagine if you got daily bonuses in other parts of your life. - I chose French fries over loaded French fries. - I asked Stewart from accounting about his weekend, even though I don't care. - I updated my operating system without having to call tech support. - Collect your free daily bonus at Chumbakocino.com now. - And live the Chumba life. PDW Group, no purchase necessary. Avoid work prohibited by law. In terms of conditions, 18 plus.