Beyond The Horizon
The USVI And Their Request For A Summary Judgement Against JP Morgan (Part 5) (6/30/24)
A memorandum of law in support of a summary judgment is a legal document filed by a party in a lawsuit to persuade the court to grant a summary judgment in their favor. Summary judgment is a legal process where the court decides a case without a full trial because there are no disputed material facts requiring a jury or judge to resolve. Here’s a detailed breakdown of what this memorandum typically includes:
- Introduction and Statement of Facts:
- The memorandum begins with a brief introduction, outlining the purpose of the document and a statement of undisputed facts. These facts are often supported by evidence such as affidavits, depositions, and other documents.
- Legal Arguments:
- This section presents the legal basis for the motion, citing relevant laws, statutes, and case precedents. The goal is to demonstrate that, based on the undisputed facts, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Standard of Review:
- The memorandum will often include a discussion of the standard of review for summary judgment, explaining that the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and determine if there is no genuine issue of material fact.
- Analysis:
- A detailed analysis follows, where the party applying for summary judgment argues how the law applies to the undisputed facts. This section aims to show that the opposing party cannot prove an essential element of their case or that there is no evidence to support their claims.
- Conclusion:
- The memorandum concludes with a summary of the arguments and a request for the court to grant summary judgment, thereby dismissing the case or certain claims within the case without the need for a trial.
- Supporting Documentation:
- The memorandum is usually accompanied by supporting documentation, such as exhibits, affidavits, and a statement of undisputed material facts, to substantiate the arguments made.
(commercial at 8:54)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
Microsoft Word - MSJ BRIEF 7.24.23 Final WORD_Highlighted Black for Redactions (bwbx.io)
- Duration:
- 10m
- Broadcast on:
- 30 Jun 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're getting right back to the USVI and their request for a summary judgment against JP Morgan. 4. JP Morgan's equitable and false-shifting defenses do not apply to the government's claims. This is an action by the government of the Virgin Islands to vindicate public rights, while JP Morgan seeks to shift focus away from its own failings and point blame on the government. Such equitable or false-shifting defenses are legally barred. CEG, City of New York, vs. FedEx, Ground Package System Inc., 3.14, FRD, 3.48, 3.57, SDNY 2016. When acting in a capacity to enforce public rights in the public interest, government entities are not subject to all equitable defenses, such as latches or estoppel, that could ordinarily be invoked against a private doctor. Voting State of New York vs. UPS Inc., 160, F.SUPP 3D, 629, 640, SDNY 2019, IDEA 359. Contention that the government plaintiffs were negligent in their discretionary tax enforcement is impermissible where the government seeks to vindicate the public interest via enforcement of a public statutory right. The court therefore should grant some re-judgment for the government on JP Morgan's affirmative defense number 5, 6, 7, 8, an answer and affirmative defenses, docket 124 at 126, because they seek to do precisely what the law prohibits, shift fault to a government plaintiff, bringing suit to vindicate public rights. JP Morgan's attempts to distract from its violations of the TVPA, described above by claiming the government should have done more, are particularly galling. The government must comply with the constitutional and legal principles that protect all individuals by ensuring that investigations cannot proceed without concrete evidence. JP Morgan had that evidence. In spades. In its own files, the government did not. JP Morgan knowingly handled virtually every financial transaction Epstein needed to operate his sex trafficking venture, from the millions in cash withdrawals and payments to co-conspirators, and victims, to the millions in payments to lawyers and publicists for the ongoing cover-up. JP Morgan had virtually every financial detail of Epstein's venture from payments to young women in Lithuania and Russia to transfers for the purchase of a helicopter by Maxwell, to a revoked credit card for an alleged recruiter who talked to police, in real time and kept virtually all of it, and thus its own outsized role under wraps until Epstein was dead and gone. The government's causes of action against JP Morgan arise under the TVPA, and the provision for state attorneys general which provides that where the attorney general of a state has reason to believe that an interest of the residence of that state has been or is threatened or adversely affected by any person who violates section 1591, the attorney general of the state, may bring a civil action against such person on behalf of the residence of the state in an appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate relief, U.S. Code 18, Section 1595D. The TVPA makes clear that a state attorney general plaintiff brings suit not as a private litigant on behalf of itself, but as parents' pay-try, the sovereign, on behalf of the residence of the state, to obtain appropriate relief for an interest of those residents that has been or is threatened or adversely affected by JP Morgan's prohibited conduct. In denying JP Morgan's motion to dismiss, the court confirmed this plain reading of the TVPA. The court found that the government satisfies the elements of it and its standing, including that it alleges an injury to quasi-sovereign interest that affects a sufficiently substantial segment of its population, order at 17, citing SNAP 458, U.S. at 607. The court explained that the government's asserted interests in protecting residents from the harmful effects of criminal sex trafficking enterprises flourishing in the islands, directly parallels the interests that Puerto Rico successfully asserted in SNAP, ID at 18. Having found that the government alleges a quasi-sovereign interest and is vindicating public rights, the court now should hold that JP Morgan's equitable and fault-shifting defenses do not apply as a matter of law. The government's TVPA claim under Section 1595D is one exclusively pursued by state governments and not by private parties, just as under the CCTA in FedEx and UPS. The TVPA makes it clear that by predicating a state's claim upon its showing that an interest of the residents of the state has been or is threatened or adversely affected by any person who violates Section 1591. U.S. Code 18, Section 1595D. The dismissal opinion makes it clear still that the government is acting in a public enforcement capacity by holding that the government alleges an injury to a quasi-sovereign interest and seeks relief to the territory's injury that would be unavailable to individual plaintiffs. Order at 18. Since the government is enforcing the TVPA in its capacity as sovereign, not as a privately interested litigant, JP Morgan's equitable and fault-shifting defenses are barred as a matter of law and discovery has not shown otherwise. JP Morgan has generally cited three issues forming the basis of its false-shifting affirmative defenses. 1. Epstein's registration as a sex offender, 2. The Virgin Islands Economic Development Commission, provision of tax benefits to Epstein's companies, under a federally authorized tax benefit program, and 3. Actions taken by Cecile Dijang, who Epstein employed. As explained below, JP Morgan's claims of government-wide conspiracy to protect Epstein are both legally unsound and factually unsupported. The defense based on these allegations cannot survive summary judgment. 2. A. JP Morgan's defenses are barred as applied to sex offender registry issues. JP Morgan argues that the government purportedly, improper enforcement of sex offender registry requirements with respect to Epstein, supports its equitable and fault-shifting defenses. See opposition motion to strike, docket 157. This argument is without basis. A. The government's investigations or monitoring of Epstein cannot form a basis of viable affirmative defenses. JP Morgan essentially argues that the government should have more aggressively investigated Epstein or monitored his whereabouts, but that argument suffers from a fatal flaw. Even as a convicted sex offender, Epstein possess constitutional rights that the government was required to respect. Nothing, however, granted Epstein a constitutional right to conduct business with JP Morgan, or to be free, from JP Morgan scrutiny. JP Morgan's attempt to equate its own compliance failures with the government's actions have no legal basis and thus amount a little more than a brazen attempt to distract from its own regulatory failings. The officials within the Virgin Islands government responsible for sex offender registration and monitoring are not responsible for Epstein's crimes. The laws required Epstein to register, which he did, and to provide notification of travel overseas, but the government cannot enter his island or conduct searches without concrete evidence that crimes were being committed. All witnesses confirm that the government never received such evidence. JP Morgan has attempted to point the news articles or complaints filed by anonymous victims in other states as evidence at the Virgin Islands government failed to pursue. But those documents do not and cannot underpin a government investigation. The government cannot search Epstein's property without a warrant, which can only be issued upon probable cause. Grow versus Ramirez 540 US 551 557 2004. Newspaper reports or anonymous statements do not constitute sufficient basis for probable cause because mere journalistic prose is not the kind of underlying factual data upon which a magistrate can exercise appropriate judgment. Donovan versus Fed clearing die casting company 655 F dot 2 D 793 797 7 circuit 1981. We need not be labor the point that all newspaper reports are not sufficient reliability to form the basis of Fourth Amendment probable cause determination. We also U S versus one white crystal covered bat tour glove and other Michael Jackson memorabilia 2013 W L one two one nine six five five nine five at four central district California August 19 2013. These cases are consistent with the undisputed witness testimony confirming that the Department of Justice could initiate investigations or pursue warrants based upon these types of hearsay statements. A witness confirmed absent an actual complaint from a victim or eyewitness evidence brought to the Department of Justice's attention. The department could not initiate investigations. JP Morgan's complaints concerning the adequacy of address verification checks fair no better. No provision in the law requires the Virgin Islands to perform such checks which are done to confirm that the registrant resides at the address provided to the government. The checks were performed roughly annually in conjunction with the U S marshals and other federal partners. The applicable law required address checks to verify that an offender is living where reported. They do not, however, authorize entry onto private property or dispense with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment government officials may not enter a sex offenders property or conduct a search absent consent or a warrant based on probable cause. That protection is the reason that in certain years the U S marshals and Virgin Island officials did not proceed beyond Epstein's dock. If an offender refused entry, the government officials performing the check did not possess authorization to enter. One Virgin Islands witness testified that she conferred with the federal government concerning this practice and was told that it was similar to a situation where a landowner has placed a gate at the border to his property. The officials were not permitted to proceed beyond that gate without a warrant nor was it improper or unusual for the government to confirm addresses at a sex offenders place of employment as was done one year with Epstein. All right, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode we're going to finish up this document. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.