Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. A couple of days ago, we were talking
Speaker 1: about Leon Black and how he had won a court
Speaker 1: battle to sanction one of his accusers. Well, now The
Speaker 1: Guardian has a very extensive article out going a little
Speaker 1: bit deeper into the situation with Leon Black and the
Speaker 1: accuser who is accusing him of abusing her and some
Speaker 1: of the allegations. Some of the information that we're learning
Speaker 1: is very disturbing, such as Leon Black and his team
Speaker 1: reaching out to the judge behind the scenes. That doesn't
Speaker 1: seem like a very good idea, does it. That doesn't
Speaker 1: seem like it's in the spirit of fairness, especially considering
Speaker 1: how powerful Leon Black is. Anyway, So we have a
Speaker 1: very extensive article here from The Guardian, and we're going
Speaker 1: to break it down into multiple pieces. So let's dive
Speaker 1: into episode one of this Guardian article and see what
Speaker 1: they have to say about Leon Black and his ongoing
Speaker 1: legal battle with his accuser. Headlined Epstein link. Billionaire accused
Speaker 1: of rape privately reached out the federal judge to defend
Speaker 1: his good name. Like what that doesn't seem like the
Speaker 1: proper way to do it? Shouldn't you do that inside
Speaker 1: the courtroom? Did the judge receive anything improper from Leon Black?
Speaker 1: And we're talking about Judge Rakoff here, So what did
Speaker 1: he receive from Leon Black? If anything? And why is
Speaker 1: Leon Black reaching out to him behind the scenes. Sounds
Speaker 1: a whole lot like what Jeffrey Epstein was doing with
Speaker 1: the NPA. This article was authored by Johannah Berkman and
Speaker 1: Johannah great job. This is a very very good article,
Speaker 1: very well put together and exactly on point. Lawyers for
Speaker 1: Leon Black, the billionaire investor who has been accused in
Speaker 1: a civil lawsuit of raping a teenage girl inside Epstein's
Speaker 1: New York townhouse in two thousand and two, reached out
Speaker 1: to a powerful federal judge in twenty twenty four to
Speaker 1: raise doubts about the alleged victims claims. A Guardian investigation
Speaker 1: has found the move set off a month long court proceeding,
Speaker 1: which was conducted outside public view and led to US
Speaker 1: District Judge Jed Raykoff to reverse a two and a
Speaker 1: half million dollar reward that had been granted to the
Speaker 1: alleged victim in a separate Epstein related class action lawsuit.
Speaker 1: According to court records. She was later given a much
Speaker 1: smaller settlement in the class action case. Absolutely disgusting. I mean,
Speaker 1: for real, Judge Raykoff, Really, that's what you're doing. You're
Speaker 1: going back and you're reversing a decision because Leon Black
Speaker 1: and his people reached out to you. Cowardice, That's what
Speaker 1: it is, straight up cowardice. Jane Doe, as she's known
Speaker 1: in court filings, his claim she was trafficked by Epstein
Speaker 1: and rape by Black when she was a teenager more
Speaker 1: than two decades ago. The Guardian's investigation is revealing new
Speaker 1: details about the private communitytion in Black's legal campaign, which
Speaker 1: undermined Doe in her civil lawsuit against the Wall Street billionaire.
Speaker 1: And can you imagine being this Dough going up against
Speaker 1: somebody like Leon Black and then having the federal system
Speaker 1: come down on you on behalf of Leon Black. It
Speaker 1: is unconscionable, Absolutely unconscionable. In a recent court order, Dough
Speaker 1: faced a significant setback when Jessica Clark, the federal judge
Speaker 1: presiding over her civil lawsuit against Black, sanctioned Doe and
Speaker 1: her former lawyer for serious sanctionable misconduct in the case.
Speaker 1: They said that the former lawyer had repeatedly lied to
Speaker 1: the court and opposing council and directed her client to
Speaker 1: destroy a social media account. Dough was sanctioned for having
Speaker 1: falsified some sonogram images that appeared in personal journals, which
Speaker 1: were submitted to the court as evidence in her abuse
Speaker 1: by Epstein. However, it was not a complete victory for Black,
Speaker 1: as the judge also ruled that the high stakes lawsuit
Speaker 1: could proceed. But make no mistake, this is a serious
Speaker 1: setback for Jane Doe. The fact that she was sanctioned,
Speaker 1: the fact that her lawyer was sanctioned. That's going to
Speaker 1: come up in any criminal or civil case, right and
Speaker 1: you know that Leon Black's team, they're going to look
Speaker 1: to utilize that. Black, the seventy four year old former
Speaker 1: Apollo Global Management CEO, pet Epstein one hundred and seventy
Speaker 1: million according to an investigation by the Senate Finance Committee,
Speaker 1: which he says was for tax and estate planning. Can
Speaker 1: you imagine paying someone one hundred and seventy million American
Speaker 1: dollars for tax and estate planning. Black has denied allegations
Speaker 1: that he raped or ever met, though who is now
Speaker 1: forty years old. He's never been charged with any crimes
Speaker 1: and connection to Epstein or otherwise. I'm sure him paying
Speaker 1: sixty two million dollars to the US Virgin Islands to
Speaker 1: get his name out of the fire played a part
Speaker 1: in that, though right. The Epstein scandal has prompted questions
Speaker 1: about why the accused sex traffickers elite circle of friends
Speaker 1: and associates is not faced greater scrutiny that may change.
Speaker 1: Black is due to testify before the House Oversight Committee
Speaker 1: on June twenty six, according to a person familiar with
Speaker 1: the matter, as part of the committee's investigation into, among
Speaker 1: other things, Epstein's sex trafficking rings. He's also facing questions
Speaker 1: from the Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, who claimed in a
Speaker 1: recent letter to Black that the Epstein files released by
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice remove any lingering doubt as to
Speaker 1: whether Black was connected to women in Epstein's network, and
Speaker 1: alleged that powerful associates in the US and abroad we're
Speaker 1: surveilling and paying off women on Black's behalf. We've seen
Speaker 1: the emails, and we know that they reached out to
Speaker 1: Russian special services to do that. But I guess that's
Speaker 1: no big deal, right. I guess it's the girl who
Speaker 1: was abused allegedly by Leon Black, who should be sanctioned.
Speaker 1: Black's attorney, Susan Strich, called Widen's assertions outrageous and false
Speaker 1: in an emailed statement, and characterized the senator's comments as
Speaker 1: a politically motivated attack. What now politically motivated? That's taking
Speaker 1: it a bit far. Maybe, just maybe Leon Black is
Speaker 1: a dirt bag? How about that, Susan Strich. The Guardian's investigation,
Speaker 1: based on access to extensive court records, many of which
Speaker 1: are still under seal but are due to be unsealed soon,
Speaker 1: reveals how Black and his legal team's private pleas to
Speaker 1: a federal judge led to a legal battle involving extensive
Speaker 1: written submissions and multiple hearings in a case in which
Speaker 1: he was not a party. Well, of course, got to
Speaker 1: have that extra pull behind the scenes, because I'm Leon Black,
Speaker 1: mister big shot. It included an extraordinary personal appeal from
Speaker 1: Black to Judge Rakoff, a well known and respected jurist
Speaker 1: based in the Southern District of New York. The written message,
Speaker 1: which was obtained by the Guardian, portrayed Black as a victim,
Speaker 1: invoking the death of Black's father, disputing those credibility and
Speaker 1: citing the damage the allegations have done to Black's reputation.
Speaker 1: It was submitted by the billionaire's lawyers days before Raycoff
Speaker 1: denied the two and a half million dollar reward that
Speaker 1: Doe was due to receive in the Epstein related class
Speaker 1: action lawsuit. Was Judge Rakoff paid off? Look? I know
Speaker 1: that's a big question, right and I don't have any
Speaker 1: evidence to back that up. But something here is a miss.
Speaker 1: Why would Judge Rakoff do what Leam Black asked him
Speaker 1: to do? I mean, I guess Judge Raykoff could think
Speaker 1: it's the right thing to do, but that would really
Speaker 1: call his judgment into question in my opinion. In another twist,
Speaker 1: Black's legal effort was bolstered by a high profile lawyer
Speaker 1: who was publicly heralded as an advocate for Epstein's victims.
Speaker 1: All these communications occurred outside of public view. And remember
Speaker 1: when I told you that all the lawyers involved, even
Speaker 1: the ones that are representing the survivors, shouldn't be trusted.
Speaker 1: This is what I mean. The vast majority of these
Speaker 1: lawyers are just looking to collect a bag, and they
Speaker 1: know that this is a big case, and they know
Speaker 1: they can make a lot of money if they get
Speaker 1: a settlement, so a lot of these people don't even
Speaker 1: care about the survivors. In an exclusive statement to The
Speaker 1: Guardian in which Doe described her feelings about what had transpired,
Speaker 1: she said were often taught that the justice system is
Speaker 1: here to protect victims and correct wrongs. My experience has
Speaker 1: shown me that it's far more complicated than that. Justice
Speaker 1: is not always blind. It's often shaped by power, access
Speaker 1: and who is able to withstand the process. I'm still here.
Speaker 1: I am not done. In July of twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: Jane Do alleged in a legal complaint filed against Leon
Speaker 1: Black in the Southern District of New York that Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein introduced her to Black at Epstein's townhouse in the
Speaker 1: late spring of two thousand and two. She was sixteen
Speaker 1: years old. Black, who was worth an estimated fourteen billion,
Speaker 1: was the chair in chief executive officer of Apollo Global Management,
Speaker 1: a private equity firm he co founded and led until
Speaker 1: he stepped down in March of twenty twenty one in
Speaker 1: the wake of the revelations he paid tens of millions
Speaker 1: of dollars to Epstein. Black has said the payments were
Speaker 1: for legitimate financial advice, and that he was completely unaware
Speaker 1: of misconduct by Epstein, who, in emails released earlier this
Speaker 1: year by the Department of Justice, sometimes referred to Black
Speaker 1: as mister big. Well, that's funny because I think that
Speaker 1: Leon Black is mister big, but mister big dickhead. Apollo
Speaker 1: announced in January of twenty twenty one that an internal
Speaker 1: review by the Decker LLP law firm, which Apollo's board
Speaker 1: commissioned to investigate Black's previous professional relationship with Epstein, found
Speaker 1: Black's payments to Ebstein were four bonafid financial services. Oh god, okay, sure,
Speaker 1: we believe that the whole investigation should be over. Everything
Speaker 1: was just a big mistake, sorry, mister Leon Black. The
Speaker 1: report found that there was no evidence that Black was
Speaker 1: involved in Epstein's criminal activities, and that review has since
Speaker 1: faced scrutiny, however, including by Senator Wyden, who's claimed to
Speaker 1: staff uncovered evidence that money paid by Black to Epstein
Speaker 1: was used to finance Epstein's sex trafficking operation. Black's lawyer
Speaker 1: called Widen's attacks on the decorate report completely baseless. Nope,
Speaker 1: not baseless. Sorry, that report is garbage and the whole
Speaker 1: entire idea behind that report was to whitewash what was
Speaker 1: going on with Leon Black. That's all that report was,
Speaker 1: and it did a pretty good job. Right, they're still
Speaker 1: talking about it like that report means something like that
Speaker 1: report is important when it's not. What's really important is
Speaker 1: what Leon Black was up to. What's really important is
Speaker 1: that he lied about Jeffrey Epstein, and he lied about
Speaker 1: that relationship for years. That's what's important. So considering all
Speaker 1: of that, why exactly should I be giving Leon Black
Speaker 1: the benefit of the doubt. In her legal complaint, Do
Speaker 1: alleged that Epstein told her that Black was a special friend,
Speaker 1: and that because she was Epstein's special girl, he had
Speaker 1: chosen to give her to Black the same kind of
Speaker 1: massage treatment that she gave to him. Do understood. According
Speaker 1: to her legal complaint, this meant that she was expected
Speaker 1: to strip naked and have sex. But when Doe and
Speaker 1: Black went up to a third floor massage room, she
Speaker 1: alleged in the complaint, Black threw her down on the
Speaker 1: massage table and then abused her vaginally and anally with
Speaker 1: sex toys. He then bit her regina, she alleged, cause
Speaker 1: him bleeding and extreme pain. Reflectively, The complaint says Dough
Speaker 1: kicked him, and in response to the complaint, alleges he
Speaker 1: became enraged then raped her. Do alleged in her complaint
Speaker 1: that the internal abrasion she suffered from the alleged attack
Speaker 1: that day continued to cause her pain more than twenty
Speaker 1: years later. The complaint described Dough as having autism. While
Speaker 1: she has an above average IQ, the complaint alleges her
Speaker 1: neural divergence makes her extremely trusting. That is just beyond
Speaker 1: the pill. Imagine going after a young girl who has autism.
Speaker 1: What kind of monster does something like that? Oh, that's right, Well,
Speaker 1: that's in Jeffrey Epstein's orbit, that's who. In a subsequent
Speaker 1: amended complaint filed by Doe's en lawyer Jean Christiansen, claims
Speaker 1: about the alleged assault by Black remained substantially the same.
Speaker 1: Some key details about how Doe said she met Maxwell
Speaker 1: and was trafficked by both Maxwell and Epstein changed significantly.
Speaker 1: According to a later court order, The Guardian has not
Speaker 1: independently verified any of those claims. Well, that's hard to do,
Speaker 1: so it comes down to who do you trust. Black's
Speaker 1: attorneys have said those allegations are entirely fabricated. Black's lawyer
Speaker 1: have also previously called for Whigdoor, the law firm that
Speaker 1: represented Doe until last year, to be legally sanctioned for
Speaker 1: relying on false allegations and made up stories in other cases.
Speaker 1: When Doe filed the suit against Black, Whigdor had already
Speaker 1: filed two other lawsuits against Black on behalf of women
Speaker 1: who also alleged e rape them. One of those lawsuits
Speaker 1: by Guzel Ganieva, a Russian model and former mistress, who
Speaker 1: claimed that she was dismissed because she had previously signed
Speaker 1: a non disclosure agreement for which he had been paid
Speaker 1: nine and a half million dollars by Black. The other lawsuit,
Speaker 1: filed by a woman named Sherry Pearson, who alleged that
Speaker 1: Black and raped her at Epstein's townhouse, was discontinued with
Speaker 1: prejudice and without cost to any party. As against the other.
Speaker 1: Black has said he never met Pearson. Black slawyers have
Speaker 1: said the allegations by both women have no merit. Even
Speaker 1: as she pursued a civil lawsuit against Black, Doe was
Speaker 1: involved in another legal case in the Southern District of
Speaker 1: New York. This one connected to the crimes of Epstein
Speaker 1: that he was accused of before his twenty nineteen suicide.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty two, a class of Epstein victims sued
Speaker 1: JP Morgan Chase, alleging that the bank had violated anti
Speaker 1: trafficking laws because of its participation and intentional involvement in
Speaker 1: Epstein's sex trafficking operation. The victims were represented by Bradley Edwards,
Speaker 1: the Florida plaintiff's lawyer who has represented hundreds of Epstein
Speaker 1: victims and is famous for helping to expose the two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight Sweetheart non prosecution agreement that shielded Epstein
Speaker 1: for years. Doesn't make him infallible, and it certainly doesn't
Speaker 1: put him above criticism or approach right. The JP Morgan
Speaker 1: class action lawsuit, which was overseen by Judge Rakoff, settled
Speaker 1: for two hundred and ninety million dollars in June of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three without an admission of liability. Though JP
Speaker 1: Morgan said it regretted its association with Epstein, It included
Speaker 1: a fund for Epstein abuse survivors to compensate them for
Speaker 1: physical and emotional injuries. A Claims administrator was appointed to
Speaker 1: oversee the fund. Edwards firm Edwards Henderson, together with co
Speaker 1: council Boy Schiller, were paid eighty seven million dollars for
Speaker 1: their work representing Epstein victims in the JP Morgan class
Speaker 1: action lawsuit eighty seven Excuse me not eighty three? Eighty
Speaker 1: seven million dollars. That is quite the bag to collect.
Speaker 1: Quite the bag. In late October twenty twenty three, Dough
Speaker 1: was interviewed by the claims administrator in the JP Morgan case.
Speaker 1: She later found out that she was being allocated two
Speaker 1: and a half million dollars. It was a moment of
Speaker 1: elation for Doe, her adoptive mother told The Guardian, because
Speaker 1: it was the first time she felt that her trauma
Speaker 1: was being recognized. All right, folks, we're gonna wrap up
Speaker 1: right here, and in the next episode, we're gonna pick
Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.
Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
Speaker 1: where he left off with the article from The Guardian
Speaker 1: that was authored by Johanna Berkman about Leon Black and
Speaker 1: the accusations made against him. Judge Raykoff approved the claims
Speaker 1: administrators proposed allocations on January fifth, twenty twenty four, including
Speaker 1: the allocation for Dough, but he said he intended to
Speaker 1: exercise an oversight role to ensure the allocation of class
Speaker 1: funds was fair and reasonable. The oversight role would be
Speaker 1: ex partey, he said, meaning that each side of any
Speaker 1: conflict could make their case to the judge without the
Speaker 1: other side being aware of it. It was an unusual
Speaker 1: move for Raykoff. The judge, who had been called a
Speaker 1: true judicial Maverick, has spoken publicly about the importance of
Speaker 1: transparency in the justice system. Everything needs to be public,
Speaker 1: the judge told The New York Times in two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine. The legitimacy of our court comes from the
Speaker 1: fact that they reason openly on the record based on
Speaker 1: the facts, unless, of course, that includes Jeffrey Epstein right
Speaker 1: or his friends, then it has to be done behind
Speaker 1: closed doors, right, Judge Rakoff in January twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: within days of Dough finding out about the two and
Speaker 1: a half million dollar allocation, her whigdoor lawyer, who was
Speaker 1: participating in a mediation with Black's Council involving another client's case,
Speaker 1: disclosed that Doe had been allocated a major award in
Speaker 1: the JP Morgan settlement. According to a chronology of events
Speaker 1: described in a twenty twenty six court order, what happened
Speaker 1: next would be later characterized by Doe's then lawyer as
Speaker 1: a violation of confidentiality. Black's counsel, Susan Estrich, contacted Judge
Speaker 1: Raykoff on Black's behalf. Must be nice to have those
Speaker 1: kind of lawyers, huh, that can reach out from behind
Speaker 1: the scenes and talk to a judge when he's not
Speaker 1: on the bench. That is so unacceptable to me that
Speaker 1: our don't even know how to describe it. The judge
Speaker 1: needs to be impartial and there most certainly shouldn't be
Speaker 1: any behind the scenes negotiating or deal making. But unfortunately
Speaker 1: Judge Rakoff, like the rest of them, they say one
Speaker 1: thing and they do another. On February twenty first, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, private and undocketed letter to Raycoff, Estrich claimed
Speaker 1: that Dough was perpetrating serious fraud on the court and
Speaker 1: was not a real Epstein victim. According to a court
Speaker 1: order that subsequently described strich letter. According to someone familiar
Speaker 1: with the matter, Estrich, who was not representing a party
Speaker 1: in the JP Morgan case, acknowledged in the letter that
Speaker 1: reaching out to Judge Rakoff was unorthodox. Yeah, no, shit,
Speaker 1: not something that happens ever, But here we are. When
Speaker 1: it comes to Jeffrey Epstein and his buddies, all the
Speaker 1: rules go out the window. Estrich declined to comment on
Speaker 1: questions by The Guardian about the exchange. In the letter.
Speaker 1: Estrich as dray Coff to open an inquiry into Doe
Speaker 1: and the allocation, according to a person familiar with the matter,
Speaker 1: and said she had reason to believe that the court
Speaker 1: appointed Class Council, Brad Edwards and other lawyers would have
Speaker 1: directly relevant information to bear on the issues. So it
Speaker 1: looks like all these lawyers got together conspired to make
Speaker 1: sure that Jane Doe didn't get any money, And the
Speaker 1: fact that the judge was playing ball with this is
Speaker 1: crazy and it does make me wonder what kind of evidence,
Speaker 1: if any, they had to back that claim up. Estrich
Speaker 1: letters succeeded Raycoff and Edwards, representing Class Council, agreed to
Speaker 1: take a closer look at those claims, court record show.
Speaker 1: Legal experts consulted by the Guardian said an intervention such
Speaker 1: as the one made by estrich On. Black's behalf raised
Speaker 1: questions because such outside legal interventions in a proceeding are
Speaker 1: quite limited. She has no interest to be involved in that,
Speaker 1: and the fact that Raykoff let it occur is unacceptable.
Speaker 1: And I think that Raykoff should have nothing to do
Speaker 1: with anything that has to do with Epstein moving forward.
Speaker 1: He can't be trusted. Somebody who has an interest in
Speaker 1: a piece of litigation may not intervene in some other
Speaker 1: disputable party against whom he is opposed just because he
Speaker 1: would like to do them damage. In that case, That's
Speaker 1: not how the system works. You litigate your own cases,
Speaker 1: said sam is a car Off, a professor of constitutional
Speaker 1: law at New York University who's a leading scholar on
Speaker 1: class action lawsuits. Yeah, nothing about that seems right to me,
Speaker 1: and I'm certainly not some leading scholar. But all the
Speaker 1: backroom deal making, all the shenanigans that we've seen time
Speaker 1: and time again when it comes to Epstein and his friends,
Speaker 1: I'm done with it. Everything needs to be fully transparent,
Speaker 1: everything in deary. If a lawyer for a defendant who's
Speaker 1: accused of rape writes to a judge and a class
Speaker 1: action in which that alleged victim has been given a claim.
Speaker 1: It could even be seen as a way of harassing
Speaker 1: them and calling their testimony into repute. He added, It's
Speaker 1: not allowed if it's malintentioned, and the line between what's
Speaker 1: allowed and what's malintentioned is a very difficult one. I
Speaker 1: put the blame on Judge Rakoff. He could have stopped it,
Speaker 1: he didn't. I wonder why, what did he have to gain?
Speaker 1: What kind of relationship does he have with Leon Black.
Speaker 1: The Guardian reached out to Judge Rakoff for comment. His
Speaker 1: law clerk said in an emailed statement, it's a matter
Speaker 1: of record that the great majority of Epstein related proceedings
Speaker 1: before Judge Rakoff have been sealed at the express request
Speaker 1: of the various council for Epstein's victims in order to
Speaker 1: protect the victim's identifying information, and that all parties have
Speaker 1: at all times consented to this ceiling. Beyond this, Judge
Speaker 1: Rakoff is prohibited by law from responding to your questions
Speaker 1: as they relay directly or indirectly to an ongoing proceeding
Speaker 1: before Judge Clark. So he can't respond, but he can
Speaker 1: get involved. His case can be moved by what happened
Speaker 1: in the other case. I don't like that, and I
Speaker 1: don't care if that's how the system set up. It's
Speaker 1: wrong and it shouldn't be the case. On August second,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, this reporter, preparing to publish an article
Speaker 1: in another publication, reached out to Leon Black, spokesperson with Clay,
Speaker 1: with a list of questions about financial and sexual allegations
Speaker 1: related to Black's ties to Epstein. The email included one
Speaker 1: question about the lawsuit that Doe had filed against Black
Speaker 1: a week earlier. Two days later, Black's team emailed a response,
Speaker 1: including a statement from Mester Rich, Black's lawyer about those case,
Speaker 1: predicting it would be promptly dismissed. Yeah, Well, it's easy
Speaker 1: to be confident if you know the judge is going
Speaker 1: to play ball, right, makes it a lot easier to
Speaker 1: be confident. Later that same morning, this reporter got an
Speaker 1: unexpected call on her mobile phone from a number she
Speaker 1: did not recognize. The caller introduced himself as Brad Edwards,
Speaker 1: class counsel in the Epstein victims lawsuit against JP Morgan,
Speaker 1: which had settled for two hundred and ninety million one
Speaker 1: month earlier. As class counsel. Edwards said he had been
Speaker 1: in touch with the entire class of victims and had
Speaker 1: access to hundreds of thousands of documents. When a particular
Speaker 1: case gets too much attention, he said, according to a
Speaker 1: contemporaneous record of the call, people would call up with
Speaker 1: stories about being victims of Epstein and he would have
Speaker 1: to sift through and figure out if they were true.
Speaker 1: Not one piece of Doe's story could ever be corroborated,
Speaker 1: and a lot of what she says just definitely could
Speaker 1: not have ever happened, Edwards said. He said he knew
Speaker 1: Dough was alleging she had met Black through Epstein, so
Speaker 1: in order for the Leon part to be true, the
Speaker 1: trafficking to Jeffrey Epstein would have to be true, Edward said.
Speaker 1: He said the timeline of those claims can't make sense
Speaker 1: for many reasons, but when pressed for details, he said
Speaker 1: he could not say any more because it would expose
Speaker 1: other clients. After making these comments, Edwards said he wanted
Speaker 1: his remarks to be off the record, meaning they should
Speaker 1: not be published. Well that's not very good, is it again?
Speaker 1: Transparency' brad for you too. That goes for everybody. If
Speaker 1: we're going to get to the bottom of this. We
Speaker 1: need honest players on both sides, and unfortunately, this case
Speaker 1: is littered with a bunch of people who are not honest,
Speaker 1: a bunch of people that are just trying to benefit
Speaker 1: and it all comes at the expense of the people
Speaker 1: who were abused. But according to principles widely followed by journalists,
Speaker 1: a reporter and the source must agree information is off
Speaker 1: the record before the information is shared, not after. This
Speaker 1: reporter had not agreed that comments Edwards made about Dough
Speaker 1: were off the record and they shouldn't be put your
Speaker 1: name behind shit, Brad Edwards, it would later emerge, appear
Speaker 1: to have other dealings with blacks lawyers months before that
Speaker 1: phone call. The New York Times reported in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: three that Edwards, in his capacity as an attorney for
Speaker 1: Epstein victims, attended a multi day mediation between Black's council
Speaker 1: and lawyers representing the US Virgin Islands, which concluded with
Speaker 1: Black agreeing to pay sixty two and a half million
Speaker 1: dollars settlement to the US Virgin Islands in January twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three in order for Black to be released from
Speaker 1: any potential claims related to local authorities investigation of Epstein'
Speaker 1: sex trafficking in the territory. So basically, you just show
Speaker 1: up with a big fat bag and you're like, hey,
Speaker 1: get my name out of this and I'll give you
Speaker 1: seventy million. What sort of reality are we living in
Speaker 1: where that's acceptable? None of it's acceptable, None of it.
Speaker 1: The New York Times noted at the time that the settlement,
Speaker 1: which had come to light in response to a public
Speaker 1: records request by the newspaper, showed the extent to which Black,
Speaker 1: once a Wall Street Titan, had gone to limit scrutiny
Speaker 1: of his decades long social and business ties to Epstein.
Speaker 1: Edwards declined to comment at the time, and Black said
Speaker 1: the settlement was meant to resolve any potential claims that
Speaker 1: had arisen out of the unintended consequences of payments he
Speaker 1: made to Epstein for legitimate financial advisory services. Now, who
Speaker 1: the fuck is buying any of that? Talk about things
Speaker 1: that never happened. Six months after Edward's surprise call to
Speaker 1: the reporter, a court order in Doe's lawsuit against Black
Speaker 1: would later show Edwards and his colleague Brittany Henderson sent
Speaker 1: a sealed letter to Judge Raykoff as part of an
Speaker 1: inquiry that had been launched into Doe's claims. The February
Speaker 1: twenty six, twenty twenty four, letter described Doe's account as
Speaker 1: inconsistent and said that there were doubts she was a
Speaker 1: veritable victim of Epstein and disassociates. I mean, not for nothing,
Speaker 1: but hou's that up to Brad Edwards and Britney Henderson.
Speaker 1: Shouldn't that be up to the court. The whole thing
Speaker 1: seems weird and contrived, and frankly, I don't like any
Speaker 1: of it. Days later, on March first, twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: the then lawyer for Doe, Jean Christiansen of Wigdor, sent
Speaker 1: her own life to Judge Rakoff, criticizing the intervention by
Speaker 1: Black's lawyers in the JP. Morgan case and accusing class
Speaker 1: counsel Edwards and Henderson of acting improperly. According to a
Speaker 1: later court order, describing the chronology of events, like is
Speaker 1: it Creed? What is it like? I honestly don't understand
Speaker 1: why would somebody do what Brad Edwards and Britney Henderson
Speaker 1: are alleged to do, unless, of course, they wanted to
Speaker 1: get more money for their own payout and considering that
Speaker 1: the survivors themselves really didn't benefit nowhere near as much
Speaker 1: as the lawyers. I have my doubts about the whole thing.
Speaker 1: Christiansen also disclosed a new potential bombshell. Dough had kept
Speaker 1: journals from ages sixteen to nineteen that the lawyer alleged
Speaker 1: documented her abuse. The journals had been kept in a
Speaker 1: storage unit belonging to those adoptive family. She claimed the
Speaker 1: journals were school notebooks. There was one for each year
Speaker 1: from ages sixteen to nineteen, beginning on her birthday, and
Speaker 1: each had a similar format. They had a scrap book
Speaker 1: like fuel in that they contained magazine clippings and sonograms
Speaker 1: from her pregnancies. According to court filings, the text of
Speaker 1: her journals was written in gelpen in a simple two
Speaker 1: line zigzag code, meant the disguise at first the hand
Speaker 1: account of the violence allegedly perpetrated on her by Black, Epstein,
Speaker 1: Maxwell and others. According to court records, one entry states,
Speaker 1: mister Black is so important for some reason over my health.
Speaker 1: There is going to be held to pay. I ruined
Speaker 1: their trip and I am dramatic when that fat fuck
Speaker 1: bit me. He threw me on the floor and blood
Speaker 1: all over Jeffrey's carpet and on the issue like for
Speaker 1: real and again, look, I don't know what's true and
Speaker 1: what's not, folks. I'm not going to sit here and
Speaker 1: tell you I know for sure, but I think every
Speaker 1: single allegation made against Jeffrey Epstein and his people, especially
Speaker 1: at this point, needs to be looked at and looked
Speaker 1: at hard. Another entry contains a type copy of Sylvia
Speaker 1: Place poem stop Dead. Several lines are underlined, including fatso Millionaire.
Speaker 1: The name Leon Black is handwritten next to the title,
Speaker 1: arranged in a coded pattern. Excerpts of the journals are
Speaker 1: included in those amended lawsuit, and were released by the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice as part of the Epstein files earlier
Speaker 1: this year. And that was the entry that we read
Speaker 1: earlier from the girl who had the diary. Obviously this
Speaker 1: was her. In a statement to The Guardian, Black's lawyers
Speaker 1: said the Guardian was ignoring the outlandish nature of claims
Speaker 1: in those journals, such as that she had been trafficked
Speaker 1: to Epstein to fifty different men, including powerful politicians. On
Speaker 1: March fifteenth, twenty twenty four, less than a month after
Speaker 1: Raykoff received Strich xparte letter he convened the first hearing
Speaker 1: in the Jane Do inquiry. At the hearing for which
Speaker 1: Raykoff sealed the courtroom, Dough was on the stand and
Speaker 1: cross examined by Edwards. Wow, Brad Edwards, what a terrible look.
Speaker 1: What an absolutely terrible look, mister big defender of the
Speaker 1: Epstein survivors out here working with Leon Black. I can't
Speaker 1: discuss the substance of what she was asked, said Doe's
Speaker 1: adoptive mother, who was present at the fifteen March hearing
Speaker 1: and was speaking publicly about it for the first time.
Speaker 1: But Edward's questioning, she told the Guardian, was surreal. I
Speaker 1: could not believe that this was happening. He questioned my
Speaker 1: daughter in a way that was aggressive and invasive. I
Speaker 1: was shocked by his tone, especially because he was there
Speaker 1: as class council, which meant that he shouldn't have been
Speaker 1: safeguarding her as a claimant, rather than subjecting her the
Speaker 1: hostile interrogation like you'd expect in a criminal proceeding. She said,
Speaker 1: that is a terrible look for Brad Edwards. There's no
Speaker 1: doubt about it. There's no reason that the class Council
Speaker 1: should be acting in this way in my opinion, Edward
Speaker 1: Words did not respond to The Guardian's questions about his
Speaker 1: cross examination of Doe. Black's lawyers were barred from attending
Speaker 1: the hearing despite their objections. A court order filed publicly
Speaker 1: in April of twenty twenty six by Judge Clark, who's
Speaker 1: presiding over Doe's case against Black, disclosed some details about
Speaker 1: the private proceeding. It described those fifteen March testimony before
Speaker 1: Rakeoff as being at times far fetched. Among her claims,
Speaker 1: Dough had described how she had been the victim of
Speaker 1: an impregnation game and forced to carry out pregnancies from
Speaker 1: men who sexually abused her. In a court order, Doe
Speaker 1: is described as having testified that Epstein fathered four of
Speaker 1: her five children, though Doe's lawyer later said in a
Speaker 1: court that Doe was only sharing what Epstein told her,
Speaker 1: not a representation of the truth. So, look, there's no
Speaker 1: doubt that it's mouddeled right one hundred percent. But we
Speaker 1: need to have a fair accounting and we need to
Speaker 1: have actors that are fair on the stage, and it
Speaker 1: seems to me that that's not the case. A twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen article by the New York Times described how Epstein
Speaker 1: told scientists and businessmen about his ambitions to use New
Speaker 1: Mexico ranch as a base where women would be inseminated
Speaker 1: with his sperm and would give birth to his babies.
Speaker 1: Judge Racoff, the court order said, considered those journals to
Speaker 1: be central in determining those credibility. Rakoff appointed an expert
Speaker 1: to assess the ink dating on those journals. The results
Speaker 1: were inconclusive. Rakeoff convened another hearing on July eighth, this
Speaker 1: time by Zoom without either doez lawyer or Edward's president.
Speaker 1: These conditions had been agreed to by both parties. The
Speaker 1: judge presiding overdose lawsuit against Black later wrote in a
Speaker 1: court order. Among the topics Raycoff asked Dough about was
Speaker 1: a relationship with Maxwell and the frequency with which he
Speaker 1: was allegedly trafficked to Epstein while she was in high school.
Speaker 1: Just so the claimant understands, Raycoff said, according to an
Speaker 1: excerpt from the hearings transcript, which is cited in a
Speaker 1: separate legal order, all of us I feel have a
Speaker 1: great deal of sympathy for you. You've had a very
Speaker 1: harsh life, and our hearts go out to you, but
Speaker 1: we're just going to screw you anyway. We're going to
Speaker 1: make sure that your claim never makes it past where
Speaker 1: it should make it. The Dough inquiry culminated on July nineteenth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, with an extraordinary letter to Judge Rakoff
Speaker 1: from both Estrich and fellow Black attorney Michael Karlinsky, who's
Speaker 1: managing partner of the law firm Quinn Emmanuel. The letter,
Speaker 1: which was obtained by The Guardian, contained within it a
Speaker 1: personal emotional appeal from Black to Rakoff. Black's lawyers stated
Speaker 1: in the letter that they were aware that Racoff intended
Speaker 1: to issue his ruling on the Dull matter by July
Speaker 1: thirty first. Estrich and Karlinsky said they had learned from
Speaker 1: a colleague at the Paul White's law firm, which also
Speaker 1: represented Black, that Rakeoff had raised the question about whether
Speaker 1: Black reach a settlement with Doe. Well, that's what they
Speaker 1: always want. They want a settlement. They don't want to
Speaker 1: make this go forward, right, especially the court. If they
Speaker 1: can get a settlement, that's what they want. It's not
Speaker 1: clear to which Paul Wei's colleague. The lawyers were referring.
Speaker 1: Brad Karp, the one time cher of Paul Weiss was
Speaker 1: a known associate of Judge Raykoff. The too reportedly had
Speaker 1: dinner on a somewhat regular basis, according to a twenty
Speaker 1: seventeen book, I'm sure there was no impropriety here with
Speaker 1: Judge Raykoff right right right. Karp resigned from the chairmanship
Speaker 1: of Paul Weiss in February in the wake of the
Speaker 1: revelations of his personal dealings with Epstein. Karp did not
Speaker 1: respond to The Guardian's request for comment. Black had no
Speaker 1: interest in settling with Doe, the two lawyers, Estrich and
Speaker 1: Karlinsky wrote. They then shared an impassioned appeal from Black
Speaker 1: that they said the financier had asked them to convey
Speaker 1: to the judge. Both lawyers declined to comment on the
Speaker 1: ju nineteenth letter. The idea of settling with Jane Doe,
Speaker 1: Douglas Wigdor and the Whig Door affirm is repellent to
Speaker 1: every core of value I hold. Dear Black stated from childhood,
Speaker 1: my father, a former Rabbi, taught me the importance of
Speaker 1: Shem tav Hebrew for a good name. Oh, give me
Speaker 1: a break. They always rely on the religion right, Oh,
Speaker 1: my charity, my religion. I don't give a fuck. You're
Speaker 1: a depraved, demented person, buddy. I don't care if you're Jewish,
Speaker 1: you're Muslim, you're Christian, or you're from the Church of
Speaker 1: the Inflame Toe. I don't care. Those lawyers at the
Speaker 1: Whigdor Firm, Black said, had disregarded the truth and behaved
Speaker 1: in a way I believe to be profoundly on ethical ways.
Speaker 1: Not since my father's death forty nine years ago have
Speaker 1: I felt so much pain and seen such heard inflicted
Speaker 1: on those I love. I can't settle with Jane Doe
Speaker 1: and the Whigdor Affirm, not only because of the damage
Speaker 1: their lives have cause, but more importantly, because I don't
Speaker 1: know how I could look my children and grandchildren in
Speaker 1: the eyes and teach them the importance of m tav.
Speaker 1: We'll do the same thing that you did when you
Speaker 1: paid out the sixty two million to the US Virgin Islands,
Speaker 1: You fat fuck. Invoking his father's death in a letter
Speaker 1: to Raykoff was a striking choice. Black's father, Eli Black,
Speaker 1: had been a socially prominent New Yorker and as the
Speaker 1: CEO of global company, the Chiquita Banana Importer United Brands,
Speaker 1: but on February third, nineteen seventy five, Eli Black killed
Speaker 1: himself by jumping out of the window of his forty
Speaker 1: fourth floor office in the pan Am Building on Park Avenue.
Speaker 1: After his death, it was revealed that he had authorized
Speaker 1: two and a half million dollar bribe to the President
Speaker 1: of Honduras in a bid to get lower export taxes
Speaker 1: on bananas. When United Brands was ultimately charged with criminal
Speaker 1: conspiracy on account of the scheme, Eli Black, according to
Speaker 1: The New York Times, posthumously named as a co conspirator. Ah,
Speaker 1: poor daddy was a criminal. I'm such a victim because
Speaker 1: my dad was a rich guy and he bonned a
Speaker 1: bunch of people and then he took his life. Feel
Speaker 1: sorry for me, No, I don't feel sorry for you,
Speaker 1: not at all. While Black did not share that any
Speaker 1: details of his father's death and it's aftermath and his
Speaker 1: appeal to ray Coff, he did not need to. The
Speaker 1: rising star federal prosecutor who charged United Brands was not
Speaker 1: an other than a young Jed Raykoff. Judge Raykoff declined
Speaker 1: to comment on questions about the personal message, as with
Speaker 1: other documents he received during the Doe inquiry, Raykoff did
Speaker 1: not enter the letter containing Black's personal appeal into the
Speaker 1: JP Morgan class action publicly accessible docket. Lawyers and legal
Speaker 1: experts told The Guardian that they found Raycoff's decision to
Speaker 1: make his oversight role ex parte to be unusual. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: of course he didn't want it in public. He knows
Speaker 1: and he knows the blowback, so he didn't want it
Speaker 1: to be something that's public. And don't think for a
Speaker 1: minute that these judges are our friends, that they care
Speaker 1: about the people in general. They don't. They care about
Speaker 1: their court room, They care about power, they care about precedent.
Speaker 1: But if you think they care about you or me
Speaker 1: or this young lady, you're crazy. They do not. One
Speaker 1: thing that sets class action cases apart from other cases
Speaker 1: is a level of transparency that's required, said Chris Seger,
Speaker 1: a class action lawyer who is co lead counsel on
Speaker 1: the class action lawsuit against the NFL. Everything you do
Speaker 1: is out in the open. That's the whole idea, no sideals,
Speaker 1: no secrets. Seeger said, So what are we doing here?
Speaker 1: Why are we doing this? Is anybody going to answer
Speaker 1: Rakeoff rule to rescind those two and a half million
Speaker 1: JP Morgan allocation in its entirety. On July thirty first,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, less than two weeks after receiving Black's
Speaker 1: personal appeal, he also withdrew Doe from the US Virgin
Speaker 1: Island's Mental Health Fund for Epstein's Survivors, a class of
Speaker 1: which she is now officially no longer a member, all
Speaker 1: because Judge Rakoff got a letter from Leon Black about
Speaker 1: his dad. For Doe, it was a crushing blow, her
Speaker 1: adopted mother told The Guardian, as Doe would recount nearly
Speaker 1: one year later in a Steel Court declaration in her
Speaker 1: claim against Black. Black's letter to Rakoff was accepted without
Speaker 1: notice to me and was apparently considered prior to a
Speaker 1: final ruling, despite raising emotionally laden arguments about Black's character
Speaker 1: and suffering. Meanwhile, I was never permitted to submit a
Speaker 1: narrative impact statement or a rebuttal. She also had serious
Speaker 1: concerns about inappropriate influence and access, saying she had no
Speaker 1: equivalent means of communicating with the court that defendants team
Speaker 1: had such access. Under scores, systemic and balance at plagued
Speaker 1: these proceedings, She wrote, and that's true one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: There's no doubt that if you're going up again it's
Speaker 1: a guy like Black, it's going to be a tilted deck.
Speaker 1: Judge Rakoff declined to comment. The sealed declaration, which was
Speaker 1: seen by the Guardian, also hit back against some of
Speaker 1: the claims Doe said were made by Brad Edwards, though
Speaker 1: claim for example, that Edwards had asserted that no other
Speaker 1: victims had recognized Doe, even though Doe claimed he had
Speaker 1: only consulted two individuals. Those said Edwards had also dismissed
Speaker 1: physical evidence that supported her connection to Epstein, including photographs
Speaker 1: from Martha's Vineyard, by stating Epstein had not been to
Speaker 1: Martha's vineyard. In fact, Doe said there's evidence Epstein spent
Speaker 1: time on the island, which has subsequently been reported by
Speaker 1: ITV News and The New York Times. Edwards did not
Speaker 1: respond to The Guardian's questions about those claims. Dough pushed
Speaker 1: back too, against claims that have been submitted to the
Speaker 1: court about her by an investigator working for Black's legal team,
Speaker 1: such as the claim that she had a personality disorder,
Speaker 1: not autism, and that are biological. Family said that Doe
Speaker 1: had a history of making up alternate realities those own records,
Speaker 1: a person familiar with the matter said, showed she was
Speaker 1: legally adopted as an adult in the state of Virginia
Speaker 1: for good cause. Medical documentation, which the source said was
Speaker 1: submitted to the court, confirmed her autism diagnosis and post
Speaker 1: traumatic stress disorder stemming from long term sexual abuse. The
Speaker 1: medical record also states Dough has no history of personality
Speaker 1: disorder or psychosis. The source said, so it can't be both.
Speaker 1: Who's telling the truth, That's the real question. Dough was
Speaker 1: urged by her attorney to appeal Rakeoff's decision to rescind
Speaker 1: her two and a half million dollar reward, according to
Speaker 1: a sealed declaration that she filed. But on August twenty first,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, just three weeks after Rakeoff rescinded Doe's allocation,
Speaker 1: Rakeoff signed off on a stipulation between Doe and the
Speaker 1: JP Morgan Settlement Fund for Epstein's Survivors, granting Doe a
Speaker 1: two hundred thousand dollars settlement. According to a court filing
Speaker 1: seen by the Guardian, this made her eligible once again
Speaker 1: to participate in the usvii's Mental Health Fund. Please make
Speaker 1: it make sense. If you're going to take her out,
Speaker 1: why are you putting her back in but for a
Speaker 1: reduced amount? Judge Raykoff did not respond to the Guardian's
Speaker 1: questions about the August twenty twenty four settlement stipulation. He's
Speaker 1: never going to respond. Last month, on April twenty third,
Speaker 1: Judge Clark, who was presiding Overdoe's lawsuit against Black, issued
Speaker 1: a seventy six page ruling in response to Black's motion
Speaker 1: for the case against him to be dismissed those former
Speaker 1: lawyer Jean Christiansen of Whigdor and Doe had engaged in
Speaker 1: serious sanctionable misconduct. Clark had found Christiansen had lied repeatedly
Speaker 1: to the Court and the opposing council about what was
Speaker 1: happening with the JP Morgan Doe inquiry, and had also
Speaker 1: directed Doe to destroy a relevant social media account that
Speaker 1: dough had used to communicate publicly about her experience as
Speaker 1: a purported Epstein victim. Clark also wrote that Doe had
Speaker 1: falsified three sonogram images out of a total of eleven
Speaker 1: that had been included in those journals, So eight of
Speaker 1: the eleven were real, three of them were falsified. We're
Speaker 1: gonna need more information about that too. Whigdor withdrew his
Speaker 1: counsel for Doe days after disavowing three of the sonograms.
Speaker 1: Doe is now representing herself in the proceeding. Oh that's
Speaker 1: not gonna end well, I mean, is that really the case.
Speaker 1: There's no lawyer out there that's going to step up
Speaker 1: pro bono and help this lady out. What a world
Speaker 1: Estrich Black's attorney said in a statement to the Guardian.
Speaker 1: The only thing that matters is that a federal judge found,
Speaker 1: as a matter of fact that Jean Christensen, the Whigdor
Speaker 1: law firm, and Jane Doe lied. They're being punished by
Speaker 1: the federal court. Nothing they say has any credibility. They
Speaker 1: are liars and should be completely ignored. How about we
Speaker 1: leave that up to a jury. How about that. While
Speaker 1: the order was widely seen in press reports as a
Speaker 1: serious rebuke of Doe and her legal team, Judge Clark
Speaker 1: said the misconduct need not doom Doo's case and the
Speaker 1: case will proceed. Christiansen, the attorney at Wigdor, did not
Speaker 1: respond to the Guardian's questions. Douglas Wigdoor, the law firm's
Speaker 1: founding partner, said in a press statement in response to
Speaker 1: the order, while we are upset about the sanction or
Speaker 1: pleased that our former client will get our day in court.
Speaker 1: In a letter submitted to Judge Clark this week that
Speaker 1: reference the sanctions, lawyers for Whigdoor and Christensen asked for
Speaker 1: permission to file under a seal emotion for reconsideration. Wigdor
Speaker 1: also recently filed a separate lawsuit against Black, claiming he's
Speaker 1: deployed multiple frivolous and malicious lawsuits as retaliation for representing accusers.
Speaker 1: His lawyers rejected the claims, of course they did, Leon
Speaker 1: Black would never do that right. In her statement to
Speaker 1: The Guardian, Doe said that she began her case as
Speaker 1: an effort to seek accountability, but she believes her lawsuit
Speaker 1: has become something much broader. It's become about what happens
Speaker 1: when a system meant to provide justice instead becomes another
Speaker 1: source of harm. I faced retaliation, misrepresentation, public scrutiny, and
Speaker 1: repeated efforts to undermine my credibility. I've been left to
Speaker 1: navigate the process alone, with limited time, limited resources, and
Speaker 1: overwhelming personal cost. She wrote. There were moments when I
Speaker 1: did not know if I could continue, but I made
Speaker 1: a promise to myself that I would not stop. So look,
Speaker 1: we don't know all the details right, not down to
Speaker 1: the granular specs, but it seems to me that them
Speaker 1: reaching out to Judge Rakoff was completely and wholly unacceptable
Speaker 1: and inappropriate. So it's going to be interesting how this
Speaker 1: all plays out, because remember, Janey is still going forward
Speaker 1: with her suit. The sanctions might have hit, but the
Speaker 1: judge didn't throw it out, So this one is just
Speaker 1: warming up. So we're gonna keep an eye on it
Speaker 1: and we'll see how it progresses, and when we have
Speaker 1: some more information, won't worry or the other. We'll get
Speaker 1: it added to the catalog. All the information that goes
Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box