Speaker 1: Hey, wanted to give you an update, quick one, about
Speaker 1: my lawsuit against Attorney General Todd Blanch seeking the release
Speaker 1: of the unredacted Epstein files. At this point, there has
Speaker 1: been a flurry of activity that has happened, and you
Speaker 1: can at any time check out the docket and look
Speaker 1: at it. Not all the documents you're able to see,
Speaker 1: some of them are paywalled, but most of them are
Speaker 1: available for public access. And more importantly... If you subscribe
Speaker 1: here at Katie Fang news, you'll get all of the alerts,
Speaker 1: including if you click to get notifications, you'll know when
Speaker 1: a new episode has dropped like, and subscribe, please. As
Speaker 1: I've been explaining on my other episodes and on a
Speaker 1: sidebar live, we have a campaign to hit 1 million
Speaker 1: subscribers before the end of 2026. It is exciting. And
Speaker 1: hopefully we can do that. So anyway, let's get to
Speaker 1: the important stuff. On August 24th, just on Monday late,
Speaker 1: there was a notice of appeal. that was filed by
Speaker 1: Attorney General Todd Blanch. And I want to spend some
Speaker 1: time on it because it is one of the most
Speaker 1: bizarre things that I have seen in my decades of
Speaker 1: practicing law in both state and federal courts. I checked
Speaker 1: with other people who are actual appellate lawyers because, look,
Speaker 1: every lawyer, you know you got a good one when
Speaker 1: they realize what their wheelhouse is. I am not an
Speaker 1: appellate attorney. I have done appellate arguments. I have written
Speaker 1: appellate briefs. But I wanted to make sure that what
Speaker 1: I was seeing was what my gut was telling me,
Speaker 1: just bizarre and wrong. So look at your screen. It's
Speaker 1: the defendant's notice of appeal filed August 24th, 2026. And
Speaker 1: it says this, the defendant, Todd Blanche, as we know,
Speaker 1: respectfully files its notice of, okay, well, first of all,
Speaker 1: there's no of, appeal to the United States Court of
Speaker 1: Appeals for the DC Circuit of this court's June 25th,
Speaker 1: 2026 order. Now let's stop there. If you go to
Speaker 1: the docket and you look at the June 25th order,
Speaker 1: what is he talking about? Well, Todd is talking about
Speaker 1: the order granting my motion for preliminary injunction. Now, this
Speaker 1: is important. This is important because the language, as you
Speaker 1: can see on your screen, is very clear. Ordered that Ms.
Speaker 1: Fang's motion for preliminary injunction is granted. Okay, it's really
Speaker 1: no confusion there, right? And we've covered that here extensively
Speaker 1: because there's been a lot of litigation. I've gone to court.
Speaker 1: I mean, that order granting preliminary injunction was telling Todd
Speaker 1: Blanch to produce unredacted documents and to actually do things
Speaker 1: he was required to do pursuant to the Epstein Files
Speaker 1: Transparency Act, pretty much saying, hey, Todd, you've been violating
Speaker 1: the law. Get your ass into gear and don't do
Speaker 1: it anymore. OK, so let's move on. It then says,
Speaker 1: in the view of the United States, whether the district
Speaker 1: court's June 25th, 2026 order is appealable is inconclusive. Accordingly,
Speaker 1: The Unites, not United, Unites States submits this protective notice
Speaker 1: of appeal. To the extent that any aspect of the
Speaker 1: order grants plaintiff injunctive relief, it is immediately appealable under
Speaker 1: 28 U.S. Code Section 1292A1. Signed by Andrew J. Block.
Speaker 1: You know, the guy who went to the status hearing
Speaker 1: and got his ass whooped by... Judge Sullivan, although Judge
Speaker 1: Sullivan was incredibly professional and polite about it. But yeah,
Speaker 1: it was embarrassing for Block. But what's interesting is signed
Speaker 1: by Andrew Block, but under Stanley Woodward's name. And we
Speaker 1: know all about Stanley Woodward, who was gunning to get
Speaker 1: the deputy AG job, as we've heard. All righty. So
Speaker 1: let's get back to this notice of appeal, because I
Speaker 1: want to say the following. The fact that the United
Speaker 1: States government through, and more importantly, the attorney general of
Speaker 1: the United States, who is the top lawyer for the
Speaker 1: federal government, is telling the district court of appeal that
Speaker 1: they're not sure if they can appeal this order from
Speaker 1: Judge Sullivan. And let me be more accurate, please, because
Speaker 1: I don't want you to labor under something that's not
Speaker 1: accurate here. This was filed in Judge Sullivan's court. So
Speaker 1: The federal government is telling Judge Sullivan in a not-so-subtle way,
Speaker 1: you don't know what the hell you're doing because whatever
Speaker 1: order you enter granting my preliminary injunction motion, it's not clear.
Speaker 1: So they're now saying, we're not sure if we should appeal,
Speaker 1: but we're going to do something called a protective notice
Speaker 1: of appeal. Let me be clear. There is nothing in
Speaker 1: the law or in the rules of procedure, appellate, civil,
Speaker 1: or otherwise, that acknowledges something that's called a, quote, protective
Speaker 1: notice of appeal. You're either doing the notice of appeal
Speaker 1: or you're not. It's kind of like being pregnant. You
Speaker 1: can't be a little bit pregnant. You're either pregnant or
Speaker 1: you're not. So you're either filing a notice of appeal
Speaker 1: or you're not. A protective notice of appeal is a
Speaker 1: huge red flag that you don't know what the hell
Speaker 1: you're doing. So I've said this. It's pretty much Todd
Speaker 1: Blanche saying, I got a 50-50 chance that I'm right,
Speaker 1: that I should be appealing. Judge Sullivan's order granting Katie
Speaker 1: Fang's motion for preliminary injunction. So I'm going to file
Speaker 1: this notice of appeal. Now, it's 60 days. And let's
Speaker 1: check this out, right? Because if you look at the
Speaker 1: section in the law that deals with this, 28 U.S.
Speaker 1: Code 1292, you will see that this is them doing a, quote,
Speaker 1: interlocutory appeal. Let's go to law school. So normally, you
Speaker 1: go through the entirety of the case, get to the conclusion,
Speaker 1: you appeal it. There are certain opportunities, albeit limited ones,
Speaker 1: that during the course of a case, you're allowed to
Speaker 1: do something called an interlocutory appeal. That means while the
Speaker 1: case is pending, you're allowed to appeal specific decisions that
Speaker 1: are made along the way. And if you see here,
Speaker 1: it includes the granting of an injunction. So listen. If
Speaker 1: Todd Blanche takes umbrage with the granting of my injunction, okay.
Speaker 1: And then here's the thing. When you're suing the federal
Speaker 1: government or an officer of the government, like the Attorney
Speaker 1: General of the United States, the federal rules gives the
Speaker 1: government even extra time to do a notice of appeal.
Speaker 1: Normally it's 30 days, but they actually get 60 days.
Speaker 1: And this is another thing that is, I think, another
Speaker 1: red flag that shows that Todd Blanche doesn't know what
Speaker 1: the hell he's doing or what the hell is going on.
Speaker 1: 60 days from June 25th, 2026, which is the date
Speaker 1: of the granting of my preliminary injunction, that order, was Monday,
Speaker 1: August 24th, 2026. So a couple of things here. One,
Speaker 1: they either truly didn't even realize that they needed to
Speaker 1: be dealing with this appeal. And so they were like,
Speaker 1: oh shit. And they did it at the last minute. Two,
Speaker 1: they really legitimately have no idea if they should be
Speaker 1: filing an appeal because they don't know what the hell
Speaker 1: they're doing. So then they said, eh, like I said,
Speaker 1: I got a 50-50 chance of getting this right. Let
Speaker 1: me appeal it. Or three, They full-on knew that that
Speaker 1: order granting the preliminary injunction was legit, and they waited
Speaker 1: until the very last minute to do it because all
Speaker 1: they want to do was delay, delay, delay. They want
Speaker 1: to continue the cover-up. They want to continue to obstruct
Speaker 1: the justice that is being sought by not only the
Speaker 1: Epstein survivors' victims, Ghislaine victims, any of the facilitators, enablers, co-conspirators,
Speaker 1: you know, the people that helped this sex trafficking of
Speaker 1: children occur, because that is exactly what Tom Blanche is
Speaker 1: doing here, let's not mince words. My lawsuit is an
Speaker 1: absurdity in that I shouldn't have to sue to get
Speaker 1: access to these files. I shouldn't have to sue to
Speaker 1: get access to these records. But I was forced to
Speaker 1: do so because the Department of Justice, led by And
Speaker 1: more accurately, the rollout of these files, led by Todd Blanch,
Speaker 1: controlled by Todd Blanch, handled by Todd Blanch, is illegal
Speaker 1: in terms of the redactions and the withholdings. It's preventing
Speaker 1: me from doing my job. But more importantly, it's preventing
Speaker 1: the survivors from getting justice. Party holding the information almost
Speaker 1: never volunteers it. That's true in a courtroom, and it's
Speaker 1: true in your mailbox. So I want to be very
Speaker 1: clear about something. Most Medicare agents get paid more for
Speaker 1: putting you in certain plans over others. They have an
Speaker 1: incentive to steer you and most people have no idea
Speaker 1: it's happening. A woman in Indiana went to the company
Speaker 1: she'd worked with for years and asked for a lower price.
Speaker 1: They ran her through medical underwriting and denied her. What
Speaker 1: they never mentioned was a rule in her state that
Speaker 1: would have let her switch with no medical questions at all.
Speaker 1: A chapter advisor found it. Same coverage, about half the price.
Speaker 1: That's exactly why chapter exists. Independent Medicare advisors, the only
Speaker 1: Medicare advisors that compare every plan nationwide. They look at
Speaker 1: your doctors, your prescriptions, your life to show you what
Speaker 1: plan fits best. If you're already on the right plan,
Speaker 1: they'll tell you directly. If you're not, they'll help you switch.
Speaker 1: Seniors who found better fitting plans or chapter last year
Speaker 1: saved an average of $ 1, 100. Free. Under 20 minutes, call 628-289-0726.
Speaker 1: Get the Medicare information and support you need today. So
Speaker 1: the DOJ waiting to the last minute to do this
Speaker 1: notice of appeal. of the order granting preliminary injunction. And
Speaker 1: the reason why I want to talk about this is,
Speaker 1: as you see on your screen, there was an order
Speaker 1: that was entered by the judge in this case. And
Speaker 1: this is what the judge said. On August 21st, Judge
Speaker 1: Sullivan said, in light of Katie Fang's notice of proposed order,
Speaker 1: which was submit the unredacted handwritten FBI notes by August 25th,
Speaker 1: which was yesterday, as well as Ms. Fang's notice to
Speaker 1: the court. And as I walked through these documents with you,
Speaker 1: the notice to the court was me giving examples to
Speaker 1: Judge Sullivan, calling out Blanche, or more accurately, Andrew Block,
Speaker 1: a federal attorney, a USDOJ attorney, telling the court that
Speaker 1: there aren't any other handwritten FBI interview notes that have
Speaker 1: been turned over in the Epstein files that correlate to 302s.
Speaker 1: Not true. Judge Sullivan said, whoa, in light of what
Speaker 1: this thing has submitted, Blanche, you got to give me
Speaker 1: a response no later than August 27th, which is tomorrow,
Speaker 1: and then I can do a reply by no later
Speaker 1: than September 3rd, which is next week. So, I'm not
Speaker 1: a believer in coincidences when it comes to Blanche and
Speaker 1: this DOJ. So the day before we're supposed to be
Speaker 1: getting unredacted, handwritten FBI interview notes from Blanche, he files
Speaker 1: a notice of appeal. And three days before he's supposed
Speaker 1: to file a response to me calling him out for
Speaker 1: this stuff, he files a notice of appeal. Why? Why?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what you're appealing. I don't know if
Speaker 1: Blanche thinks that we're all not paying attention or if
Speaker 1: he just doesn't know what the fuck is happening here.
Speaker 1: But as recently as August 5th, the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: in its motion to stay all filing deadlines nunc pro
Speaker 1: tunc pending resolution of the motion for preliminary injunction, Todd
Speaker 1: Blanche tells Judge Sullivan... the matter of my motion for
Speaker 1: preliminary injunction is before the court for decision. And throughout
Speaker 1: its filings, up until this notice of appeal that they
Speaker 1: filed on Monday, Blanche took the position that Judge Sullivan
Speaker 1: had yet to rule on my motion for preliminary injunction.
Speaker 1: And we all know that that is an absurdity and
Speaker 1: stupid because there is an order that clearly states on
Speaker 1: June 25th that my motion for preliminary injunction was granted.
Speaker 1: So what is it, Todd? You've made these representations as
Speaker 1: an officer of the court and, more importantly, as the
Speaker 1: top lawyer of the United States government. You've made representations
Speaker 1: multiple times to the court in written filings as well
Speaker 1: as in oral arguments to the court through your lawyers.
Speaker 1: that my motion for preliminary injunction has not been granted.
Speaker 1: It is not concluded. You have used it also as
Speaker 1: an excuse to not have to answer my lawsuit. You
Speaker 1: had a deadline, you blew it, and then you had
Speaker 1: the nerve to go to the court and say, Judge,
Speaker 1: wind back the hands of time and give me another
Speaker 1: chance to be able to respond. Why? Because, Judge, you
Speaker 1: haven't resolved the injunction issue yet. That's the position you've
Speaker 1: taken until Monday. And then on Monday, you file a
Speaker 1: notice of appeal stating that you were appealing the judge's
Speaker 1: order that granted my motion for preliminary injunction. So which
Speaker 1: is it? Which is it? He either granted the motion
Speaker 1: or he didn't. If he didn't grant the motion, right,
Speaker 1: then what the fuck are you appealing? If he granted
Speaker 1: the motion... then you have been violating all sorts of
Speaker 1: canons and ethics and rules by pretty much trying to
Speaker 1: snow the court, which, trust me, Judge Sullivan has got
Speaker 1: your fucking number, or you're so damn stupid you don't
Speaker 1: know what the hell is going on. I don't really
Speaker 1: care what it is, but what I care is you
Speaker 1: are delaying the progress of my lawsuit. So, I'm going
Speaker 1: to say it again in really, really basic terms for you,
Speaker 1: Todd Blanche. Judge Sullivan granting the motion for preliminary injunction,
Speaker 1: you are appealing it, fine. But here's the problem, too.
Speaker 1: If you don't get a stay from Judge Sullivan or
Speaker 1: from the appellate court, it's not stopping shit. Here's some
Speaker 1: free legal advice. Okay? Okay? But if you're saying, which
Speaker 1: you've been saying and writing, that Judge Sullivan never granted
Speaker 1: my preliminary injunction and that's the reason why you haven't
Speaker 1: responded to my lawsuit, which is just dumb too, because
Speaker 1: those are two entirely separate issues, my lawsuit and the
Speaker 1: preliminary injunction, because it's kind of a subset of my lawsuit,
Speaker 1: then you blew the deadline and you're basically in default.
Speaker 1: So you don't have any defenses. Not like you ever
Speaker 1: raised any defenses. Even Judge Sullivan months ago said that
Speaker 1: you failed to substantively respond to the allegations and and
Speaker 1: that you have basically conceded that you have violated the law.
Speaker 1: I mean, either way, you look dumb. So, folks, that's
Speaker 1: the latest. We're going to watch everything carefully. We're going
Speaker 1: to see, are they going to seek a stay? Are
Speaker 1: they not? Blah, blah, blah. Either way, you know what?
Speaker 1: As American citizens, technically, Todd Blanche is our lawyer. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know, I know. He's the personal lawyer for convicted
Speaker 1: felon Donald Trump. But, you know, I'd be nervous. Because...
Speaker 1: If he's setting the tone for competency, I'd be really nervous.
Speaker 1: Be mad, be outraged, man accountability. I am off to
Speaker 1: rattle some more cages. Katie Fang here. We launched the
Speaker 1: Katie Fang News Channel in partnership with the Midas Touch
Speaker 1: Network so we could bring you the latest in legal
Speaker 1: and political news. Straight, no chaser. So if you're a
Speaker 1: fellow truth teller, hit that subscribe button and share the
Speaker 1: word about this channel so we can build a high
Speaker 1: information America together. Brand new lawsuit. filed by survivors of
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. And it's an unusual case because it is
Speaker 1: being brought pursuant to New York City law, not New
Speaker 1: York State law, not federal statutes, but New York City law.
Speaker 1: And the defendants? Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, both whose
Speaker 1: names are very familiar to a lot of us that
Speaker 1: have been following along. Darren Indyke, longtime lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: and Richard Kahn, longtime accountant for Jeffrey Epstein, both men,
Speaker 1: the co-executors of Jeffrey Epstein's estate. And the lawsuit sues
Speaker 1: them in their capacities as the co-executors of that estate.
Speaker 1: And they are also being sued in their individual capacities,
Speaker 1: brought in the Supreme Court of the state of New
Speaker 1: York and the county of New York. It's a verified complaint.
Speaker 1: And what's interesting is they're bringing this lawsuit pursuant to
Speaker 1: this New York City law that was recently amended to
Speaker 1: expand that window of statute of limitations to allow them
Speaker 1: to be able to bring these claims. The law is
Speaker 1: called Gender Motivated Violence Act, GMVA, New York City's Gender
Speaker 1: Motivated Violence Act. It lets survivors of gender-motivated violence to
Speaker 1: bring civil lawsuit against people, institutions, businesses. And it doesn't
Speaker 1: require a criminal prosecution, doesn't require a criminal conviction. It's
Speaker 1: a civil case, so it also has a different burden
Speaker 1: of proof than a criminal case. The law was originally
Speaker 1: enacted in 2000. In 2022, the New York City Council
Speaker 1: amended it to create a temporary two-year look-back window. between
Speaker 1: March 1st of 2023 to March 1st of 2025 that
Speaker 1: allowed survivors of gender-motivated violence to be able to sue
Speaker 1: no matter how long ago that abuse had occurred. Then
Speaker 1: they tried to expand it even further. But then, of course,
Speaker 1: then-Mayor Eric Adams vetoed it. But the city council said, eh,
Speaker 1: we're going to override that veto. And in 2026, they
Speaker 1: reopened the look-back window And it now is valid through
Speaker 1: July of 2027. So there's a year of time. And
Speaker 1: it explicitly allows claims for conduct that actually predates the
Speaker 1: Gender-Motivated Violence Act's original 2000 enactment. It lets survivors whose
Speaker 1: claims were filed and dismissed between that 2023 and 2025 window,
Speaker 1: it allows them to amend and to refile during this
Speaker 1: new window that will expire next year in July of 2027.
Speaker 1: And so what an incredibly thoughtful move by the New
Speaker 1: York City Council to do this. It's a city law.
Speaker 1: And yeah, there is some litigation over whether or not
Speaker 1: it is in conflict with some state statutes that we've
Speaker 1: covered here at Katie Fang News. For example, the Child
Speaker 1: Victims Act and the Adult Survivors Act. The Adult Survivors
Speaker 1: Act was a statute in New York that allowed E.
Speaker 1: Jean Carroll to be able to bring some claims. And
Speaker 1: so this lawsuit specifically, though, that was filed on August 19th,
Speaker 1: is alleging that both Indyk and Kahn played critical roles
Speaker 1: in enabling Epstein's acts of gender-motivated violence against the plaintiffs
Speaker 1: by providing Epstein with the necessary financial and legal support
Speaker 1: for his sex trafficking operation by which the plaintiffs were victimized. Indyk, Kahn,
Speaker 1: and Epstein jointly and collectively conspired with each other to
Speaker 1: commit acts of gender-motivated violence against the plaintiffs by creating, managing, operating, funding,
Speaker 1: and recruiting victims and associates, That is from the very
Speaker 1: beginning of this lawsuit. Now, it identifies plaintiffs. And one
Speaker 1: of them, I have covered actually within the last week,
Speaker 1: her name is Audra Christensen. Audra Christensen reported her rape
Speaker 1: and her abuse by Epstein's These are the allegations. She
Speaker 1: reported it to Hugh Hefner. And Hugh Hefner reported it
Speaker 1: to the FBI, but the FBI allegedly did absolutely nothing
Speaker 1: to investigate it. So she brought her own lawsuit alongside
Speaker 1: some other plaintiffs, and that is currently being litigated as
Speaker 1: well against the FBI. That was interesting. I covered that
Speaker 1: at Katie Fang News last week. At Sidebar, where we
Speaker 1: talked about the fact that a motion to dismiss that
Speaker 1: was filed by the FBI had been denied. So that
Speaker 1: was interesting. But getting back to this lawsuit, when you
Speaker 1: look at some of the ages of these plaintiffs, it
Speaker 1: is appalling. All of them. Any abuse is appalling. But
Speaker 1: you look at Plaintiff Glendis Espinal, 16 years old. when
Speaker 1: Epstein committed his gender-motivated violence against her on multiple occasions
Speaker 1: in New York. Plaintiff Yanelith Romero, a child of approximately
Speaker 1: 16 years old, when he did the same, I mean,
Speaker 1: the rest of them were still also so young, 20
Speaker 1: years old, 19, 24, 19. It alleges in the lawsuit,
Speaker 1: Darren Indyke for decades had only one client. The lawyer
Speaker 1: Indyke had only one lawyer, excuse me, one client, and
Speaker 1: that was Jeffrey Epstein. Kahn was the... de facto financial
Speaker 1: manager of Epstein's sex trafficking operation and was Epstein's longtime
Speaker 1: personal accountant. As the Wall Street Journal reported, paragraph 33,
Speaker 1: it was Kahn, the trusted accountant, and Indyk, the loyal lawyer,
Speaker 1: who kept the engine running for years with their financial
Speaker 1: and legal maneuvers. Epstein and Epstein-owned entities paid more than
Speaker 1: $ 16 million to Indyk and $ 10 million to Kahn. far
Speaker 1: more than could reasonably be attributed to the rates of
Speaker 1: their professional services. They also were the beneficiaries of personal
Speaker 1: property being bought for them, etc. Count one, violation of
Speaker 1: Gender Motivated Violence Act is against Indyk and Kahn in
Speaker 1: their capacities as the co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: Paragraph 56 makes it very clear. Epstein committed gender-motivated violence
Speaker 1: against the plaintiffs, and those acts included but were not
Speaker 1: limited to forcibly grabbing, groping, molesting, digital penetration, oral copulation, rape,
Speaker 1: and or other sexual acts. None of these acts were consensual.
Speaker 1: They constituted a violation of the bodily autonomy of these plaintiffs,
Speaker 1: and his malice toward And the gender-motivated nature of his
Speaker 1: conduct against the plaintiffs is apparent from the nature of
Speaker 1: the sexual abuse itself and the fact that all hundreds,
Speaker 1: if not thousands, of his victims were female. And the
Speaker 1: claim that the estate is liable for compensatory damages, punitive damages,
Speaker 1: injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs, and other
Speaker 1: relief that the court may deem just and appropriate. The
Speaker 1: remaining two counts are against Indyk and Kahn individually. Again,
Speaker 1: violations of the Gender-Motivated Violence Act, this New York City law,
Speaker 1: and points to their individual conduct to facilitate this sex
Speaker 1: trafficking operation. As a result of their violations of this act,
Speaker 1: the plaintiff sustained physical injury, pain and suffering, emotional trauma,
Speaker 1: severe psychological, emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation. So
Speaker 1: they're seeking damages as a result of that conduct. And
Speaker 1: the fourth count is against all of defendants jointly for
Speaker 1: the conspiracy to commit that gender-motivated violence. So it's against
Speaker 1: the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, Indyk, and Kahn individually. They
Speaker 1: acted collectively to conspire to do so, to allow Epstein
Speaker 1: to have the ability to be able to do this.
Speaker 1: They've demanded judgment against all defendants, and they're asking for
Speaker 1: a jury trial. It's brought by Merson Law, which has
Speaker 1: got A lot of these plaintiffs, they've been doing a
Speaker 1: lot of this litigation, doing a lot of the work
Speaker 1: on behalf of the Epstein victims and survivors, fighting very
Speaker 1: hard for them, for which we are grateful. As our
Speaker 1: daughter gets older, my husband and I talk about how
Speaker 1: important it is that we have life insurance. And I've
Speaker 1: spoken with you before about when we lost my father,
Speaker 1: that issue, the life insurance became incredibly real and incredibly,
Speaker 1: incredibly important. to acknowledge. And sometimes it's an uncomfortable conversation
Speaker 1: and yet it's one that needs to be had. And
Speaker 1: that's why when you think about something like ethos, making,
Speaker 1: getting life insurance so fast and easy, you have to
Speaker 1: appreciate it. It's a hundred percent online. You get your
Speaker 1: quote in seconds, the application minutes, and you get same
Speaker 1: day coverage. There's no medical exam. You're just answering a
Speaker 1: few simple health questions and you can get up to
Speaker 1: $ 3 million in coverage with some policies as low as
Speaker 1: $ 30 a month. So take 10 minutes to get covered
Speaker 1: today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote
Speaker 1: at ethos.com slash fang. That is E-T-H-O-S dot com slash fang.
Speaker 1: My last name, it's spelled P-H-A-N-G. Application times may vary
Speaker 1: and rates may vary. Just wanted to drop a quick
Speaker 1: footnote here. Just recently, just a few months ago, the
Speaker 1: Epstein estate did agree to pay $ 35 million to resolve
Speaker 1: a class action lawsuit. that accused Epstein's accountant and lawyer, right?
Speaker 1: In Daikin Khan, of aiding and abetting Epstein's sex trafficking
Speaker 1: of young women and teenage girls. That resolved a 2024
Speaker 1: lawsuit that was brought against them. And that is in
Speaker 1: addition to the restitution that was paid by the Epstein
Speaker 1: estate to the tune of $ 121 million to victims. And
Speaker 1: the state also paid $ 49 million in additional settlements to
Speaker 1: victims I want to note that Indyk and Kahn have
Speaker 1: denied through their attorneys any involvement at all, any knowledge
Speaker 1: at all. I want to make sure that I, you know,
Speaker 1: put that out there, that that's what they have said.
Speaker 1: And the lawsuit that just got resolved for $ 35 million
Speaker 1: was brought in 2024. And the plaintiff's lawyers at Boies
Speaker 1: Schiller said that Indyk and Kahn helped Epstein create a, quote,
Speaker 1: complex web of corporations and bank accounts that let Epstein
Speaker 1: hide his abuses, pay victims and recruiters while leaving them
Speaker 1: richly compensated for their work. Boischiller also obtained a $ 365
Speaker 1: million settlement with J.P. Morgan and Deutsche Bank after they
Speaker 1: missed the red flags about Jeffrey Epstein and his activity
Speaker 1: at their financial institutions. I have said this and I'll
Speaker 1: say it again. The judicial system, when it works, it works.
Speaker 1: And we are seeing that there may or may not
Speaker 1: be admissions of liability, fault or guilt going on here,
Speaker 1: but I suspect there's a lot more money that's there
Speaker 1: that has been hidden, and that that is part of
Speaker 1: the reason why these cases are getting settled. I mean,
Speaker 1: I also think they're indefensible cases, but I think that
Speaker 1: that's the reason why they're getting settled. And so I applaud, one,
Speaker 1: the New York City Council for doing something like the
Speaker 1: Gender-Motivated Violence Act and allowing these amendments to expand windows
Speaker 1: for survivors to be able to bring their claims. We
Speaker 1: know that victims of this type of abuse often don't
Speaker 1: immediately report to either law enforcement or others, and they
Speaker 1: often are not in a position to sue. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's kind of a wild demand to make. Number one,
Speaker 1: everybody reacts differently. Number two, it is an incredibly wild
Speaker 1: demand to make that people have to be mindful, mindful
Speaker 1: of these windows to be able to sue. I'm going
Speaker 1: to read something from the lawsuit because I want to
Speaker 1: leave you with this thought because I think it's important.
Speaker 1: It's in paragraph nine. It says, any statute of limitations
Speaker 1: that would otherwise apply to plaintiff's claims herein is told
Speaker 1: in accord with the doctrine of equitable estoppel. That is
Speaker 1: a legal theory that you, as a defendant, should not
Speaker 1: be allowed to assert certain defenses because of your bad
Speaker 1: faith conduct. So listen carefully. This doctrine of equitable estoppel,
Speaker 1: when it applies to people like Indyk and Kahn, as
Speaker 1: alleged in paragraph nine, is because of the deception, duress, fraud,
Speaker 1: and or threats of retaliation and misconduct that Epstein and
Speaker 1: his co-conspirators used to silence his victims, including these plaintiffs.
Speaker 1: At a minimum, the same conduct by Epstein and his
Speaker 1: associates deprived the plaintiffs of their legal rights and an
Speaker 1: opportunity to commence this lawsuit prior to his death in
Speaker 1: August of 2019. Accordingly, the defendants are equitably stopped from
Speaker 1: asserting a statute of limitations defense. It's interesting, right? Because
Speaker 1: it makes sense if they are intimidated, coerced, threatened in
Speaker 1: any way, allegedly to not come forward, they're not going
Speaker 1: to do it. How about having the ability, as this
Speaker 1: law is doing, for people to be able to investigate
Speaker 1: their claims and bring them and not forcing an artificial
Speaker 1: timeline for these things to happen? And look, you guys
Speaker 1: know me, I'm rule of law. I am, you know,
Speaker 1: very much a, let's look at the rules of procedure,
Speaker 1: let's look at the law. But I do think, though,
Speaker 1: that sometimes laws have to be amended, changed, or created,
Speaker 1: a la the Epstein-Faust transition. Act, to reflect the facts
Speaker 1: and the evidence. And we know the facts and the
Speaker 1: evidence when it comes to Epstein, Maxwell, others, including his co-conspirators, enablers, recruiters,
Speaker 1: and facilitators. They did a great job of helping him
Speaker 1: hide this. And so anyway, I wanted to share this
Speaker 1: news with you Like and subscribe. Share this episode far
Speaker 1: and wide. Let people know what is happening. Accountability comes
Speaker 1: by way of these lawsuits. It also provides avenues for
Speaker 1: additional discovery. And the more that we can get out there,
Speaker 1: the more that we can get our hands on publicly
Speaker 1: available information through these lawsuits, the better we are in
Speaker 1: getting transparency. Be mad, be outraged, demand accountability. like these
Speaker 1: plaintiffs are doing, these victims of Epstein and Dyke, Kahn
Speaker 1: and others. I'm off to rattle some more cages. Katie
Speaker 1: Fang here. We launched the Katie Fang News Channel in
Speaker 1: partnership with the Midas Touch Network so we could bring
Speaker 1: you the latest in legal and political news. Straight, no chaser.
Speaker 1: So if you're a fellow truth teller, hit that subscribe
Speaker 1: button and share the word about this channel so we
Speaker 1: can build a high information America together.