Mega Edition: The Federal Government And The Epstein Related CVRA Disaster (9/13/26)

0:00What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. Have you ever noticed how the government loves to give itself awards for pretending to care? Every few years some senator gets in front of a camera and tells us that they passed a brand new law that's going to change everything. They'll call it reform, they call it progress, they call it justice. And then the minute somebody rich and powerful breaks that very same law, everyone suddenly gets a case of amnesia. Nobody knows nothing, nobody saw nothing. And suddenly justice turns into a four letter word, they only remember during election season. Take the Crime Victims Rights Act for example, the CVRA. That thing was supposed to be the crown jewel of victim protection, passed in 2004, they said it would guarantee fairness and transparency. Victims would finally have a seat at the table they said, no more secret plea deals, no more prosecutors cutting side bargains in the dark. It was going to be the start of a new era, where victims were treated like human beings,

1:01not leftovers from somebody else's crime. Yeah, well, that was a sales pitch. But then a long came Jeffrey fucking Epstein, the billionaire predator, who at half of the elite world on speed dial, and suddenly the CVRA wasn't worth the paper that it was printed on. All that talk about victims' rights went out the window the second real power got involved. The law that was supposed to protect teenage girls from being used and discarded got bent, twisted and ignored to protect the man who used and discarded them. The feds didn't just forget about the CVRA, they buried that son of a bitch six feet, they threw a goddamn cocktail party on the grave. Yo, think about this. The entire point of the CVRA was to make sure victims got notified about any plea deals or non-prosecution agreements. You know, so prosecutors couldn't secretly sell justice out from right under them. But that's exactly what happened in Epstein's case. While those young women were still cooperating with the FBI, still sitting in interview rooms

2:02telling their stories, the government was behind closed doors, cutting a deal with Epstein's lawyers. A deal that gave him and all his potential co-conspirators immunity from federal charges. Translation, if you are rich, famous and happened to be on the Epstein guest list, congratulations, you get a free pass. And the kicker, the victims weren't told, not before, not during, not after. They found out later from a newspaper. The federal government, the same one that loves to lecture us about accountability, hit a secret plea deal from the people it was supposed to protect. They didn't even pretend to follow their own damn law. The Crime Victims Rights Act might as well have been written in invisible ink. You know, crazy that is, the government breaks a law, a federal law designed to protect victims of crime, and nobody goes to jail for it, nobody even gets fired, hell, some even got promoted. Alexandra Acosta, the prosecutor who played middleman and broker of the deal, got himself a cabinet position, Secretary of Labor.

3:04The man who was involved in cutting a sex trafficker, a sweetheart deal, was later put in charge of combating human trafficking. You can't make that up. It's not irony. That's a bad joke at the expense of every victim, whoever believed in the system. And when people started asking questions, the Justice Department came out swinging, not against Epstein but against survivors. They argued that the CVRA didn't technically apply because Epstein was never officially charged in federal court. Wrap your head around that. They violated the law and then turned around and said, well, technically, because we violated the law, the law doesn't count. These MFers are like robin a bank and then claiming that they can't be charged because they didn't fill out the deposit slip. And the federal courts, well, they went along with it too. Eleven circuit, the same one that could have fixed the mess, decided that since there were no formal charges, the survivors, weren't technically victims under the CVRA yet. You can't even write satire that stupid.

4:05They took a law built to protect victims and used it to legally define them out of existence. The feds pulled off the oldest trick in the book, screw over the powerless, hide behind procedure and call that shit justice. And let's talk about Epstein so-called punishment, shall we? Thirteen months in county jail, not prison, jail. With six day a week work release. The man was literally chauffeur to his office every morning, spent twelve hours doing whatever he pleased, then came back at night to sleep in his private wing. She had it better than half the guys on probation, and the DOJ still has the audacity to call that accountability. Meanwhile, the victims, the actual people the CVRA was written for, were treated like obstacles. They were shut out, lied to, and then told years later that none of it mattered. The government admitted it broke the law, and then shrugged, oops, are bad. No consequences, no reform, no apology that meant anything. I guess it's just another day, an adjusted system that bends for billionaires and breaks

5:07for everyone else. So yeah, in the next couple of episodes, it's not just about Jeffrey Epstein, it's about the system that protected him. It's about the people who signed the papers, ignored the survivors, and pretended that the law was optional. Because the Crime Victim Rights Act wasn't just violated, it was betrayed. In that betrayal, says the hell of a lot more about America than Epstein ever did. So let's talk about it. You ever notice how the government loves to pat itself on the back for writing the so-called historic reforms? Every few years, they roll out some shiny new law, give it a noble name, and tell the American people that justice has finally evolved. And for a while, everyone claps. Headlines get written, politicians pre-ing in front of cameras, then someone powerful breaks the law, and suddenly poof. It's like the thing never existed. That's exactly what happened with the Crime Victim Rights Act, the CVRA. It was supposed to be the line in the sand, though moment that the system decided to treat

6:09victims like human beings instead of loose ends. But the second Jeffrey Epstein came knocking, the law got tossed in the shredder faster than a subpoena at a hedge fund office. The CVRA was passed back in 2004, and if you listen to the speeches, you think it was going to change everything. Sanitors, prosecutors, victims' advocates, all smiling for the cameras, and swearing that this was the start of a new era. Fairness, respect, dignity. Those were the buzzwords. They talked about making sure victims were unblindsided by secret deals or left out of critical hearings. They said from now on, victims would have the right to be heard, notified, consulted, and included. It sounded like justice finally found a spine. And for about five minutes, people actually believed that meant something. The idea behind the CVRA was simple, almost insultingly simple. Victims deserve to know what's happening in their own cases. Imagine that if the government is making a deal with the person who hurt you, you get

7:11to be told. You get to have a say. You get to show up to court and speak before the judge stamps the paperwork. Wasn't revolutionary. It was basic decency. And yet when you look at what the government did in the Epstein case, you'd swear they never read their own damn law. They treated the CVRA like a suggestion, nice and theory, optional in practice. So now, let's rewind to 2007 because this is where the mass comes off. Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida had one of the most clear-cut sex trafficking cases in modern history sitting right in front of them. Epstein wasn't some sleazy one-off criminal. He was operating a global conveyor belt of abuse, flying underage girls across state lines, recruiting them, grooming them, and in some cases, farming them out to people. The FBI had dozens of victims, sworn statements, corroborating evidence, even flight logs. This was supposed to be a slam dunk. Any regular person caught doing 1% of what Epstein did would have been buried under the

8:15prison. But Epstein wasn't regular. He had the magic ingredients, money, connections, and dirt. That's the real trinity of American power. And when those three mixed together, the law doesn't bend. It kneels. Instead of being indicted for federal sex trafficking crimes, Epstein's team started negotiating. And these weren't your standard plea talks. These were a cigar smoke-filled, hush-hush backroom dealings that would make any mob-lawyer blush. And what came out of that was the now infamous non-prossecution agreement, the NPA. A legal unicorn so corrupt, it should be studied in ethics classes for the next hundred years. The NPA basically said Epstein will plead guilty to two state charges, solicitation of prostitution, and solicitation of a minor. And in return, the feds will promise not to charge him or any of his potential cloac and spiritors. That phrase alone should have been a red flag the size of a damn billboard. Potential cloac and spiritors?

9:15That's legal speak for every rich pervert he ever did business with. It was immunity by implication, a federal hall pass for anyone who might have taken a ride on the Lolita Express. The agreement even required the federal investigation to stop, cold. Wasn't a plea deal, it was a cover-up printed on the Department of Justice letterhead. But the worst part, the part that spits in the face of the CVRA, is that not one of the Epstein's victims was told. Not a single one. The prosecutors didn't inform them, they didn't warn them, they didn't consult them, they didn't even have the decency to send a form letter. The deal was signed, sealed, and tucked away in secrecy, while those same victims were still giving interviews to federal agents, believing the case was ongoing. Imagine how cruel that is. These women thought justice was crawling its way forward when in reality the train had already been derailed and buried. And look, we're not talking about a clerical mix-up, it's not a bureaucratic miscommunication, it's a willful violation of the law.

10:16The CVRA spells it out in black and white, victims have the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement. There's no loophole there, no gray area, no depends on the circumstances. The prosecutors in Florida didn't forget the victims, they intentionally shut them out. They built a wall of silence around Epstein's defense team and told the survivors to weigh quietly on the other side. And Epstein being Epstein had the best legal mercenaries money could buy, Alan Dershowitz, Kenna Star Roy Black, names that sound like the credits of a legal thriller, but play more like a cautionary tale. These guys didn't just defend Epstein, they bullied the system into submission. They threatened to bury the prosecution in litigation to drag the case out for years, to make it so costly and painful that the feds would give up, and it worked. The prosecutors folded like a badass poker hand. Instead of fighting for the victims, they fought for their own convenience.

11:16The CVRA was supposed to protect the powerless, but the Epstein case proved what everyone secretly knows. In America, laws are suggestions for the rich and obligations for everyone else. Alright folks, we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode dealing with the topic, we're gonna pick up where we left off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're picking up where we left off, talking about the CVRA. You know what's really disgusting? The paper trail, the emails, the memos, the bureaucratic breadcrumbs that show that this wasn't some accident. It was an inside job. The trail prosecutors literally instructed their staff to not notify the victims about the deal. They wrote things like, don't tip them off. That's their wording. These weren't interns messing up paperwork. This was a coordinated effort that had a sweetheart deal from the very people. The law was designed to protect.

12:18They didn't just break the CVRA, they shredded it, stomped on it, and pretended it never existed. And the cruelty of it all is staggering when you stop to think about it. Those girls, most of them barely old enough to drive, were doing everything the system tells victims to do. They came forward, they cooperated, they relived trauma in interviews, trusting that someone in a suit was going to help them. But behind closed doors, those same suits were shaken hands with Epstein's defense team, and finalizing the terms of his punishment. The survivors thought the wheels of justice were turning, but what they didn't know was that the government was already pulling the brakes. That's one of those moments that makes you wonder how many more cases out there ended the same way. We just don't know, because nobody looked. And when the deal finally leaked out, because secrets like that always do, it at those women like a gut punch. They found out about the non-prosecution agreement, not from prosecutors, not from a courtroom, but from the damn newspaper.

13:18Imagine reading in the Miami Herald that your abuser got a private pardon while you were still sitting by the phone waiting for a call back from the FBI? And it was done with a level of arrogance that can only exist in people who truly believe they'll never be held accountable. The survivors weren't about to roll over though, they loyered up, and they filed a federal lawsuit arguing that their rights under this EVRA had been violated. And they were right, 100% right. The evidence was undeniable, the Justice Department broke the law by cutting a deal behind their backs. They had a statute, they had standing, and for a brief shining moment it looked like maybe just maybe the system might correct itself. You could almost hear the collective gasp in DC when a federal judge actually ruled in their favor. Judge Kenneth Marra, bless him, didn't meant words in 2019. He ruled that prosecutors did not act in good faith, and that the victims should have been informed under this EVRA. She called out the secrecy, the deception, the utter disregard for basic decency.

14:21It was the first time in the entire Epstein saga that someone inside the system set out loud what everyone already knew. This was corruption dressed up as procedure. For about five minutes it felt like the tide was turning, like maybe those survivors would finally get their day in court. But justice in America is like a slot machine. It lets you win just enough to keep playing, but no sooner than the ink dried on Judge Marra's decision than the Department of Justice appealed. Their argument, oh it was a beauty. They said that the CVRA technically doesn't apply until after charges are filed. And since they never file federal charges because the secret deal, the victims didn't technically have any rights to begin with. It's the kind of logic that makes you want to throw your TV out the window. They violated the law, then use the violation itself as an excuse for why the law didn't matter. The 11 circuit court bought in. In 2021 they overturn Marra's ruling, saying that because the feds never file charges,

15:23the victims weren't crime victims under the CVRA yet. That's like saying you can't be robbed until the thief gets caught. The court basically told the survivors, yeah you got screwed but too bad, our hands are tied. They took a law meant to protect victims and twisted it into a shield for prosecutors. And through all of this the DOJ acted like they were the victims, all wounded pride and bureaucratic self-defense, they claimed that they were being unfairly maligned and that the Epstein case was complex. Complex? The only thing complex about it was figuring out how to hide the paperwork. Every time they were asked why the deal was secret, they'd mumble about discretion and judgment calls, as if breaking federal law is just part of the job description. When the government starts talking like a mob lawyer, you know the Rotscon deed. And what makes the whole thing more infuriating is that nobody paid a price, not one prosecutor and not one official, not one bureaucrat. They all walked away clean, some even got promotions.

16:24So let's recap this circus. The government passes the law to protect victims, violates that very law to protect a predator, gets caught, admits it, then argues that the law doesn't count because of the way they violated it. And the court's not along like this all makes sense. Talk about a magic trick. It's light of hand, performed by men and suits, who smile while they make your rights disappear. And the worst part? They'll still tell you with a straight face that no one is above the law. Yeah, sure. No one except the people who can afford the buy it. And look, we all know that if you were I violate federal law, it's game over. And cuffs before we can say do process. But when prosecutors break federal law to protect a billionaire predator, it suddenly becomes a discretionary oversight. Isn't that cute? They call it a mistake in procedure instead of what it is, obstruction. The government loves to throw the book at the power list, but the minute someone with influences involved, the same book becomes an optional reading. The CVRA wasn't some ambiguous policy, it was codified right.

17:27They didn't misunderstand it. They just decided it didn't apply to Jeffrey Epstein because applying it would have upset all the wrong people and the gollies people. When the survivors kept fighting, when they demanded justice under the law that was supposed to protect them, the department of justice had the nerve to argue that reopening the case would be unfair. Epstein let that marinate for a second. The man who turned teenage girls into sex commodities, who trafficked them like property, was being shielded from unfairness. Many in wild the victims, the ones who were violated, manipulated and silenced, were told to move on. And not surprisingly, the DOJ's empathy somehow stopped, right at the edge, of Epstein's wallet. And when the deal finally hit the headlines years later, the feds tried to play dumb. Suddenly everyone was shocked and disturbed, and committed to transparency. You'd think they'd never heard of a non-prossecution agreement. They went on TV, acting like they just found out, along with the rest of the world. It was performative outrage. The same bureaucratic theater we've seen a hundred times before.

18:30They not had effect accountability, make a statement, a promise, an internal review, let the clock run out. But by the time the cameras turn off, they're already back to business as usual. Congress of course jumped in like they always do when public anger starts boiling. And what came of it? Nothing. No criminal referrals. No disciplinary actions. Not even a strongly worded letter that mattered. They treated the Epstein CVR scandal like a bad news cycle. In the weather, not something to fix. When the spotlight dimmed, every single one of them quietly walked away from the issue. Justice wasn't restored. It was rebranded. And the CVRA was supposed to be the firewall, the safeguard between victims and systemic betrayal. Instead, it became the poster child for everything that's wrong with the justice system. The prosecutors who wrote it, passed it, and praised it, were the same ones who shredded it when it got inconvenient. They proved that the law is in a shield. It's a prop, a PR stunt. Something you hold up when the cameras are on, then discard when the cameras leave.

19:32The CVRA was born in good faith, but buried in bad hands. But the survivors, well, they don't give up easily. They kept filing motions, demanding transparency, asking for the unceiling of grand jury materials that would show the full extent of what went down. And how did the Department of Justice respond? With delay, denial, and bureaucratic double talk. Every time someone got close to the truth, they pulled out the ongoing investigation card, the legal version of a closed maintenance sign. They were protecting something, and it sure as hell wasn't justice. The Epstein case exposed what the DOJ's first instinct is in transparency, itself preservation. By the time that Epstein was arrested in 2019, a decade after the slap on his wrist, the damage was already done. The CVA had been gutted in practice, the survivors had been retraumatized. The prosecutors who betrayed them were still working comfortably, and the same patterns of privilege and secrecy were still in place. And then, as if on cue, Epstein died.

20:35Or died, whatever happened in that cell, one thing's for sure. It conveniently ended, the trial that would have forced everyone to testify under oath. Once again, the powerful walked away untouched, and the survivors were left, holding ashes. The 11th Circuit decision set a dangerous precedent. One that should terrify anyone who still believes in equal justice. By ruling that the CVRA doesn't apply until after formal charges, they essentially told prosecutors they can hide anything they want, as long as they make the deal fast enough. It created a legal loophole big enough to fly the Lolita Express through. If the Fed can strike Cigra bargains without informing victims, then the whole idea of rights is meaningless. The law now says that victims matter only after it's too late for them to matter. Now you'd think that Congress would have scrambled to fix that loophole, to amend the CVRA so this never happens again. But here we are, nearly two decades later, and nothing's changed. No updates, no reforms, no accountability.

21:36The same system that led Epstein's skate still runs the show. Because let's be honest, Washington doesn't fix what works for its friends. The CVRA failed, not because it was written poorly, but because the people enforcing it had no intention of letting it work. Justice in America isn't blind? It's selective. And you know that the selection process starts with your bank account. The survivors of Jeffrey Epstein didn't just lose the case. They lost faith. Faith in the system they thought might finally take them seriously, faith in a government that promised to protect them, faith in a law, the CVRA. That was literally written to stop this exact kind of betrayal. And that's the part that doesn't get enough attention. When the government breaks its own laws, it doesn't just fail victims. It breaks the idea that the system can ever be trusted again. You can't slap or wear a sorry label on that kind of damage. You can't put closure in a settlement check. Once faith is gone, it's gone for good. Meanwhile the hypocrisy of it all could fill volumes.

22:36The same Justice Department that ignored the CVRA loves to lecture the rest of us about accountability. They'll brag about cracking down on low level offenders, pat themselves on the back for tough on crime initiatives, and tell Congress how deeply they value victims' rights. But when those victims were teenage girls violated by a billionaire with friends in high places, suddenly everyone lost their voice. The same office that prosecutes people for lying on forms couldn't find the courage to follow their own damn statue. It's like watching a preacher give a sermon, on honesty, with a hand in the collection plate. And you know it's almost funny in the darkest humor kind of way. The prosecutors who ignored the CVRA technically committed crimes themselves. They violated federal law, no gray area, it's written right there in the statute. But instead of being investigated, they got promoted. That's how backward this country has become. If you're a bureaucrat who breaks the law to protect a billionaire, you're called to screed. If you're a regular person who breaks the law because you're desperate, you're called a criminal.

23:37The DOJ turned its own hypocrisy into a career ladder. And look, this wasn't some kind of tragic fluke. It's a window in how the justice system really works when money's on the line. People keep saying the system failed. No, it didn't. It worked exactly how it's designed to. It's efficient when it wants to bury you, and it's glacial when it's protecting someone with pull. The CVRA didn't fail because it was flawed. It failed because it came face to face with power. And power always wins. Justice in this country isn't about guilt or innocence. It's about influence. Epstein proved that better than anyone. And the non-possitution agreement didn't just protect Epstein. It protected everyone orbiting him. All the potential Coke and Spiriters whose names we still don't have, politicians, financiers, academics, royals, CEOs, anyone who might have been caught up in his little blackmail ecosystem. The government didn't just grant immunity to a predator. What they did was hand out legal invisibility to an entire class of people.

24:40It was a federal firewall for the elite built on the backs of girls, the system deemed expendable. The CVRA was supposed to prevent that. Instead it became exhibit A for how power rewrites the rules mid-game. And for the survivors the nightmare has never ended. They kept showing up to the hearings, reading statements, fighting appeals, trying to claw back in ounce of dignity from the machine that treated them like collateral damage. They were told to be patient. They were told to trust the process. But what process? The one that let their abuser walk free and protected his powerful friends? The CVRA gave them the right to participate, but participation means nothing when the outcome has been pre-decided in some backroom months before. And look, the politicians, the prosecutors, the media, they all had their chance to make this right. And every single one of them fumbled it. Every press conference, every Senate hearing, every we stand with survivor statement, all just noise. Empty promises dressed up as progress. The same people who ignored the CVRA violation now talk about learning lessons, spare me.

25:43They didn't learn a damn thing. Because if they had, we'd seen the indictments, we'd have seen firings, we'd seen reform. Instead all we get are hashtags and headlines. The Epstein scandal has exposed something deeper than the corruption. It exposed the rot of selective justice. The CVRA was supposed to protect everyone equally, but the truth is it only protects people when it's politically convenient. When a poor kid gets assaulted, the law works overtime. When a billionaire assaults dozens, the law politely knocks and asks if now's a good time. That's the ugly truth no one wants to say out loud. America doesn't just have one justice system. It has two. One for the ruled. One for the rulers. And the CVRA was just another casualty in that civil war. So the next time you hear a politician solemnly declare that no one is above the law, remember what happened here. Remember how the government itself violated federal victim rights laws to protect a serial predator. Remember how the courts twisted logic and to nots to justify it.

26:46Remember how not one official paid a price? Because until there's accountability for that kind of betrayal, those words mean absolutely nothing. And that's the real legacy of the Epstein case, a blueprint for how to destroy faith and justice while pretending to uphold it. The Crime Victim Rights Act was meant to be a promise, a safeguard for the vulnerable. Instead it became a prop in the theater of impunity. The government didn't just ignore it, they desecrated it. They proved that when the stakes are high enough, laws are optional, and morality is negotiable. And for the survivors who were betrayed by the system, twice, once by Epstein, and again by the people sworn to protect it, that's not just injustice, that's treason against the very idea of justice itself. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we're going to take a look at Judge Mara's ruling when it comes to the

27:49complaint made by Jandou I and Jandou II about their CVRA rights being disregarded. Case number 08-80736-CIV-Mara, Jandou I and Jandou II petitioners, First United States of America, opinion and order. This caused before the court upon Jandou I and Jandou II submissions on the proposed remedies to the government's response to petitioner submission on proposed remedies, limited intervener Jeffrey Epstein brief in opposition to proposed remedies, Jandou I and Jandou II's reply to the government in support of their submission on proposed remedies, Jandou I and Jandou II's reply to intervener Epstein's brief in opposition to proposed remedies, Jandou I and Jandou II statements noting death pursuant to rule 25 of the federal rules the civil procedure, response to rule 25 notice and suggestion of mootness.

28:50On February 21, 2019, the court entered its order, DE435, finding that the government violated the Crime Victims Rights Act, CVRA, U.S. Code 18 section 3771, when it failed to confer with petitioners prior to entering into a non-prossecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. The court permitted the parties to brief and present additional evidence relative to the issue of what remedies if any should be imposed by the court as a result. The briefing was extensive and the court has carefully reviewed all the arguments. No additional evidence was presented by any of the parties. Furthermore, during the time the matter was under advisement, Mr. Epstein died, which resulted in additional briefing. The court will simply provide an abbreviated summary of the party's arguments given that the briefs are available on the public docket. Petitioners initially requested the following remedies. One, rescind the provisions in the NPA between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Southern District of Florida and Mr. Epstein, that barred his prosecution and the prosecution of

29:54his name and unnamed alleged co-conspirators. Two, declare that the United States Constitution would permit such a prosecution. Three, enjoying the U.S. Attorney's Office to forthwith, make its best effort to protect the CVRA rights of J&O1 and J&O2 and other Epstein victims. Four, enjoying the U.S. Attorney's Office to forthwith, confer with J&O1 and J&O2 and other Epstein victims to provide them with accurate and timely notice of future case events. And five, order a meeting for the victims with members of the current U.S. Attorney's Office and former U.S. Attorney's Office, including former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. Six, conduct a court hearing for victims requiring the attendance of Mr. Acosta. Seven, provide various information to the victims, including information in the government's possession about why it did not prosecute Epstein's crimes. Grand jury material, information from the FBI. Seal materials submitted to the government to the court and material filed by the government

30:58in DE414 and DE348. Eight, require the justice department to conduct a course of training for employees in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida about the CVRA. And nine, order the government to pay monetary sanctions, restitution, attorney fees, and costs. The government asserts that these remedies are not authorized by the CVRA. The government, however, states that it should have communicated more effectively with petitioners and proposes the following remedies. One, the Department of Justice will designate a representative to meet with petitioners and other victims to discuss the decision to resolve the Epstein case. Two, the government will participate in a public court proceeding in which petitioners can make a victim impact statement and three, all criminal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida will undergo additional training on the CVRA victim rights and victim assistant issues. Prior to his death, Mr. Epstein addressed the decision remedies proposed by petitioners,

32:02asserting that they were unauthorized by the CVRA, precluded by contract law, the doctrines of judicial and equitable East Opel, substantive due process, separation of powers, and ripeness. Mr. Epstein also opposed the government's proposed remedy of a proceeding in which unajudicated victims make impact statements about a person who has not been convicted of or facing sentencing for a federal crime. Petitioners provided the court with a reply memoranda addressing both the government's arguments as well as those of Mr. Epstein. On August 12, 2019, petitioners filed a statement noting Mr. Epstein's death. As part of that notice, petitioners argue that Mr. Epstein's death rendered all of his objections to petitioners proposed remedies moot. One, moreover, petitioners contend that most of the government's objections, which were predicated on protecting Epstein's interests, are also moot. Based on this theory, petitioners urge the court to grant all petitioners proposed remedies,

33:06including invalidating the provisions in the NPA that precluded prosecution of Epstein's alleged co-conspirators. Mr. Epstein's attorneys responded that his death rendered Petitioners request for rescission of the NPA moot. The lawyers have asked the court to strike this response since Epstein is dead, and therefore he should no longer have a voice in this proceeding. Remedies against Jeffrey Epstein and the alleged co-conspirators Jandou 1 and Jandou 2 seek an order finding the provisions in the NPA barring the prosecution of Epstein's alleged co-conspirators null and void. To the extent they prevent their prosecution for federal crimes, committed in this other indistrict of Florida against Jandou 1 or 2 or any other victim of a federal sex crime offense committed by Epstein's alleged co-conspirators within the Southern District of Florida. Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution grants the judiciary the authority to adjudicate cases and controversies. In our system of government, courts have no business deciding legal disputes or expounding

34:08on law in the absence of such a case of controversy. An actual controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation. To qualify as a case, fit for federal court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extended to all stages of review not merely at the time the complaint is filed. Adjustable case or controversy must be present at all stages of review. Here there is no longer an Article 3 controversy permitting the court to address the appropriateness of the remedy of rescission. As a result of Mr. Epstein's death, there can be no criminal prosecution against him, and the court cannot consider granting this relief to the victims. Mootness demands that there be something about the case that remains alive, present, real, and immediate to that federal court can provide redress in some palpable way. Likewise, the court without jurisdiction to grant petitioners request for rescission of

35:08the NPA provisions with respect to Mr. Epstein's alleged co-conspirators. That request invites the court to render an advisory opinion. Strict application of the rightness doctrine prevents federal courts from rendering impermissible advisory opinions and wasting resources through review of potential or abstract disputes. While the constitutional aspect of the rightness inquiry focuses on whether Article 3 requirements of an actual case or controversy are met, the prudential aspect asks whether it's appropriate for this case to be litigated in a federal court by these parties at this time. By requesting a rescission of the NPA with respect to the alleged co-conspirators, petitioner seek a ruling affecting the rights of non-partis to the case. If the court granted such relief and a criminal prosecution was to be instituted against the alleged co-conspirators, they would be free to assert the benefits if any, which inert to them under the NPA as a bar to any prosecution. The question of the validity of the non-prosecution provision of the NPA as they relate to the

36:12alleged co-conspirators will have to be litigated with their participation if any prosecution against them is ever brought. Any decision by this court on the question is meaningless without the participation in this proceeding. Mr. Epstein chose to intervene in this case relative to the question of an appropriate remedy, and thus he would have been bound by any ruling issued by the court. The alleged co-conspirators did not intervene, nor were they obligated to do so. Moreover no party to this proceeding sought to join them in the case since the alleged co-conspirators are not parties to the case, any ruling this court makes that reports to affect their rights under the NPA would merely be advisory and as thus beyond this court's jurisdiction to issue. A hypothetical will serve the buttress this conclusion. As was noted in the brief of the party's disaction was initiated by petitioners on July 7th, 2008. Four days later the court held the hearing on petitioners' requests for relief.

37:13Shortly thereafter on August 14th, 2008 petitioners' council chose not to pursue the request to invalidate the NPA at the time, but rather sought production of the NPA to evaluate it and decide how petitioners wish to proceed. Thereafter there was no activity on the merits of the case for two years, during which time Mr. Epstein performed under the NPA. The court then issued an order to show cause as to why the case should be dismissed for lack of prosecution. After receiving the petitioner's response to the order to show cause the court permitted the case to proceed and let the parties begin to litigate the case on the merits. Let us assume at that point in the litigation at which time Mr. Epstein had not intervened, rather than challenging petitioners' claims, the US had decided that it erred and failing to advise the victims of intent to enter into the NPA and agreed to settle the case with petitioners. Petitioners and the United States then entered into a settlement agreement which provided and relevant part that they would submit a joint stipulation to the court for entry of

38:18a consent decree, a provision of which would hold that the NPA was invalid and the non-prostecution in the NPA was null and void. The consent decree would further provide that the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was freed of prosecute Mr. Epstein for any federal crimes which he may have committed relative to the victims. Let us further assume that the court approved the settlement and entered a consent decree consistent with it. The US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida armed with a dissent decree holding that the NPA was invalid then proceeded before the grand jury and obtained an indictment against Mr. Epstein. Mr. Epstein is then arrested and a criminal case against him proceeds. Under this hypothetical set of facts, could anyone seriously contend that Mr. Epstein would be bound to the consent decree which was entered in a case to which he was not a party in which he has no opportunity to be heard? Of course not. Any such contention would be absurd. The consent decree would have been advisory only and not binding in any way against Mr.

39:23Epstein. The validity of the NPA would have to be litigated within the context of the criminal case brought against him. That is precisely the case with which the alleged co-conspirators. The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida can make an independent judgment as to whether it believes it is bound by the non-possicution provision of the NPA as it relates to the alleged co-conspirators and proceed accordingly. If the office concludes it is not bound and chooses not to pursue criminal charges against those individuals, the validity of the non-possicution provision will appropriately be resolved within the context of those criminal proceedings. Alright folks, we are going to wrap up episode 1 right there and in the next episode we are going to finish this bad boy off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode we are going to get right back to it and finish off Judge Mara's order when it comes to the CVRA.

40:24Request for injunction. Petitioners request that the court issue an injunction requiring the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida to make its best effort to protect the CVRA rights of Mr. Epstein's victims to confer with Jando One and Jando Two and other Epstein victims who request it and to provide them with accurate and timely notice of future case events. The court denies the request for the issuance of such injunctive relief. Petitioners only show past exposure to illegal conduct and do not show continuing present adverse effects. City of Los Angeles, verse 461, U.S. 95 102. In discussing standing, deceiving injunctive relief, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has explained the doctrine in the following way. Because injunctions regulate future conduct, a party has standing to seek injunctive relief, only if the party alleges and ultimately proves a real and immediate as opposed to a merely conjectural or hypothetical threat of future injury.

41:25Logically a prospective remedy will provide no relief for an injury that is and likely will remain entirely in the past. Although past wrongs or evidence bearing on weather, there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury, past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief, if unaccompanied by a continuing present adverse effect. Church, City of Los Angeles, verse 1994. At this point as to Mr. Epstein, there are no present or future CVRA rights of victims to protect. As to any alleged co-conspirators, the United States has agreed to confer with the victims regarding its decision relative to Mr. Epstein's case. It is further willing to participate in a forum where the victims may express how their interaction with Mr. Epstein and his alleged co-conspirators affected them. The government has also agreed to provide training to its prosecutors regarding the rights of victims under the CVRA. The court has no reason to doubt the government's representations to the court and no reason

42:29to believe that will not follow through with these commitments. Hence the court concludes that there is no real and immediate threat of repeated violations of the CVRA and that any injury that occurred in this case will remain entirely in the past. Thus the court finds that the granting of injunctive relief is not warranted in this case. Meeting with former US Attorney and Court Hearing. The court has no jurisdiction over Alexander Acosta, the former US Attorney, who is now a private citizen. Therefore the court denies petitioners request that an order Mr. Acosta to appear at a meeting with the victims. Given that the government has agreed to arrange a meeting, with government representatives for petitioners, the court will not enter in order directing this meeting. As indicated previously, the court presumes and fully expects that the government will honor its representation and it will conduct this meeting. The court also declines to conduct a court sanction proceeding to allow Mr. Epstein's victims an opportunity to address the court on these topics.

43:30First, it is a matter of public knowledge that the United States District Judge who was presiding over the criminal case brought against Mr. Epstein in the Southern District of New York already provided that opportunity to Mr. Epstein's victims. Second, now that Mr. Epstein is deceased, any investigation regarding his criminal culpability has ended. To the extent any investigations are continuing, as to Mr. Epstein's alleged co-conspirators, this court can play an role in these investigations or their resolution, and the victims will have their opportunity to express their views to the US Attorney's Office and other representatives of the US Department of Justice who will have the ultimate say on how those investigations proceed. Production of documents. The parties have already engaged in discovery and the court has previously made rulings concerning privilege and work product. The finding by the court of a violation of the CVRA does not void its finding on the privilege material. These privileged documents include those relating to the government's decision to enter

44:31into the NPA with Epstein. To the extent the petitioner seek production of FBI files relating to its investigation of Mr. Epstein and his alleged co-conspirators is also a matter of public knowledge, and there is an ongoing investigation by the Department of Justice relative to those individuals. The FBI's documents to the extent they were not otherwise protected by attorney client or work product privileges in all likelihood are relevant to that ongoing investigation. The court's ordering of production of those documents could adversely affect and interfere with that ongoing investigation. Thus the court will not order their production. Furthermore, to the extent petitioners seek to remedy based on their argument that the court never ruled on whether the government violated the petitioner's right to be treated with fairness and to receive notice of court proceedings, the court rejects this theory. These rights all flow from the rights to confer and were encompassed in the court's ruling finding a violation of the CVRA. Thus there is no basis for further production of documents.

45:34Lastly, with respect to petitioner's argument that they are entitled to grand jury records to obtain information as to why there was no prosecution of Mr. Epstein, the court denies this request. The traditional rule of grand jury secrecy may be set aside under certain circumstances as set forth by rule 6e of the federal rules of criminal procedure. The party seeking disclosure of the grand jury material, Moshoa compelling, and particularized need for the disclosure. Furthermore, the private party Moshoa circumstances had created certain difficulties peculiar to the case, which would be alleviated by access to specific grand jury material without doing disproportionate harm to the purposes of secrecy embodied in the grand jury process. Here petitioners have not shown that they will suffer an injustice if they are denied access to grand jury material nor have petitioners shown that access to these materials is compelling or particularized, or their asserted interests under the CVRA.

46:35Additionally, those materials may be relevant to an ongoing investigation relating the alleged co-conspirators, the disclosure of which would interfere with the investigation. Therefore the court denies petitioner's access to the material over which grand jury secrecy applies under rule 6e of the federal rule of criminal procedure. Educational Remedies Petitioners seek an order requiring a course of training for employees in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida about the CVRA. The government does not oppose, providing such training, once again the court presumes and fully expects the government will honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper treatment of crime victims. Thus the court finds the issuance of such order not necessary or warranted under the facts of the case, and once again fully believes and expects the government will honor its representation. Monetary sanctions, restitution, and attorney fees. The parties agree that the CVRA does not authorize a cause of action for damages.

47:40Petitioners seek sanctions, claiming that sanctions are a traditional means for enforcing rights for failure to comply with the law. Courts have inherent power to impose sanctions based on the court's need to manage its own affairs, so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of the case. The power, however, is to manage and address actions that have taken place while litigation is pending before the court. Not to address actions taken prior to the litigation. See Woods vs. Barnett Bank of Fort Lauderdale? 11th Circuit 1985. See also Lamb Construction vs. Nebraska Power Hub 1997. Also see Towerage Incorporated vs. Tower Incorporated 1997. In contrast, remedies serve to address a wrong that occurred prior to the litigation. Notably the case is cited by petitioner in support of the imposition of sanctions involved conduct that arose during the course of litigation, and not conduct engaged in prior to the institution

48:42of the lawsuit. Here petitioner seek sanctions as punishment for the government violating the CVRA, which is conduct that occurred prior to the institution of this lawsuit. Not remedies, not sanctions, or therefore the appropriate conduit for such relief. Petitioners also seek an award of restitution. Petitioners request is improper for several reasons. First, it essentially is a request for money damages from the government, which is not allowed under the CVRA. Second, although petitioners claim the CVRA permits the right to a full and timely restitution under the CVRA. Restitution is limited only to those circumstances provided in law. And petitioners would have to point to a specific statute that authorizes an award of restitution. The court also rejects petitioners' requests for attorney fees. To the extent petitioners seek fees by claiming the government acted in bad faith, or a vexatiously, the court rejects that position. While the court concluded that the government violated the CVRA, the court did not and

49:44does not find that the government acted in bad faith throughout this litigation. Or does the court find any basis to draw such a conclusion on the record before it? Although unsuccessful on the merits of the issue, of whether there was a violation of the CVRA, the government asserted legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout its litigation. Thus there is no basis to grant petitioners' attorney fees as a sanction, nor is there a basis to grant petitioners' attorney fees because the litigation efforts directly benefited others. This theory relies upon a line of cases that permits the allowance of attorney fees out of a fund which created, increased or was preserved by an attorney service, and for which equity courts historically permitted compensation for the attorney's successful efforts. This theory is simply, in applicable to the facts of this case, for these reasons the court denies petitioners' requests for attorney fees. Motion of strike The court denies petitioners' motion to strike. The legal arguments made by Mr. Epstein's attorneys simply provide the current state

50:47of the law that the court is obligated to follow. Whether or not Mr. Epstein's attorneys provided the court with a memorandum of law, conclusion. This order brings an end to the lengthy and contentious litigation. Recent events have rendered the most significant issue that was pending before the court, namely whether the government's violation of petitioner's rights under the CVRA and validated the NPA mood. Other relief sought by petitioners was either beyond the jurisdiction of the court to grant unavailable under the law or in the exercise of the court's discretion and under all the circumstances of the case unnecessary or unwarranted. So despite petitioners having demonstrated, the government violated their rights under the CVRA, in the end they are not receiving much if any of the relief they sought. They may take solace, however, in the fact that this litigation has brought national attention to the Crime Victims Rights Act and the importance of victims in the criminal justice system. It also resulted in the United States Department of Justice acknowledging its shortcomings

51:50in dealing with crime victims and its promise to better train its prosecutors regarding the rights of victims under the CVRA in the future. And rulings which were rendered during the course of this litigation likely played some role, however small it may have been, in the initiation of criminal charges against Epstein and the Southern District of New York and that office continuing investigation of others who may have been complicit with them. In view of all the foregoing, it's hereby ordered and a judge does follows. One the clerk shall unseal docket entries 119 and 134. Two, Jando one and Jando two's motion to strike response to rule 25 notice is denied. Three, this order shall constitute a judgment for purposes of FedR-CivP-58. Four, the clerk will close the case and all pending motions are denied as moot. Done and ordered in chambers of West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, the 16th this day of September 2019.

52:50Signed by Kenneth Mara, United States District Judge. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.