Agree Agree:  18
Likes Likes:  11
Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 81415161718
Results 256 to 269 of 269
  1. #256

    Re: The Manafort/Stone/Epstein Trials & Scandals

    Quote Originally Posted by James7 View Post
    Acosta resigned under the mounting pressure.
    Tiny said something to the effect that as a Hispanic male Harvard must've been more difficult for him. There are no reports of Acosta snatching his wig. Literally. He was standing next to him.

    This from a man who refuses to let his academic record be made public.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

  2. #257

    Re: The Manafort/Stone/Epstein Trials & Scandals

    I fell down another rabbit hole.


    These are the questions I would like investigated, and answered, in the wake of @SecretaryAcosta's resignation. It's possible (though not probable) that there could be some inquiry in this direction in the federal prosecution of Epstein.


    /2 (A) Why is the non-prosecution agreement troublingly ambiguous about whether it applied to other districts?

    Reference is to this thread:

    /3 (Note: I think the agreement only applies to SDFL and that's what a judge will probably find, but it is very notably not as clear as normal federal agreements, with suspicious inconsistent language. I would discipline and retrain an underling who drafted that agreement.)

    / (B) Why did SDFL offer non-prosecution to Epstein's co-conspirators, and agree to shut down an investigation of not just Epstein but those co-conspirators?

    (C) Did anyone at the Justice Department approve the substance of the non-prosecution agreement?

    Did anyone at the Justice Department review and approve its form?

    If so, who was it?

    D) Is it true there was a 53-page draft indictment? Who else was named in it as a codefendant? Was there a determination made -- at least by line prosecutors -- within SDFL that there was sufficient evidence to bring the indictment and prevail at trial?

    (E) If the 53-page draft indictment did reflect prosecutors' judgment that there was sufficient evidence for those charges -- as would usually be the case for something as far along the process as a draft indictment -- who exactly decided to walk back from it?

    (F) Did anyone in government from outside the normal chain of command (line AUSA to supervisor to chief of criminal to USA Acosta to Justice Department) have input on the decision, or contact anyone in the chain of command to influence the decision?

    (G) Was there any discussion within SDFL, or with Main Justice, about whether or not to make the agreement explicitly apply to all districts? Who made the call on that question?

    H) If there was an active FBI investigation of Epstein covering multiple districts, what efforts were made to preserve the evidence gathered, and contacts with witnesses, in case Epstein re-offended or new evidence emerged?

    (I) What communications did federal law enforcement (including SDFL and the FBI) have with any of the state entities during Epstein's partial incarceration and later his sex offender registration process?

    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

  3. #258

    Re: The Manafort/Stone/Epstein Trials & Scandals

    Here is the thread referenced in post #257


    Dear @SecretaryAcosta:

    I do not believe we have spoken since graduation. I regret encountering you under these circumstances.

    I was not able to attend your press conference, but I do have some questions.


    /2 You knew, in 2008, that Mr. Epstein had a residence in New York and traveled to other jurisdictions, correct?

    And you knew that it was conceivable that there could be an investigation of whether he committed federal crimes in other districts, correct?

    /3 And, in fact, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Epstein's attorneys were vigorously demanding a non-prosecution deal that would cover any federal prosecution in any federal district in the United States, correct?

    /4 They were elite, experienced lawyers, correct?

    And they knew -- as any competent attorney would -- that Mr. Epstein faced exposure in other districts if he conducted the alleged activities in those districts, right?

    /5 So you knew, when you approved this non-prosecution agreement, that someday Mr. Epstein's lawyers might be arguing that it barred prosecution in another district, correct?

    In light of that, let's look at the agreement, shall we?

    /6 Now, you're very familiar with the sorts of agreements that the U.S. Attorney's Office makes with defendants, right?

    You'd agree with me that federal prosecutors take great pains to be very specific and explicit, and not ambiguous, in their agreements with defendants?

    /7 Do you view this non-prosecution agreement as specific and not ambiguous, Mr. Secretary?

    /8 I ask because of some of the terms of the agreement you approved seem to lend themselves to an argument by Mr. Epstein -- perhaps not a strong one, but an argument -- that the agreement is ambiguous about whether it applies outside your district.

    /9 For instance, the agreement says that Epstein is seeking to "resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability" without defining that, and speaks generally about the "interests of the United States" without limitation.

    /10 Now, the agreement also says that "prosecution in this district" will be deferred, and elsewhere it says that the Southern District of Florida is deferring prosecution, which probably mean that SDNY will prevail on this argument.

    /11 But on the other hand, the agreement says that the U.S. Attorney's office and the FBI have investigated "any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States," without limitation by district.

    /12 Moreover, Mr. Secretary, the agreement contains a general promise by the United States -- not limited by district -- not to prosecute Mr. Epstein's co-conspirators.

    /13 Mr. Secretary, why doesn't the agreement have standard language specifically stating that it only binds the office offering it?

    Why doesn't it have other language limiting what "global" means and specifying that it does not bind other districts?

    /14 You would agree, Mr. Secretary, that you were competent and knew what you were doing at the time, correct?

    And the defense was competent and knew what it was doing at the time?

    In light of that, this level of ambiguity was intentional, correct?

    /15 You'd agree with me that you did not take any of the steps required by the U.S. Attorney's Manual to secure the approval of other districts to bind them, correct?

    So you did not have the right to offer an agreement that bound other districts to non-prosecution, right?

    /16 Mr. Secretary, if you knew that Mr. Epstein's lawyers wanted a nationwide deal, and knew that he might use this agreement as a defense to prosecution elsewhere someday, why does this agreement have the ambiguities I've outlined above?

    /17 I will return, sir, with further questions.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

  4. #259

    Re: The World of Entertainment

    More on how Epstein scam could've worked.

    4 days ago

    So, apologies in advance, but I want to do a quick little THREAD to explain my theory of what the Epstein story really is. I promise this isn't some crazy Pizzagate conspiracy about space lizards, just a neat little explanation that IMO perfectly fits the known facts (0/13):

    (1/13) Let's take as our starting points two givens.
    (A.) You are a committed, unrepentant pedophile
    (B.) Because of your old job in private banking, you are very connected to lots of very, very wealthy people
    We'll also assume a goal:
    (Z.) You want to become very rich

    (2/13) The obvious route is, well, obvious: you could just be a pimp, offering underage prostitute services to very rich people. This has two problems: you're very disposable (see: DC madam), and it's also not super lucrative. You can't charge millions of dollars up front.

    (3/13) The second level though follows instantly: You don't need to charge up front, just get them to have underage sex, and then blackmail them afterwards for hush money. Better ROI, but you're still a liability, and producing and receiving big bribe money raises big questions.

    (4/13) So, what to do? Well, the second idea has some merits. First, you need to recruit people in. Have lots of massive parties at your spacious home (check), invite top academics, artists, politicians to encourage people to come (check), and supply lots of young women (check)

    (5/13) You don't even have to do anything, and most people invited might even be totally unaware of the real purpose of the parties! But, sooner or later, some billionaire will get handsy, she'll escort him to a room with a hidden camera, things happen. Morning after, you strike.

    (6/13) You inform him she was really 15, but you offer him a nice, neat way to buy your silence: a large allocation to your hedge fund, which charges 2/20 (check). To ensure nobody else asks questions, you also take the extraordinary step of demanding power of attorney (check)

    (7/13) The fund is offshore in a tax haven (check) and nobody will see the client list (check). Of course, you don't really know anything about investing, instead making up some nonsense about currency trading (check), and nobody on Wall Street has ever traded with you (check)

    (8/13) The fund itself doesn't need investment personnel (check), only some back office people to process the wires (check). You don't want to money from non-pedophiles, or they'll notice you've just put it in a S&P 500 fund, so you reject all incoming inquiries (check)

    (9/13) A $20 million wire from Billionaire X to you with no obvious reason will raise many questions, and the IRS will certainly want to know what you did to warrant it. A $5 million quarterly fee for managing $1 billion in assets? Nobody bats an eye.

    (10/13) Because of this structure, you're extraordinarily secretive about client lists (check) because they aren't clients, they're pedophiles paying you bribes, and they also are very secretive, which is why no letters or return streams ever leak (check)

    (11/13) Occasionally you may also try this trick on other people: important political figures, mayors, prosecutors, etc. They don't invest in the fund, but it's nice to have them in your pocket. Others (academics, artists, etc.) can just be bought with money as a PR smokescreen.

    (12/13) And, of course, the scam can be kept going as long as people are willing to pay, which is forever. If you're ever caught, just lean on some of your other friends in government to lean on the prosecutor to get you a sweetheart deal. There's almost zero risk.

    (13/13) And the last piece of the puzzle is the evidence. You'd want it somewhere remote, but accessible: a place the US can't touch but you have an excuse to visit all the time to update. Remember that offshore fund?

    I bet there's a *very* interesting safe deposit box there.

    Two small points of clarification:
    1. This scheme works just as well if the billionaires are in on it from the getgo as a way to buy sex; I assumed that was obvious but I guess not.
    2. There’s no need to invoke the Mafia/Russia/Mossad/CIA/etc, that’s just needlessly overfitting.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

  5. #260

    Re: The Manafort/Stone/Epstein Trials & Scandals

    Jeffrey Epstein Registered as a Sex Offender in 2 States. In New Mexico, He Didn’t Have To.

    By Simon Romero and Nicholas Kulish
    July 11, 2019

    STANLEY, N.M. — Jeffrey Epstein, the New York financier, managed to evade federal prosecution a decade ago in a Florida sex case involving dozens of teenage girls, in part by agreeing to register as a sex offender. But for a man with many residences, and many high-powered lawyers, registering as a sex offender was not the blanket penalty it might seem.

    He did register in Florida, where he pleaded guilty to two state felony charges. But in New York, where he owns one of Manhattan’s most expensive mansions, he managed to avoid check-ins with the authorities by changing his official residence to the Virgin Islands. And in New Mexico, where he owned a palatial residence south of Santa Fe, he was able to avoid inclusion in the state’s registry entirely.

    That state’s relatively cursory investigation took into account only a police report which indicated, the authorities said, that the underage victim in the case to which Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty in 2010 was 17 — the age of consent in New Mexico — though the girl whose report launched the investigation against him was just 14.

    The nearly decade-long, multi-jurisdiction case against Mr. Epstein highlights the complexities in one of the signature federal laws to come out of a series of horrific child rapes and murders in the 1980s and 1990s — a 1994 federal statute that requires all 50 states to implement sex offender registries and, separately, adopt some form of community reporting on the whereabouts of those who have committed serious sex crimes.

    How to implement those registries has been left to each state, whose requirements for sex offenders — and even which lawbreakers are considered eligible for sex offender registries — vary considerably. States may require registration for just a few years or for life. Some offenders are required to check in every few days if they are homeless, while others must verify their information only twice a year. Failure to comply can be a felony.

    “These cost a lot of money and they’re not working for the most part,” said Elizabeth L. Jeglic, a professor of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice who specializes in sexual violence prevention and has studied sex offender registries. “It would make everything easier if everything were standardized and the same laws were applied everywhere.”

    Florida’s law states that sex offenders cannot live near or work in schools or other places where children congregate. Residency requirements are so strict there that at one point, the only place sex offenders could live in Miami was under a bridge. Earlier this year, a federal judge struck down part of Alabama’s law that required those on the registry to carry driver’s licenses or other ID identifying them as sex offenders.

    Other states have tried to make the laws more flexible in recent years. In 2016, Arizona passed a “Romeo and Juliet” exception allowing young people who had relationships with younger people to petition to get off the registry. California recently passed a law that would begin to loosen the registration requirement for some offenders, who right now are required to register for life.

    New Mexico’s law is one of the more lenient, with no limits on where offenders can live or what jobs they can hold. Offenders can be removed from the registry in 10 years depending on the severity of their crime.

    The degree to which Mr. Epstein had to report to the authorities in that state could be important, since it has emerged that his sprawling Zorro Ranch may have been the site of other crimes.

    Earlier this year, Maria Farmer, another woman who has accused Mr. Epstein of sexual offenses, said in an affidavit that her sister, then 15 years old, was flown by Mr. Epstein to the ranch in New Mexico and was touched “inappropriately” on a massage table by him.

    This week, the New Mexico attorney general’s office said it has begun its own inquiry into potential crimes in New Mexico.

    “We have been in contact and interviewed multiple survivors of alleged abuse here in New Mexico,” Matt Baca, senior counsel for the attorney general’s office, said in an interview. “At this point it’s our intention to turn over evidence we’ve gathered from those interviews to the feds.”

    The fact that Mr. Epstein would be required to register as a sex offender has been a crucial point in Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta’s defense of his role in overseeing the agreement not to prosecute him on federal charges.

    But New Mexico authorities determined it would not be necessary in their state.

    In making its determination, the New Mexico Department of Public Safety sent Mr. Epstein a letter in 2010 informing him it had received notification from Florida authorities that he was a convicted sex offender and that he had to register with the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office. Mr. Epstein went with his lawyer to the office, where he initially registered as a sex offender, and notified the authorities whenever he was traveling to New Mexico.

    Deborah Anaya, a former detective with the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office, made an unannounced visit to Mr. Epstein’s ranch that August. She interviewed him as part of the office’s determination of his sex offender status. She described the estate as “very large, very secluded and very high-security.”

    In the questionnaire she completed on Mr. Epstein, she said that he was six feet tall and 180 pounds, with gray hair. She made note of his assets associated with the property, including vehicles such as a Hummer H2 and a Chevrolet Suburban, and aircraft including a Boeing 727, a Gulfstream private jet and two helicopters, a Bell 407 and a Sikorsky S-76.

    As he did elsewhere, Mr. Epstein sought connections and influence with the rich and powerful in this southwestern state. For years his presence in New Mexico has been intertwined with one of the state’s most powerful political families. He bought his property from the family of Bruce King, a three-time governor of the state who was also a successful rancher.

    Mr. Epstein built a 26,700-square-foot mansion on the property thought to be among the largest, if not the largest, in the entire state, equipped with a private runway and airplane hangar.

    “I’ve been to some large homes in the Santa Fe area and this was way beyond that,” Ms. Anaya, 40, said in an interview. She said Mr. Epstein boasted about his wealth and connections during the visit, mentioning his friendship with Prince Andrew and showing her a room in the mansion that he said was featured in a magazine.

    Less than a month after Ms. Anaya questioned Mr. Epstein at his ranch, the New Mexico Department of Public Safety sent another letter informing him that he was not required to register as a sex offender with the state.

    The determination was made by a team within the state’s sex offender registry unit, which “translated” Mr. Epstein’s offense in Florida into New Mexico law, which has different age requirements for registration depending on the specific offense, said Herman Lovato, a spokesman for the public safety department. For the offense to which Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty, procuring a minor for prostitution, state law provides that registration is required when the victim is 16 or younger.

    “It was determined at that time that because the victim was not under the age of 16, Mr. Epstein does not have a registration requirement in New Mexico,” Mr. Lovato said.

    But the age of the victim associated with Mr. Epstein’s guilty plea remains murky. To begin with, dozens of girls as young as 13 told the police they had been sexually abused by him. Mr. Lovato said a Florida police report listed the age of the victim as 17. But the state attorney’s office there has said that the girl was 16, and The Miami Herald reported that the obfuscation of her age was deliberate.

    Michael B. Edmondson, a spokesman for the current state’s attorney in Palm Beach County in Florida, said he could not provide the age of the victim or any details of the crime to which Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty.

    Court records are also strangely silent as to the victim’s age. In the deal Mr. Epstein struck with federal and local prosecutors, he agreed to plead guilty to only one count involving a minor: procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution. He also pleaded guilty to solicitation. The indictment did not specify the age of the victim, and her name appears to be redacted. At the plea hearing, Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo did not go over the specific circumstances of the cases.

    At one point, she asked, according to a transcript of the hearing, “Are there more than one victim?”

    The prosecutor answered, “There are several.”

    Spencer Kuvin, a lawyer who represented three of the girls, including the 14-year-old who he said was the first to come forward, said the hearing was highly unusual because it did not establish a factual basis for the guilty plea, and Mr. Epstein’s lawyers may have had leeway to select which victim — of which age — about whom their client made admissions.

    “His attorneys would have negotiated who they were going to pick that was in a list of girls that they had,” Mr. Kuvin said. “I would want to choose, if I represented someone like him, the oldest possible girl within the statutory framework, and that way he would be excluded from having to report in certain states.”

    The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., has come under renewed scrutiny after it emerged that his office argued before a judge to reduce Mr. Epstein’s sex offender status in New York from Level 3, the highest safety risk reserved for people considered likely to commit similar crimes again, to the lowest possible classification. A judge denied the request.

    The New York City Police Department on Thursday defended its handling of Mr. Epstein following a report in The New York Post that the agency failed to require him to show up for periodic check-ins required for sex offenders under the law.

    Dermot F. Shea, the chief of detectives, said on Twitter that Mr. Epstein registered as a sex offender in 2010 as required by law. But before he was to start checking in with the Police Department’s sex offender monitoring unit every 90 days, Mr. Epstein changed his residence to his Virgin Islands estate.

    A state judge had rejected the same residency argument from Mr. Epstein’s lawyer in January 2011 at a hearing to determine his sex offender classification. “He can give up his New York home if he does not want to come every 90 days,” Justice Ruth Pickholz said.

    Simon Romero reported from Stanley, N.M., and Nicholas Kulish from New York. Reporting was contributed by Shaila Dewan, Ashley Southall, Frances Robles and Mike Baker.

    A version of this article appears in print on July 12, 2019, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Sex Offender in 2 States, but Not in New Mexico.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

  6. #261

    Re: The Manafort/Stone/Epstein Trials & Scandals

    Glenn Kirschner

    First part:

    1. Acosta claimed he didn’t have enough evidence to charge Epstein. Let’s look at the non-prosecution agreement to see if that claim holds water: Acosta said he’ll “suspend” the ongoing grand jury investigation into Epstein’s crimes and will “hold in abeyance” any GJ subpoenas...

    2. that were previously issued. Now, grand jury subpoenas are only issued if they are expected to yield evidence relevant to the criminal investigation. So Acosta EXPRESSLY KILLED the ongoing GJ investigation and put the breaks on already issued GJ subpoenas. This is corrupt.

    Next chapter in “Know Your Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement”: Acosta agreed to keep the agreement hidden from the public and the victims, saying, “The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record.” But it gets worse because...

    2. Acosta agreed to tip-off Epstein’s lawyers if someone tries to make the agreement public, “If the United State receives a Freedom of Information request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement . . .
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

  7. #262

    Re: The Manafort/Stone/Epstein Trials & Scandals



    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

  8. #263

    Re: The Manafort/Stone/Epstein Trials & Scandals

    erica orden
    ‏Verified account

    SDNY says they learned today that Epstein had in a locked safe a foreign passport issued in the 1980s, expired, with a photo that appears to be Epstein and a name that is not his. It also gives his place of residence as Saudi Arabia.


    More southpaw Retweeted erica orden
    The government also said the safe was filled with piles of cash and diamonds. They haven’t counted the cash yet.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

  9. #264

    Re: The Manafort/Stone/Epstein Trials & Scandals

    Adam Klasfeld
    ‏Verified account

    Berman notes that defense claimed any danger Epstein posed to the community has "abated" or "evaporated."

    "You don't cite any case that says 14 years and it's over and it evaporates," he says.

    The idea that he will abandon "his 14 years of self-discipline," he doesn't think the govt can carry that burden and that weight, the defense attorney says.

    Berman invokes studies about recidivism that measure recidivism beyond 10, or 14, or 15 years.

    Recidivism actually goes up after 15 years, and it's higher than after five years, according to this study Berman's citing.

    Plus, Berman notes, victims don't always come forward and so a lot of these cases not reported.

    Note: Judge Berman is a licensed clinical social worker.

    Interesting fact: The National Association of Social Workers bestowed Judge Berman with a leadership service award in late March.

    Another profile of mine goes into that.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

  10. #265

    Re: The Manafort/Stone/Epstein Trials & Scandals

    Adam Klasfeld
    ‏Verified account

    Epstein's counsel on the suspicious payments after the publication of "Perversion of Justice": "The payment of an employee and the payment of a friend is not 'witness tampering' because the @MiamiHerald wrote an article."

    (Judge) Berman: "Respectfully, I don't think the financial summary" is sufficient. "For one it's an unverified... un-audited, and not very detailed either."

    "It seems to me there has to be a fuller financial picture to know what would be appropriate."

    Epstein's counsel called the bail submissions "admittedly rough," but his client would agree to any bond to "virtually guarantee" his appearance.

    "He would sign any bond and give your honor and U.S. District Court clerk with any collateral" the court orders.

    Arguing against publishing a summary of Epstein's finances, Weinberg says: "We are facing a trial someday."

    "Every fact that is generated by this proceeding becomes the basis of a... series of articles," he adds.

    Epstein's counsel praises his adversary at the prosecution table: "Mr. Rossmiller writes eloquently and speaks eloquently."

    But the counsel adds the SDNY kept a leash on other defendants out on bail: "Madoff was released on bail. He surrendered."

    Epstein's counsel turns to the private security question, referring obliquely to the case of Reza Zarrab, whom he notes--accurately--was arrested en route to Disney after landing in Miami.

    He notes that Berman rejected that bail package and he read the opinion.

    "We need him released, judge," the attorney says. "This is an enormously challenging case for defense counsel."

    Epstein's counsel says his client's in the SHU, aka isolation unit.

    Berman notes that many people in Rikers Island can't afford bail.

    "Everybody has the right to consult with counsel," Berman notes. "If that's the standard, what are we going to tell all those people can't make a $500 or $1,000 bail..."

    Epstein's counsel replies that most of them aren't facing such high-profile, well-resourced prosecutions.

    Note: Epstein is also prodigiously well-resourced, and gave only a glimpse of those resources in his bail memo.

    Rossmiller back up for the prosecution again, "briefly."

    Rossmiller's "lightning round":

    Responding to the question of Epstein's ability to prepare a case having access to counsel behind bars, the AUSA says: "This court has significant experience with that kind of case with a detained defendant with Zarrab."

    Rossmiller says that Epstein's asking for "special treatment" to be locked up in his "gilded cage," using the turn of phrase memorably coined in a headline by @BenWeiserNYT's story in the @NYTimes in the case of Reza Zarrab.

    Rossmiller on defense statute 1591 is "enslavement" & "pimping people out":

    "Your honor, it's underage girls that are involved in this case, and it's underage girls that are the victims," Rossmiller notes, emphasizing consent can't be an issue and saying elements of crime met.

    Rossmiller: "The idea that if there was misconduct it would have been charged" if it existed is "particularly rich in this case."

    There's plumes of smoke, and it's reasonable to assume there's fire, he adds.

    On Epstein counsel claiming their client had been "disciplining himself" since 2005, Rossmiller says: "The defendant keeps telling on himself here."

    It concedes predisposition.

    "Your honor this is the Southern District of New York," Rossmiller said, in what may be fairly read as a veiled dig at the Southern District of Florida.

    Epstein's counsel back up: There's an inherent contradiction between the government tying these two payments to witness as if this is akin to attempt to influence a witness, and his landing near NYC.

    "He was arrested flying into Teterboro from Europe," Weinberg says.

    David Boies, for the victims, gets "the last word," Berman says.

    �� Boies asks for one of the victims whom he represents to speak briefly. "Sure," Berman said, granting permission.

    Annie Farmer, one of Epstein's accusers: "I was 16-years-old when I had the misfortune to meet" Jeffrey Epstein, and she was flown into New Mexico.

    "His wealth, his privilege and the notoriety of the case would make it... more difficult," Farmer says, her voice cracking.

    Asked a question by Berman, Farmer said: "He was inappropriate with me and I would prefer not to go into the details about labeling that at this time."

    Another attorney is about to read a statement from a client.

    Courtney Wild (sp?, need to double check): "I was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein starting at the age of 14."

    Berman: Where did that occur?
    CW: In Palm Beach, Florida.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

  11. #266

    Re: The Manafort/Stone/Epstein Trials & Scandals

    More detail on Annie Farmer's comments and Courtney Wild's statement read by her lawyer:

    Inner City Press

    Now Annie Farmer tells court Epstein flew her to Mexico to "spend time with him there." Supports gov request that bail not be granted. Says it's MORE difficult to come forward because of notoriety of this case. Her voice is cracking. "He was inappropriate with me"

    Now lawyer for Courtney Wild, who sued US Attorney's office in Southern Florida over non-prosecution agreement - he says she has a particular interest in this #SDNY case

    Courtney Wild says she was sexual abused by Epstein from the age of 14, in Palm Beach says that Epstein not be released. "He's a scary person to have walking the streets." Berman: that concludes out work for today.


    The two victims who spoke in Epstein’s bail hearing, Annie Farmer and Courtney Wild, said they met Epstein when they were 16 and 14, respectively. Farmer said that Epstein flew her to Mexico.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

  12. #267

    Re: The Manafort/Stone/Epstein Trials & Scandals

    Emily Michot
    ‏Verified account

    David Boies and Brad Edwards speak to the media following the Epstein bond hearing which will be continued Thursday. Epstein victim Courtney Wild and victim Annie Farmer spoke to the court today about their abuse by Epstein. ⁦@jkbjournalist⁩

    The invitation by the judge, asking victims if they wanted to speak, stunned Epstein — and everyone in the courtroom even federal prosecutors.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

  13. #268

    Re: The Manafort/Stone/Epstein Trials & Scandals


    Judge Berman on his own motion just docketed the transcript of Epstein’s state sex offender hearing, where the Manhattan DA’s Office unaccountably took his side.

    Pretty extraordinary to see Jay Lefkowitz, who was well established as a big time Supreme Court advocate in 2011 (not to mention a former US envoy on human rights), appearing at this state sex offender registration hearing.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

  14. #269

    Re: The Manafort/Stone/Epstein Trials & Scandals


    Epstein’s financial summary, also docketed by Judge Berman.

    The defense said in a previous filing that Epstein still owned just one private plane after having sold another last month. The recent sale might help explain that huge cash number, but where’s the line item for the jet he still owns?

    In any event, by his own account, Jeffrey Epstein is not a billionaire and he’s not particularly close to being one.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb

Page 18 of 18 FirstFirst ... 81415161718


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts