NY - Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein arrested on sex trafficking charges, 6 July 2019

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding the Washington Post article and the agreement for Epstein to pay settlement to his victims and they release him from any responsibility. How would such an agreement protect him from being prosecuted for those crimes ? Isn't it the state or federal government that presses charges as a matter of law and public safety and the victims cannot sign away the government's right to prosecute and uphold the law ?
 

Great article- thanks for sharing- lots of interesting details direct from the Dalton newspapers, yearbooks, etc. Reporter made efforts to verify / vet info rather than just kind of repeat the historical info based on other articles.

** also - the portion of the transcript from the 2009 deposition - here's a snippet from it**

Q: Did you have any sexual contact with the girls that you were teaching at Dalton?
A: While I was a teacher?
Q: Well, let's start with that question, yes
A: Not that I remember

**
Article has lots of new details - thanks again
 
Last edited:
Regarding the Washington Post article and the agreement for Epstein to pay settlement to his victims and they release him from any responsibility. How would such an agreement protect him from being prosecuted for those crimes ? Isn't it the state or federal government that presses charges as a matter of law and public safety and the victims cannot sign away the government's right to prosecute and uphold the law ?
BBM

That’s a very good question that the government should answer.

According to the WaPo article, as part of the plea deal he agreed not to contest his victims’ lawsuits. In settling with the victims, they had to agree to give up their rights...but as the article says...

This is not exactly a bulletproof strategy. Just how much protection the settlements provide is up to the courts to say.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ac6bb02d01d_story.html?utm_term=.73d3947905ac
 
Regarding the Washington Post article and the agreement for Epstein to pay settlement to his victims and they release him from any responsibility. How would such an agreement protect him from being prosecuted for those crimes ? Isn't it the state or federal government that presses charges as a matter of law and public safety and the victims cannot sign away the government's right to prosecute and uphold the law ?

Any agreement would probably have a non-disclosure and a release of liability/hold harmless stipulation. IF there is an exchange of money (as in a car accident) then the person paid waives their rights to sue or go to court for further redress. Usually in high profile cases, there is a non-disclosure clause. These two pieces of protection are why many people accused of something will try to settle civilly before it ever goes to court. No one else knows and the paid-off person won't be able to testify or seek additional funds.

If a survivor signs an agreement like this, they would just have to refuse to testify or participate. Most LE organizations can't do much to compel a person to go outside of the four corners of the agreement they signed. Often the agreement is confidential so LE won't know why but could figure it out, I guess.

A Release of Liability, or ‘Hold Harmless Agreement‘, is a legal document that indemnifies an individual or business entity from legal and/or financial responsibility. Although, this is usually limited to negligence on behalf of the party being held harmless. If the release is being signed after the event took place, such as a car accident, the releasor may be paid money to sign such an agreement. Free Release of Liability (Hold Harmless Agreement) Template - Word | PDF | eForms – Free Fillable Forms
 
A political question, so according the TOS, we have to just imagine why. BTW, on another forum where the same issue of political discussion arose, I recommended following Websleuths. The best, both because the moderators vigorously review comments and because the members are familiar with the law, enforcement, forensics and the courts.

Respectfully, I don't see this as a political question. The top law enforcement officer in the country recuses himself from a case and then unrecuses. That's odd no matter what political side that official is on.

Since, as far as I know, there is not public information about the reasons for Barr's decision, I am not in any way trying to start a discussion about his motives, because that would consist solely of speculation and would no doubt turn into a political discussion.

However, I still think the question of why he did an about-face is a legitimate, non-political question.
 
Respectfully, I don't see this as a political question. The top law enforcement officer in the country recuses himself from a case and then unrecuses. That's odd no matter what political side that official is on.

Since, as far as I know, there is not public information about the reasons for Barr's decision, I am not in any way trying to start a discussion about his motives, because that would consist solely of speculation and would no doubt turn into a political discussion.

However, I still think the question of why he did an about-face is a legitimate, non-political question.

It is not unlike the situation with Smollett, when Kim Foxx, the district attorney for Chicago, recused herself from the case, then, ordered it dismissed, after the Grand jury decision came back with sixteen felony charges.
 
This explanation of why Acosta yielded to Epstein’s attorneys is too complicated for me to follow, but I’ll post it in case someone has the energy to untangle it for us. :confused:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...ac6bb02d01d_story.html?utm_term=.2c1b92d3a864

Earlier comments: Referring to the first time Acosta was questioned (years ago), Acosta's earlier statements were "about undue pressure from Epstein’s defense team. He also did not repeat (at the last press conference) earlier comments that fellow law enforcement officials recalled in which Acosta said the Epstein defense had effectively frustrated the prosecution by swamping his office with legal arguments and complaints to Justice Department headquarters in Washington.

News Conference claims:
Last week, Acosta, in a nationally televised news conference to explain his actions a decade ago, focused on his desire to assure that Epstein was convicted of a crime, punished with jail time and registered as a sex offender. (Referring back to the earlier statement)But in a 2011 letter explaining why he agreed to the non-prosecution deal, Acosta emphasized different reasons for his decision, focusing on “a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors” by “an army of legal superstars.”
 
Anyway, I think the ethical thing for Barr to do would be to recuse himself to avoid any possible appearance of bias. I think it's very strange that he did and then unrecused himself. I'd like to know why.


The Ties That Bind Jeffrey Epstein, William Barr & Donald Trump
SBM for focus. Barr recused himself from the original case that Acosta created because he had a relationship with one of the firms in the case (although he joined the firm after the fact, IIRC). However, he has been clear that he was not recusing himself from the SDNY case because he has no relation to the defense attorney and feels it is in his purview to oversee this case. Whether any of us agree or not won't matter.
 
Deleted repeat post.
 
Last edited:

From the linked article, a comment from a former student of Epstein's:

“I didn’t learn a whole lot. He didn’t take the classes very seriously,” said Cohn, who said Epstein seemed more concerned with having fun. She described him as someone who seemed like he had just walked off the movie “Saturday Night Fever” and was “a bit smarmy.”

Always a con man, a grifter.
 
SBM for focus. Barr recused himself from the original case that Acosta created because he had a relationship with one of the firms in the case (although he joined the firm after the fact, IIRC). However, he has been clear that he was not recusing himself from the SDNY case because he has no relation to the defense attorney and feels it is in his purview to oversee this case. Whether any of us agree or not won't matter.

Considering he was friends with Epstein, I'd say he has a major conflict of interest.
 
Considering he was friends with Epstein, I'd say he has a major conflict of interest.

I am trying to find MSM that says they are friends. (This has nothing to do with my feelings about Barr and if he should recuse from this new case.)

I did find this:
U.S. Attorney General William Barr
From Clinton To Trump: The Powerful Men In Jeffrey Epstein's Orbit
U.S. Attorney General William Barr served as counsel for the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, which was part of Epstein's legal team in 2007 and helped him obtain his plea deal. Barr is not recusing himself from the current case against Epstein, but he "has been and will remain recused from any retrospective review of the resolution of the earlier case in Florida," according to CNN reporting.

Accused Sex Trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s Political Connections: A Guide :
Attorney General Bill Barr and Epstein go way back: back in the early 1970s, Barr’s father hired Epstein to work as a physics and math teacher at the elite Manhattan private school Dalton, despite the fact that Epstein did not have a college degree. Following Epstein’s arrest, former FBI assistant director Frank Figliuzzi hinted that Barr could “attempt to interfere” with the prosecution of the case, though this would be unlikely given the “obvious” link between the two men. During his confirmation hearings, Barr himself said he would likely recuse himself from any involvement with the Epstein case, as he previously served as counsel for the law firm Kirkland and Ellis, which also represented Epstein in negotiating the terms of his 2007 plea agreement. But in an essay for the Daily Beast, former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah expressed concern that Barr wouldn’t keep his word in this regard: “while it pains me to say this, given Barr’s conduct in the past acting more as a defense attorney for Trump than an overseer of justice, I am concerned that Barr might interfere if he thought that Epstein might implicate Trump, who was friends with Epstein,” she wrote.
 
Last edited:
I am trying to find MSM that says they are friends.

I did find this:
U.S. Attorney General William Barr
From Clinton To Trump: The Powerful Men In Jeffrey Epstein's Orbit
U.S. Attorney General William Barr served as counsel for the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, which was part of Epstein's legal team in 2007 and helped him obtain his plea deal. Barr is not recusing himself from the current case against Epstein, but he "has been and will remain recused from any retrospective review of the resolution of the earlier case in Florida," according to CNN reporting.

Accused Sex Trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s Political Connections: A Guide :
Attorney General Bill Barr and Epstein go way back: back in the early 1970s, Barr’s father hired Epstein to work as a physics and math teacher at the elite Manhattan private school Dalton, despite the fact that Epstein did not have a college degree. Following Epstein’s arrest, former FBI assistant director Frank Figliuzzi hinted that Barr could “attempt to interfere” with the prosecution of the case, though this would be unlikely given the “obvious” link between the two men. During his confirmation hearings, Barr himself said he would likely recuse himself from any involvement with the Epstein case, as he previously served as counsel for the law firm Kirkland and Ellis, which also represented Epstein in negotiating the terms of his 2007 plea agreement. But in an essay for the Daily Beast, former federal prosecutor Mimi Rocah expressed concern that Barr wouldn’t keep his word in this regard: “while it pains me to say this, given Barr’s conduct in the past acting more as a defense attorney for Trump than an overseer of justice, I am concerned that Barr might interfere if he thought that Epstein might implicate Trump, who was friends with Epstein,” she wrote.

I can’t decide whether to sit on my hands or start passing out bags of popcorn.
 
Epstein donated the $15,000 gift to the prestigious Hewitt School on East 75th Street in 2016 — years after he pleaded guilty to in 2008 to soliciting a minor for prostitution, The Associated Press reported.
In other donations, Epstein doled out $35,000 to the Junior Tennis Champions Center in Maryland and $25,000 to the Ecole du Bel-Air grade school in Haiti.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/13/jeffr...-to-ues-all-girls-school-blocks-from-mansion/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
58
Guests online
1,711
Total visitors
1,769

Forum statistics

Threads
605,337
Messages
18,185,845
Members
233,318
Latest member
AR Sleuth
Back
Top