Episode Details

Attorneys representing six Jane Doe plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the United States Virgin Islands government and several former and current territorial officials filed a memorandum on May 8, 2024, seeking permission to amend their complaint and obtain additional evidence concerning the defendants' alleged involvement in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operation. The lawsuit named prominent Virgin Islands political figures, including former Governors John de Jongh and Kenneth Mapp, former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, Delegate Stacey Plaskett, and several other officials. The survivors alleged that these individuals and the territorial government helped facilitate or protect Epstein's criminal enterprise and argued that critical evidence supporting their claims remained concealed behind extensive confidentiality agreements and protective orders established during the Virgin Islands' earlier litigation against JPMorgan Chase. Their attorneys pointed specifically to heavily redacted deposition transcripts, undisclosed banking records, incomplete flight logs, and sealed court documents that they believed could establish the defendants' connections to Epstein's activities. One particularly striking example involved Plaskett's deposition, of which the attorneys said only 26 of 313 pages were publicly available. The plaintiffs also cited JPMorgan's earlier legal defenses, which alleged complicity by the Virgin Islands government in Epstein's activities, as a basis for further investigating the territory's role. They maintained that the defendants were effectively attempting to defeat the lawsuit by withholding access to the very evidence necessary to establish their alleged wrongdoing.

The survivors asked the federal court in Manhattan to allow a second amended complaint that would address deficiencies identified in four motions to dismiss while introducing additional allegations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO. Their attorneys argued that the amendment was justified because the lawsuit remained in its early stages, discovery had not begun, and permitting the revised allegations would not unfairly prejudice the defendants. Alternatively, they requested limited discovery focused on establishing personal jurisdiction and proper venue in New York, including records showing whether the defendants conducted business with Epstein or his companies, visited him in New York to obtain financial support, or maintained property interests in the state. The plaintiffs emphasized that much of this information was exclusively controlled by the defendants or remained inaccessible because of confidentiality protections imposed during the JPMorgan litigation. They also explained that they had sought permission to intervene in the earlier Virgin Islands lawsuit to obtain access to protected evidence under the same confidentiality restrictions. Their central argument was that survivors should not be prevented from pursuing accountability simply because documents potentially establishing the defendants' involvement were unavailable to them. The filing asked the judge to permit the amended complaint or authorize targeted discovery rather than dismiss the case before the plaintiffs could obtain potentially relevant evidence. These were allegations and legal arguments advanced by the survivors, not judicial findings that the named officials had participated in Epstein's crimes.


to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.1.pdf