ABOUT JUDGE ENGELMAYER’S ORDER TODAY REGARDING THE DOJ’S NOT MEETING THE DEADLINE TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES, AND NOT APPOINTING A SPECIAL MASTER
Sigh…I just *hate* it when the media starts spinning something and giving out misinformation, and the social media accounts start spinning something and giving out misinformation, and then folks come to me complaining about how such and such did this and that, when *no*, such and such did *not* do that, and that’s *not* what happened. (Don’t get me wrong, I *am* glad that people come to me to get the facts rather than just swallowing what is said in the news and on social media!)
Such is the case with Judge Engelmayer’s order today regarding the DOJ and their failure to release all of the Epstein files by the deadline.
“Why did the judge refuse to appoint a special master?” someone asked.
“Did the judge really say that only the Justice Department and Maxwell can make sure that the Epstein files are released?”
No. NO. *NO*!!!
Here are the facts and the truth (and Notes from the Front members, I’m including Judge Engelmayer’s *actual* opinion and order for you).
First, you need to get these facts straight in your head, because they are important:
The Epstein Files Transparency Act (“EFTA”) is a CIVIL LAW.
The case that Judge Engelmayer is overseeing is a CRIMINAL CASE.
(Do you see where this is going?)
On January 8th Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna wrote to Judge Engelmayer in his capacity as the Judge involved with the U.S. v. Maxwell CRIMINAL case (their letter also included for Notes from the Front members), requesting that the Court confer on them ‘Amicus Curiae’ (friend of the Court) status, and that the Court entertain their request that the Court appoint a special master to oversee the DOJ’s compliance with the EFTA. (Actually they jointly requested ‘Amici Curiae’ status, ‘Amicus Curiae’ is the singular.)
(A special master is essentially a professional appointed by the judge to help oversee various proceedings and to act as a referee for things that would otherwise require the Judge. They are typically appointed in complex and/or time-consuming litigation cases.)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Judge Engelmayer is overseeing that CRIMINAL case against Maxwell. Reps. Massie and Khanna were asking the Judge to appoint a special master in a CIVIL matter having nothing to do with the CRIMINAL case and – and this is important – to which the DOJ IS NOT A PARTY!
Of *course* Judge Engelmayer said the legal equivalent of “Not my table”. To do anything else would have been … well actually *he couldn’t do anything else*! He does not have jurisdiction over anyone or anything other than the parties to the case over which he is presiding!
Where apparently Reps. Massie and Khanna got confused, and where legal commentators got confused, is that there *was* a very small motion in U.S. v. Maxwell that touched on the EFTA and the DOJ, but in this completely unrelated way:
There were certain files that were filed *in the criminal U.S. v. Maxwell case* that the DOJ also has possession of and that are also responsive to the mandate of the EFTA. Those files were under a protective order *in the criminal case*. The DOJ asked Judge Engelmayer to remove the protective order *in the criminal case*, so that they could produce those same files as required by the EFTA.
Hopefully you can see that the act of removing a protective order in the criminal case is in *no way* touching the civil stuff.
Do you see that? Yes? Then you have done better than two United States Representatives, and hosts of news outlets, legal commentators, and social media accounts.
Notes from the Front members: Reps. Massie and Khanna’s letter to Judge Engelmayer, and Judge Engelmayer’s decision, are in your inbox.
To preserve original source documents before they can be tampered with (remember the 16 documents that mysteriously disappeared from the Epstein files?), and protect myself from claims of improper republication, and trolls, I don’t publicly share documents I find, I make them available privately to Notes from the Front members. Often these are non-public documents for which I have had to pay out of my own pocket in order to share them with you. Others of them may be public but I find the source originals for you and include explanations and insights based on my decades of law practice and as a law professor, with a side of snark. ;~)
You can join below for immediate access to this and other documents, the archives, our private chat, etc.. – it’s $5 a month which both keeps the trolls out, and helps to cover my expenses for our private dropbox, for purchasing transcripts and documents to share with you, etc..
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/about-judge-engelmayers-order-today
Source