A lawsuit by six Jeffrey Epstein victims against the USVI government is a scattershot mess of conclusory allegations that should be thrown out because the territory’s sovereign immunity bars the claims, and because the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim, among other reasons, the V.I. Attorney General’s Office said in its motion to dismiss the case filed on Wednesday.
The V.I. Justice Department was responding to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, filed May 10 in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, by the deadline set by presiding Judge Arun Subramanian. The lawsuit by Jane Does 1-6 alleges negligence and violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, claiming territory officials actively conspired with Epstein to perpetuate his sex-trafficking scheme for their own gain.
In short, the “allegations and lawsuit have no merit and should be dismissed,” the government said in its response on Wednesday.
A registered sex offender who pleaded guilty to procuring a minor for prostitution in Florida in 2008, Epstein died by apparent suicide in August 2019 at age 66 while in detention in New York on federal trafficking charges. His primary residence was Little St. James, his private island off St. Thomas where for years he ran a complex web of shell companies registered in the USVI — and afforded some $300 million in tax breaks through the territory’s Economic Development Commission — that enabled his crimes.
Also named in the complaint in both their professional and personal capacities are former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, former Senators Celestino White and Carlton Dowe, who now heads the V.I. Port Authority, former Attorney General Vincent Frazer, former Governors Kenneth Mapp and John de Jongh Jr., and V.I. Delegate to Congress Stacey Plaskett.
The suit also names John Does 1-100, who it claims were “employees of the USVI” but that, with the exception of nine unnamed VIPD officers, are described as working for air traffic control, customs, or the coast guard, which are federal roles.
All the named defendants have denied wrongdoing. Plaskett and the de Jonghs filed motions to dismiss the case by the court’s July 3 deadline. Both White and Dowe have asked to join the government’s case, citing difficulties finding counsel in New York. Frazer and Mapp were represented by the Justice Department until the second amended complaint redefined their roles in the alleged scheme as acting in both an official and private capacity. On Tuesday the government’s attorney, Motley Rice LLC, filed a motion to withdraw as their counsel because their alleged conduct extended beyond their time in office.
Complaint ‘Fails to State a Claim for Relief’
A central issue in the case is whether New York and the Manhattan federal court are the correct venue and jurisdiction for the complaint when the defendants are based in the USVI, their alleged crimes took place in the territory, and it cites only the most tenuous ties to Epstein’s business in New York, where he had a mansion and other properties. Moreover, the U.S. Virgin Islands is a sovereign entity and thus immune to the TVPA, RICO and negligence claims, the government said.
“Even if the Plaintiffs could surmount these jurisdictional hurdles, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief,” the motion states.
While the Justice Department is not representing the other defendants, it makes many of the same criticisms raised by them: the complaint is vague, overly long at 83 pages, and draws unsubstantiated conclusions, which makes defending against it difficult if not impossible.
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” the motion states, citing case law. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Moreover, the complaint leaves in place assertions that are demonstrably untrue, despite the opportunity to amend the original filing, the government said. That includes referring to the USVI as a “country” and ascribing it jurisdiction over federal operations.
For example, it alleges that “government officials” participated in Epstein’s sex-trafficking venture by securing visas and travel documents for his victims, or overlooking expired documents, but those are federal, not territorial functions, the motion states. It also does not plausibly allege that the plaintiffs even required visas or other travel documents to travel to a U.S. territory, because they were U.S. citizens arriving from New York.
Even if customs and other officials were employees of the V.I. government, the complaint fails to allege what laws they were supposed to but did not follow, the government said.
“Epstein traveled openly through USVI airports” and customs officials “never examined either the passports or luggage of anyone arriving on Epstein’s private jet” or mandated him “to enter through customs,” the complaint states, but as adult U.S. citizens he and the plaintiffs were not subject to such checks when entering the territory, the motion states.
The complaint then contradicts itself, stating that Epstein complained about a customs official who “caused him difficulty,” and that despite alleging officials never examined the passports of anyone arriving on his private jet, “Defendants secured visas so that Epstein could transport his victims into USVI,” the motion states.
To the extent the complaint alleges that Epstein should have been searched or investigated at USVI airports because he was a sex offender, it fails to cite any law authorizing such searches or investigations that were not followed, according to the motion. He was registered as a sex offender, per the V.I. Code, which required that his address be verified, and there are no allegations that the government failed to do that, it states.
The complaint also does not allege that the government received any reports of sex crimes involving Epstein, and even if it had, whether to investigate is largely at the government’s discretion, the motion states.
Further, as attorney general, Frazer was within the law to gather input on pending sex offender legislation, including from Epstein, and to reduce the 21-day notice requirement for his travel out of country, the motion states. Likewise, the claim that Cecile de Jongh helped Epstein obtain travel documents and visas for “minor women” from other countries does not allege it was for any of the plaintiffs, who would not require that assistance as adult U.S. citizens from New York, it says. Moreover, the complaint “also fails to allege that assistance with travel documents for adults is knowledge of a sex-trafficking venture.”
Even the most salacious claim against de Jongh, which she has asked to be stricken from the complaint — that she was aware of two sexual assaults by Epstein at his Red Hook office in the early 2000s when she was manager of his company — is conclusory and without merit because “knowledge of sexual assault is not knowledge of sex-trafficking” and the TVPA “does not impose liability for sexual assault,” the motion states.
There also is no evidence that the defendants formed a nexus in furtherance of Epstein’s scheme; in fact, some were political rivals, and did not know each other personally, according to the motion, which also seeks dismissal because the complaint was brought too late under V.I. tort law.
The plaintiffs have until Aug. 14 to file an omnibus opposition to the motions to dismiss. An initial pretrial conference is scheduled for Sept. 9.
