Law&Crime Sidebar - Was Jeffrey Epstein a CIA Spy? Vanessa Bryant Hires Johnny Depp Expert

Episode Date: August 2, 2022

Was Jeffrey Epstein a government agent? but is there any truth to that? Former FBI counter intelligence assistant director Frank Figliuzzi responds to Joe Rogan's new claim! Vanessa Bryant hires a key expert from the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial in her lawsuit against L.A. County. Reporter Meghann Cuniff breaks it down. Netflix is going after the creators of the unofficial Bridgerton Musical and it’s getting nasty. Entertainment Attorney Jonathan Handle joins to discuss if Netflix has a case.SUPPORT THE SHOW: Get 10% OFF your first month of online therapy with BetterHelp at https://www.betterhelp.com/sidebar/ GUESTS:Frank Figliuzzi, Former FBI Assistant DirectorMeghann Cuniff, Law&Crime Senior West Coast ReporterJonathan Handle, Entertainment AttorneyLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieObjectionsThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. It was an intelligence operation. Whoever was running it, whether it was the Massad, or whether it was a CIA, or whether it was a combination of both. It was an intelligence operation. Joe Rogan claims Jeffrey Epstein was a government agent, but is there any truth to that? Counterintelligence expert Frank Fugluse explains. Plus, Vanessa Bryant hires a key expert from the Johnny Depp Amber Hurd trial in her lawsuit

against L.A. County. Reporter Megan Cuniff breaks it down. And Netflix is going after the graders of the unofficial Bridgeton musical, and it is getting nasty. Entertainment attorney Jonathan Handel joins the discuss if Netflix has a case. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Well, Joe Rogan has made many claims on his podcast, the Joe Rogan experience, but now he is making headlines for a brand new one. In an episode with comedian Whitney Cummings, he claims that deceased financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was a CIA or Mossad agent trying to compromise high-level assets.

Rogan was explaining how Epstein donated money to science, but how a scientist once told him that Epstein really didn't donate that much or attend any meetings. And then he speculated that maybe it was part of an intelligence operation where they would bring people to parties and try to get dirt on them. And then when they would compromise them, they would use whatever they had on them to influence their opinions and the way they expressed those opinions. Now I get it. This might seem a bit outlandish, but could it be true in any way? Well, I'm joined right now, and somebody who can make sense of this, by Frank Flauguzzi,

former assistant director of counterintelligence at the FBI and author of the FBI way. Frank, great to have you on here and great to see you again. Oh, thanks for having me. It's a fascinating topic. I'm not sure we're going to solve any questions today, but it's worth talking about it. Well, let's try to get to the bottom of it. Is there any way that this would make sense that Jeffrey Epstein would be in a position to bring people to these compromising parties with underage girls in order to get dirt on them, particularly in the area of science and research, walk me through it? So the short answer is, yes, it might make sense. Why do I say that? Well, first, let's get it out front that there's no hard evidence developed at all yet,

nor do I necessarily think it will ever be clear as to whether or not Epstein or his partner, Galane Maxwell, were both or separately involved with foreign intelligence or domestic intelligence services. But the short answer is, yes, why? Because what's intelligence operation about? Intelligence collection is about getting next to people with influence and access, perhaps even compromising people in positions of power so that you get what you want from them. The mystery here is in large part where Epstein got his money from. We keep hearing how wealthy he was. But as you scratch that more deeply, you can't really ever get to the origins of his money.

Lots of it likely unlawful, right? The result, the proceeds of criminal activity, scams, con artists. And what are con artists and scam artists about proving they have access to important people, throwing names around? So they build trust with you. You feel comfortable investing in them. So this whole part of conning is to get pictures of yourself next to really important people so you can perpetuate the con on them and with others. And would foreign intelligence services look at that kind of guy and go, wow, there's a lot of photos with him with important people.

Boy, he has access to important people. And comma, we think he's compromising important people. Would intelligence services be interested in that kind of scenario? Yes, they would. This podcast is sponsored by Better Help. I'm not the first to tell you that life is tough, right? With work, family, relationships, the news, it can get incredibly overwhelming. And sometimes you just need to speak to somebody.

You just need to talk to somebody. And truth be told, if you want to be successful, if you want to be happy, the first thing that you have to do is look out for yourself and take care of yourself and invest in yourself. And that's what Better Help is here to do. What they do is they connect you with a, licensed professional therapist within 48 hours. And after that, you can message this therapist, set up video sessions, phone sessions if you don't want to be on camera. And you know what else?

It's actually more affordable than traditional offline therapy sessions. And they even provide financial aid as well. In fact, so many people have been using BetterHelp that they're recruiting additional therapists in all 50 states. And right now, they have a special offer for our listeners. You can get 10% off of your first month at betterhelp.com slash sidebar. That's 10% off your first month of online therapy at betterhelp.com slash sidebar. And I guess the question is, and look, everybody knows that the circumstances of his death have driven a number of different conspiracy theories. So obviously people have thoughts on it. But just to go back to Joe Rogan, he said, again, focusing on the area of science, he said,

quote, like if you have a research grant and say like you're working on a cure for leukemia or something like that, you know, you find established scientists that are working on this thing, and then you allocate money so that they can work on projects, whether or not the person who don't donate the money has any influence on how the money is spent. I doubt it. I hardly doubt I don't. I don't think legitimate scientists would adhere to that. I think what he's trying to say is could there be a position where you want to dictate where this research and this science goes? I mean, his number one question was, why would EPSS? be involved in the science department.

Yeah. Now, what the story we've been given, which is probably true, is that the guy had a real interest in scientific research. It was a hobby of his. Fantastic. But let's get back to the root of intelligence. What is intelligence? It's actionable information of value.

Well, is science and scientific research actionable information of value to foreign intelligence services, who, by the way, on a daily basis, try to figure out what Western. science is up to? What's the latest development in this race for a cure, in this research, in this theorizing? So again, would a foreign intelligence service want somebody to get next to scientists who are on the cutting edge of things and provide information on the status of their research? That's where I'm coming at it from, is access to scientists pretending or giving some money for grants gets you the kind of information you need that foreign intelligence services would want to know.

And I guess the question also is about Galane Maxwell, her father, right, you know, there was always these questions about what his involvement was in intelligence operations or the government. And so do you see it a little differently for her? Again, we're speculating here, conspiracy, but it's an interesting conversation. Is there a possibility that she was more connected to this and brought Epstein in? Is there any distinction between the two of them? Well, I think it may be a distinction without a difference.

I think sometimes the media focuses too much on Epstein and not enough on Galane Maxwell and her background. There has been some reporting of her family, particularly her father's connections to both foreign intelligence services, including possibly the French or the Israelis, and even organized crime figures. Would all of those entities potentially want to compromise people in positions of power and influence? Of course they would. So we may never get to the answer, but while it's tempting to outright dismiss Joe Rogan's kind of conjecture and definitive statements, I have to tell you that the trappings of an intelligence operation, the attractiveness of a Maxwell and an Epstein to foreign intelligence services is present. And it would be nice to get to the bottom of that. Do I think that's going to happen, particularly where intelligence services don't want

that to happen? Probably not. All right. Frank Faguzi, thank you so much. Excellent analysis and conversation as always. Thank you so much. Thank you. He did not follow those guidelines. So, for example, he did not have consent. He did not do even a basic evaluation of Mr. Depp. When he gave his opinions, as I just mentioned, he said they were opinions that he had to a degree of medical certainty, and he did not make any statements about what other additional information he would have wanted to make that opinion. So, for example, when asked about should neuropsychological testing be performed, he said most patients don't have access to that, which is actually not at all true.

I mean, every medical school has neuropsychologists that can do testing. So I think that was an unfortunate statement. That's psychiatrist Dr. Richard Shaw. Now, he may be familiar to many of you, as he testified in the Johnny Depp Amber Hurd defamation trial. He was called to rebut the testimony of Amber Heard's expert, Dr. David Spiegel, who claimed that Depp's alcohol and drug abuse impaired his cognitive processing speeds, but Dr. Shaw said that Dr. Spiegel violated ethical principles that it was improper for him to express an opinion about someone without,

personally evaluating him. He was an important witness. And look, at the end of the day, an argument could be made that with Depp winning his defamation case across the board against Amber Heard, he may have played a significant role in their case. And at the very least, he made the news. Well, maybe that is why Vanessa Bryant's legal team has now retained Dr. Shaw in her lawsuit against Los Angeles County. You recall that Bryant has sued Los Angeles County over photos that were taken in the aftermath of the January 2020 helicopter crash that claimed the lives of multiple people, including her husband, NBA star Kobe Bryant, and her daughter, Gianna Bryant.

Joining Bryant's lawsuit is Christopher Chester, whose wife Sarah died as well. So the question is, what is Dr. Richard Shaw going to contribute to Brian's case? Well, I'm joined right now by reporter Megan Cuniff, who wrote a great piece on this on law and crime.com. Megan, great to have you here on Sidebar. Thanks for having me. So you tell us why has Vanessa Bryant's legal team retained Dr. Shaw? Well, while Vanessa Bryant's lawsuit is quite different than the Johnny Depp Amber Hurd case,

what Dr. Shaw will be testifying to in Bryant's case is really quite similar to what he testified to in the Depp case, in that he's going to be a pining about a psychiatrist who evaluated somebody with, actually personally interviewing them. The L.A. County had enlisted their own psychiatrist who interviewed Brian and wrote a pretty comprehensive report saying that she couldn't actually be suffering emotional damages from the threat of these photos or these photos that really her emotional distress was caused by the crash and the loss of her husband and daughter. the testimony, the rebuttal testimony offered by Dr. Shaw here is going to be the same thing he offered in the Depp trial where he says that a psychiatrist who evaluates somebody without actually

personally interviewing them is violating what's called the Goldwater rule of psychiatric ethical principles. It really does sound to be quite a similar topic to what we heard in depth. And what do we know about the expert that he's going to rebut how this person actually based his conclusion on of Vanessa Bryant's emotional distress. Yeah, the doctor is Mark Cohen. He's a psychiatrist, respected professor out of UCLA,

and the judge in the case was actually asked by Bryant to eliminate his testimony. She didn't even want him on the stand at all. The judge said that wasn't appropriate that he had followed all appropriate measures for evaluating somebody. He had reviewed 8,000 pages.

The judge really went over all the work that Dr. Cohen did in these evaluations and said that Dr. Cohen was pretty up front in his report that he didn't actually personally meet with Vanessa Bryant. And the judge even said that he used the word ammunition. He said that that will be good ammunition on cross-exam. But one of his remedies for this was also to allow Bryant to call a rebuttal witness. And that's what brings in Dr. Shaw here. And tell me, do you feel that it's because of how he testified in the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial, why he's being retained here. It was a question that we've always had during the course of these very big high-profile

trials that it's almost an audition for these experts in a way, right? Because they are testifying about a very important subject matter with the world watching. And if they testify in a way that is particularly beneficial to that side, they might be retained in the future for another high-profile case. So do you think how he testified and the impact he might have had in the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trial is why he's now being called by Vanessa Bryant. Yeah, I think that's a good way to look at it. It's hard to say for sure.

One thing to consider is that the Goldwater rule is kind of a narrow area of expertise. So it might be that, you know, there are a limited number of experts in the country, but his time in the spotlight and especially his time in the depth trial had to have raised his profile and really put him on everyone's radar for sure. Yep. All right, Megan Kuna, thank you so much for coming on. I really appreciate it. And make sure to check out our article on longcrime.com.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Richard was a musical. What a beautiful beauty. I'm looking up at the ceiling of laws. The chandelier is so sparkly. To all of our fans of the Netflix show, Bridgerton, there is a major legal development happening right now. Netflix has filed a lawsuit against,

Abigail Barlow and Emily Baer. Now, you might be saying, who are they? Well, they are the creators of the unofficial Bridgetton musical. What started as a viral TikTok video has morphed into a Grammy award-winning album, merchandise, and planned live shows. And at this point, Netflix claims this is a blatant infringement of the company's intellectual property rights, but the question is, do they have a case? I'm joined once again by entertainment attorney Jonathan Handel. Jonathan, great to see you again. Jesse, good to be with you. Here's my complication with this.

I would say on the outset, wow, Netflix has a strong case, but when Barlow and Bear first released this album, Netflix kind of turned a blind eye. They said, look, we don't approve of this, but we're not going to stand in your way. It's in the spirit of their appreciation of the show. But now they're saying these two women have gone too far. Is it a little bit too little too late for Netflix? No, I don't think so. So, you know, Netflix really is alleging that the standem here has gotten a little bit too much to bear, so to speak.

And that's just not what copyright law will bear necessarily either. It's one thing to do an homage. It's one thing to be transformative. And that's what copyright law looks for. You can't simply take people's words, people's scenes, people's stories, and not be transformative. unless you have a license, of course. And Netflix, you know, the early fandom that these women showed, the TikTok video and stuff, Netflix, and also the author of the books on which Bridgerton

is based, were both very, you know, very pleased. But it has morphed into something that they claim is appropriation of the IP itself. And that becomes potentially more than copyright law will accept. I do find it interesting that apparently Netflix approached them and said we want to negotiate a license and Barlow and Bear turned it down. What does that tell you? Possible case of bad judgment or else a very strong feeling on the part of hopefully they were well advised by counsel, hopefully potentially a feeling on the part of counsel that they really were not appropriating existing IP. I mean, these cases become very fact-specific, you know, what are the lines, what are the scenes in the musical, you know, to what extent is this perhaps a parody of Bridgetton or is it, in fact, a Bridgerton-inspired derivative work? And that's not easy to evaluate without knowing details.

And just to clarify, is there a potential that they could have a defense here, that you said they transformed it in such a way? that it has become a parody, they have the ability to do this, or is it a little bit of a mixed bag? Sure, but they're also using certain marks. I think there was on a promotional image, they said that they were using the marks with permission when they weren't allowed, when they really didn't have the permission. Have they crossed a certain line that there is no defense? Well, it's hard to know.

And by marks, of course, I assume you mean trademarks as the lawyer's way of saying trademark and service market is marks and you know that adds potentially to the infringement here if you're taking both the copyrightable protected material the story the characters this kind of thing and not really transforming them but instead using them in your own story and then if you're also taking material that was trademark and trademark as you know the word Xerox, the word, you know, Google, whatever, those are trademarks, as opposed to, you know, a screenplay

is copyrighted. A movie is copyrighted, a TV series is copyrighted. But the name of the series can be trademarked as well. So it's a complicated melange of, you know, intellectual property rights. I think it's too early for me to declare one way or another, whether they've crossed a line that, you know, that there's no going back

over, you know, they have no defense or they do have a defense, but it's a very interesting case. And it's one that's, you know, doesn't look to be easy to resolve. If they were well advised by lawyers, then they, there may be a defense, you know, there. And it may be a butting of heads. And who knows how the jury and judge will decide. Well, yeah, real quick, I was curious how you think that this might ultimately resolve. Do you think that would be a settlement or, What's the worst case for Barlow and Bear? Is it that they're not only instructed by a court to not do anything further,

but could they have a payout? Could they have to pay Netflix a certain amount of money? They could. They could. I think a more likely outcome, certainly I would hope for a more likely outcome would be, you know, a settlement of some sort and perhaps a license, you know, unless there's a slam dunk here, it just, litigation in a way is a you know represents a failure of negotiation the litigation

process is so expensive it's uncertain it's it's not something I would recommend to people in general you know short of situations where someone has wronged you and you know simply won't you know stand up and and do something about that the legal fees are just so and the time and the emotion that goes into litigation is just so unpleasant. Yeah. All right. We'll see how it plays out. What started, you know, again, is a nice thing, is just morphed into a whole legal drama, a drama in and of itself.

Jonathan Handel, thank you so much. Appreciate it. Absolutely. And everyone out there, thanks for joining us here on Sidebar. Please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcast. Sidebar is produced by Sam Goldberg, YouTube manager, Robert Zoki, and Alyssa Fisher as our booking producer. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.