From left to right: Fired Attorney General Denise George, Jeffrey Epstein, and Governor Albert Bryan, Jr. Photo: VINO/File

Former Attorney General Denise George's recent deposition has provided a deep dive into Bryan's purported communications regarding Epstein, revealing pressure for certain waivers concerning his sex offender status.

Concurrently, the decisions made by past Attorney General Vincent Frazer have been scrutinized, questioning the motives and reasons behind the granting of these waivers to Epstein. Journalists have now turned their focus on the unsealed documents, unveiling a labyrinth of connections and implications.

Each exhibit adds some detail to the picture each side in the lawsuit is painting about the other. The legal team for the Virgin Islands has been promulgating the narrative of a bank that cared more about convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s monetary value than about ensuring their institution was not used to further Epstein’s criminal acts.

On the other hand, JPMorgan continues to argue that the legal power to identify and interrupt Epstein’s criminality rested with authorities in the USVI, who were largely compromised by a targeted influence campaign directed chiefly by former First Lady Cecile DeJongh. 

Depositions given last month by former Attorney General Denise George have recently come to light, lending more credence to those assertions. Over the course of two sessions, the attorney fired in December 2022 by Governor Albert Bryan said that the governor himself had asked her to consider Epstein’s request to waive certain requirements attached to his sex offender status. 

On July 17, as Ms. George sat for the first session in her deposition, she noted that Governor Bryan had contacted her directly to alert her to an incoming request from Jeffrey Epstein to waive some of the conditions of his sex offender registration.

“He just brought it to my attention that this is what Jeffrey Epstein wants, and … I can expect a call from his attorney,” the former attorney general testified. “He expressed his position but he…asked me to make a decision…but didn’t tell me what the decision was,” she continued.

Further questions about what the governor’s expressed position was were blunted by Attorney David Ackerman, one of the lead attorneys for the USVI, who raised executive privilege concerns. 

Ms. George recounted how, upon assuming office in 2019, she began looking into the “horrific” allegations that were swirling around what was going on at Little St. James, Epstein’s private island that had been by then nicknamed “Pedophile Island,” according to her.

“I inquired to see if there were any complaints that came in…I inquired to VIPD. I inquired our office to find out what, if any, complaints or anything came in to the office,” Ms. George said, as she expressed her discomfort with the nature of the allegations that were circulating.

“That’s the first thing that I did and found that there was…nothing. Everything I got back was that they didn’t have any record of anything,” Ms. George disclosed, noting that the lack of formal complaints either at the VI Department of Justice or the Police Department did not deter her from reading all the media reports about Epstein’s alleged activities to see if she could find an information source, or official complaints that was actionable.

However, once she figured out that there was a federal investigation likely being conducted, she backed off. “It pleased me to see that something was being done with [a] law enforcement organization that had the resources to be able to do it.”

Days later, during her second deposition session on July 20, Ms. George went into more detail about the communication between Governor Bryan and his newly appointed Attorney General. According to Ms. George, the governor informed her that Epstein wanted a waiver of his travel requirements and in her words, “encouraged me to meet with the attorneys to consider it.”

Ms. George explained that her predecessor, Acting Attorney General Carol Thomas-Jacobs, had essentially reversed the original waiver granted to Epstein by former Attorney General Vincent Frazer. Epstein, Ms. George explained, wanted “a reinstatement of the waiver that Attorney Vincent Frazer had entered years ago…and I suppose a revocation of what Thomas-Jacobs did.”

However, neither Thomas-Jacobs nor George felt that the request for a waiver was supported by a legitimate rationale. During the second deposition, Ms. George said that after looking at Epstein’s file, “based on what was in there, I saw nothing that convinced me that there was any reasonable or reliable proof….Nothing satisfied me…that would have warranted or justified any waiver.”

In her deposition, Ms. Thomas-Jacobs spoke about how she had reversed the decisions made by her predecessor Mr. Frazer. “Attorney General Frazer had granted Mr. Epstein a waiver of certain requirements….After I reviewed, I decided to modify that waiver…upon my review, I did not see anything in the file to support the waiver,” she noted, saying that she was “concerned” about the adequacy of the loosened requirements. Although the Attorney General does have the authority to modify or waive requirements for sex offenders, Ms. Thomas-Jacobs said that she was “surprised” by Mr. Frazer’s decision. “For me, the better course would have been to have him comply as strictly as possible to the statute,” she said.

During her session, Ms. George concluded that Epstein was “trying to use political influence that he may have had with the Governor in order to boost or help me to rule favorably….not every sexual offender or any person, you know, are in the the position to have the Governor make the request to the Attorney General rather than just coming and making it on their own directly.” 

That influence did not just result in one outreach from Governor Bryan. Ms. George disclosed that he contacted her a second time about Epstein’s request to waive reporting requirements connected to his travel. There was the “subsequent reminder coming from the Governor, not by Attorney Kellerhals and not by Jeffrey Epstein. But coming from the Governor to remind me that I have to make or I need to make a decision on Epstein.”

Those two interactions, said Ms. George, were proof that Epstein was “flexing his political influence over or with the Governor in an effort to get a favorable result.”

That effort, she declared, was doomed to fail. “My position was just to make sure that he knows that is not happening. I would not be a part of that,” she said.

In response to a question about whether she believed Governor Bryan acted improperly by making these overtures, Ms. George simply responded, “I do.” Asked to elaborate, she said that the outreach “did not sit right with me.”  Not only was Governor Bryan getting personally involved in a law enforcement matter, he was doing so “on behalf of a convicted sex offender…[a] child predator….that was definitely troubling to me.”

Ms. George said that she did not act upon Governor Bryan’s prompting, but waited until Epstein’s request came via the proper channels – his attorney – and then responded. She also responded to Governor Bryan, informing him of the laws surrounding the reporting requirements, and also that she would not be able to consider any waiver of those requirements without sufficient proof being provided of the necessity of the waiver. “I also indicated to him…the reason or the purpose behind the statute. And that it’s there to protect the community,” Ms. George said. “I felt that he needed an understanding as to the importance and the magnitude of that requirement.”

Governor Bryan responded to that missive by thanking her for her work on the matter, she noted, marking the end of their interactions over Jeffrey Epstein, until she was fired on New Year’s Eve.

Asked whether she believed that her position with respect to Epstein’s waiver request impacted her standing with the Governor, Ms. George responded, “It’s likely.”