# EXHIBIT 19
who/article\_17b3cbbl-448b-52b4-al9a-d1 b62d7f44d6.html

# lawsuit against JP in Epstein case while ignoring local pols who benefited
f'clr 14 2023



Janelle Sarauw

Dear Editor,

In response to the Office of the Attorney General lawsuit against JP relative to the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, lawyers for the financial institution noted the following in their motion, on Feb. i, to dismiss:

"Indeed, as a law-enforcement agency, USVI had access to much more, along with the investigative advantage of physical proximity to Epstein's crimes. USVI did nothing to stop Epstein during this period, notwithstanding the fact that he registered with the USVI as a Tier sex offender. To the contrary, during the same period, USVI granted Epstein and his businesses lucrative privileges and massive tax incentives."

I couldn't agree more. Our government is filing claims against this financial institution while turning a blind eye to some local officials who may have personally benefited from Mr. Epstein. Let us put a few facts on the table: The chair of the Economic Development Authority (EDA) must sign off on all benefit documents. Who was the chair of the EDA at that time? Our present Governor was. After the chair signs the benefit document, it is forwarded to the governor for his signature. Who was the governor? Gov. John P. de Jongh Jr. Who was the EDC beneficiary? Southern Trust Co. owned by Mr. Epstein. And, who managed said company? The former first lady, Mrs. Cecile de Jongh.

If we are to dive deeper, there appears to be a conflict of interest. How could a governor, whose wife managed the operations of Southern Trust Co., sign the benefit document without that being a conflict of interest? By Gov. de Jongh signing such, it gives the appearance that he enriched himself.

Epstein has contributed to the political campaigns of various senatorial, gubernatorial, and congressional candidates within the local Democratic Party. His attorney and local base in the Virgin Islands were the ones holding major fundraisers for the incumbent. Unequivocally, a political culture was fostered within the local Democratic Party of the Virgin Islands that allowed Epstein to remain unchecked in exchange for his sponsorship and financial contributions. We must be honest about this discussion. This background calls into question the true reason Gov. Bryan fired his Attorney General. Government House has said that Bryan fired over concerns of inaction on local issues at the AG's office.

Bryan, in a recent interview with another publication, confirmed that was part of what led to her dismissal, while seeking distance from the Epstein saga.

"First and foremost, you know, I can't have an attorney general that's launching civil suits that I don't know about," the governor said in the article. "I personally, and I'm sure many other Virgin Islanders alike, don't like our name being associated with Jeffrey Epstein and child pornography. You know, why are we going down that rabbit hole? And the irony to me was, you know, four years ago everybody was scrambling not to have been on Jeffrey Epstein's receiving end of donations. Now we're suing him for the same dirty money. That seems a little awkward, right? I mean, that's inconsistent. And I just want to get us away from that. That's not the light we want to be seen in. If we never mention Jeffrey Epstein again, it would be good for me."

Bryan also said that he never met Epstein but acknowledged it was likely that some residents knew what was going on at Epstein's Little St. James private island estate.

Within our local political arena, we have turned a blind eye to Epstein because we, too, benefited from his sex-trafficking enterprise. To put it bluntly, the Virgin Islands of the United States aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein. That's without question.

— Janelle Sarauw, St. , is a former educator, senator and candidate for lieutenant governor.