Epstein Secrets

the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over this person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives

gerated claims once they are inlbnned of Mr. Epstein's waiver under Section 2255 for the settlement of claims pursuant to the Agreement. Indeed, Mr. Whitley states. " . . .the Department [of Justice] should consider developing processes and procedures to ensure that the investigative process is insulate

any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), septa. elects In file suit pursuant to It § 2255. Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court fur the Southern District of Florida over this person and'or the subject matter. and Epstein waives his right In coolest liability and also waives

vement The inclusion of Section 2255. a purely civil remedy. raises the risk of excessive government interference in private, civil matters. As Mr. Whitley states in his opinion. . .tninectmary entanglement of the government in such cases and the use of federal resources could improperly influence suc

the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives h

e Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with

ed victims, which will not exceed forty. alter Epstein has signed this agreement and has been sentenced. The United States shall make a motion with the United States District Court lbr the Southern District of Florida fur the appointment of a guardian ud !item for the identified victims and Epstein 's counsel may contact the '

ent • The inclusion or Section 2255. a purely civil remedy. raises the risk of excessive government interference in private, civil matters. As Mr. Whitley states in his ;minion. . . .unnecessary entanglement of the government in such cases and the use of federal resources could improperly influence s

the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives h

e Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with

he individuals referred to [in the paragraphs above] elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives h

r concerns on this matter. I respectfully request that you consider the issues I discuss below in conjunction with the ethics opinion of Mr. Joe I). Whitley that I faxed to your Office on December 7. Background of Negotiations believe it is important for you to be aware of the full scope and substance

No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-013348 EFTA00230253 Jay P. LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. NOVEMBER 30, 2007 PAGE 6 OF 7 Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability up to an amount a

e Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with