Epstein Secrets

ein was taking I consistent position with the State Attorney's Office, Judge McSorley, and the USAO, so I asked for I copy of what was filed in the State Court. This led to multiple letters with counsel for Epstein before I could finalize the victim notification letters (Exhibits B-57 through B-65). On July

ctim notifications (and, later, I Declaration in the Jane Doe litigation) based upon this understanding. When Epstein entered his guilty plea, Judge McSorley required him to file his federal Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Court since that formed part of the consideration for the state plea. I wanted

t several of the young girls that were victimized and abused by Jeffrey Epstein. While we are aware of his recent guilty plea and conviction in his State Court case, the sentence imposed in that case is grossly inadequate for a sexual predator of this magnitude. The information and evidence that has come to

"learned from Mr. Epstein's attorney that the plea is scheduled to take place on Monday morning." I also understand that there is an entry on Judge McSorley's docket that a hearing is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Monday. Both parties have agreed that it is a material term of the Non-Prosecution Agreement

t several of the young girls that were victimized and abused by Jeffrey Epstein. While we are aware of his recent guilty plea and conviction in his State Court case, the sentence imposed in that case is grossly inadequate for a sexual predator of this magnitude. The information and evidence that has come to

10 during the hours away from employment and 11 public service activity, has that been 12 articulated? 13 MS. BELOHLAVEK: I believe 14 Judge McSorley has a standard order 15 somewhere on the bench up there regarding 16 this, I'm told by the prosecutor. 17 MS. LENHARDT: Judge, usually this is

ers of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Pal

e failure to set a timely plea and sentencing date. At that time, you assured me that the scheduling delay was caused by the unavailability of Judge McSorley. You promised that a date would be set promptly. On November 15th, Rolando Garcia met with Barry Krisher on another matter, and was told by Mr. Kri

ein was taking a consistent position with the State Attorney's Office, Judge McSorley, and the USAO, so I asked for a copy of what was filed in the State Court. This led to multiple letters with counsel for Epstein before I could finalize the victim notification letters (Exhibits B-57 through B-65). On July

ctim notifications (and, later, a Declaration in the Jane Doe litigation) based upon this understanding. When Epstein entered his guilty plea, Judge McSorley required him to file his federal Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Court since that formed part of the consideration for the state plea. I wanted

ment available to the victims, the United States sought to confirm that counsel for Mr. Epstein had filed the complete Agreement under seal with the State Court at the time of the entry of his guilty plea to the State charges, to insure that an exact copy of that Agreement would be provided in this case, sh

s Office about legal repercussions if he was not admitted to the program. I also discovered—again, not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Judge McSorley had modified Mr. Epstein's judgment motc pro tune to an "Order of Community Control I," which directly contradicted the terms of the Non- Prosecutio

ment available to the victims, the United States sought to confirm that counsel for Mr. Epstein had filed the complete Agreement under seal with the State Court at the time of the entry of his guilty plea to the State charges, to insure that an exact copy of that Agreement would be provided in this case, sh

s Office about legal repercussions if he was not admitted to the program. I also discovered—again, not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Judge McSorley had modified Mr. Epstein's judgment motc pro tune to an "Order of Community Control I," which directly contradicted the terms of the Non- Prosecutio