Epstein Secrets

nd the defendant, are never filed with the federal court and by definition precede the institution of federal criminal charges. See Memorandum from Craig S. Morford, Acting Deputy Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Heads of Department Components, U.S. Att'ys re: Selection and Use of Monitors in Deferred Pro

cution agreement and the release of material protected by Rule 6(e), both of which are remedies which the plaintiffs have said they are seeking. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 127 at 14. If plaintiffs still

n in a recent pleading, see Doc 381, the identity of each of the Jane Does has been known to Mr. Epstein for many years in part as a result of each Jane Doe's decision to delay the litigation of their CVRA claims in order to prioritize their parallel monetary damage lawsuits against Mr. Epstein during whi

385 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2016 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs I. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant / INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS ATTENDANCE AT

the government and the defendant that are never filed with the court and do not result in the institution of criminal charges. See Memorandum from Craig S. Morford, Acting Deputy Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, to Heads of Department Components, U.S. Att'ys re: Selection and Use of Monitors in Deferred Pros

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS ATTENDANCE AT OR PARTICIPATION IN

4 The fact that Mr. Epstein's counsel sought to keep the NPA outside the public record was hardly unusual. The NPA is not a judicial document. See Craig S. Morford, Acting Deputy Attorney General, Selection and Use of Monitors in Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Non—Prosecution Agreements with Corporations,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. I JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenor. I INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO

to plea agreements, which involve the formal conviction of a corporation in a court proceeding. Memorandum from Acting Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford to Heads of Departmental Components and United States Attorneys at n.2 (Mar. 7, 2008), available at https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-res

.C. Section 3771, Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Another victim subsequently joined the litigation as “Jane Doe 2.” iii Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s work release program, and the Sheriff approved his a