Epstein Secrets

iscretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). In this case, that officer was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and he exercised his discretion by deferring prosecution in favor of prosecution by authorities of the State of Florida. Thus, no feder

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

s whether the petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, had any rights under 18 U.S.C. § 377I(a), in the absence of a criminal charge being filed in the Southern District of Florida, charging someone with the commission of a federal crime in which petitioners were victims. Resolution of this issue is a matter of stat

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." ( Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss thei

d be offered (without obligation) to the victims free of charge. The U.S. Attorney's Office asked the former Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida to serve pm bono as a Special Master for the selection of the attorney-representative. Out of concern for the best interests of the victi

trict Judge Kenneth A. Marra ordered the United States to make available to identified victims a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement subject to a Protective Order. ag During the hearing, Judge Marra made clear that he wanted the U.S. Attorney's Office to communicate his order to all of the identified victims,

To: Laura Menninger, Esq. Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-07433 United States District Court For the Southern District of New York March 17, 2016 Protective Order by United States District Court Judge Sweet The undersigned acknowledges that he has read the above-ref

ork March 17, 2016 Protective Order by United States District Court Judge Sweet The undersigned acknowledges that he has read the above-referenced Protective Order, a copy of which is attached, and agrees to be bound by the provisions thereof. Dated: August 3, 2016 Jeffrey Epstein EFTA_R1_00008739 EFTA01733

iscretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). In this case, that officer was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and he exercised his discretion by deferring prosecution in favor of prosecution by authorities of the State of Florida. Thus, no feder

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

ein and Maxwell!' Then, after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking "if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury." Brown, supra n.2. Said Mr. Boies: "We were saying to anyone who would listen: We've got clients who

ial discovery material (including the two Maxwell depositions) with anyone else, including with the government and law enforcement. Faced with that Protective Order, the government issued a grand jury subpoena for Boies Schiller's file and instituted an ex parte proceeding before Chief Judge McMahon to modify t

A ripened at the moment of actual victimization, or at least at the point when they first contacted the government. Movants rely on a decision from the Southern District of Texas for the notion that CVRA rights apply prior to any prosecution. In United States' BP Products North America, Inc., the district court reas

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

ding of the bars of the states of Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. I am also admitted to the practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court, and several other federal courts. 3. I graduated from Pri

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NM. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

ding of the bars of the states of Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. I am also admitted to the practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court, and several other federal courts. 3. I graduated from Pri

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NM. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

on of the NPA — an agreement that allowed Epstein to plead guilty to state charges in exchange for immunity for federal prosecution by the USAO for the Southern District of Florida. After the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, when I attempted to notify the victims and enforce the agreement, the attacks became mo

rview of AUSA Villafarla; and (c) participate fully in OPR's interview of AUSA Villafaiia. Disclosure shall be limited as set forth in the attached Protective Order. To the extent that AUSA Villafafla's May 10, 2019 Response to OPR's written questions and any drafts thereof disclosed any material that arguably