Epstein Secrets

a thorough investigation." (DE 407 at ¶ 93.) The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at

a standard CVRA victim notification letter.' The notification letter promised that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe l's rights, including "the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and " to be reasonably heard at any public pr

a thorough investigation." (DE 407 at ¶ 93.) The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at

a standard CVRA victim notification letter.' The notification letter promised that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe l's rights, including "the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and " to be reasonably heard at any public pr

a thorough investigation." (DE 407 at ¶ 93.) The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at

a standard CVRA victim notification letter.' The notification letter promised that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe l's rights, including "the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and " to be reasonably heard at any public pr

a thorough investigation." (DE 407 at ¶ 93.) The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at

a standard CVRA victim notification letter.' The notification letter promised that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe l's rights, including "the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and " to be reasonably heard at any public pr

U 7,4 THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH December 2, Am PAUL G. CASSELL S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW Wilfredo A. Ferrer U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida U.S. Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 Re: Jeffrey Epstein's Sexual Assault Victims in Jane Does 1 & 2 v. United S

ut her concerns regarding the handling of the Epstein case. Without going into the details of that meeting, it was certainly our understanding - and Jane Doe l's - that you were going to try help her and do something about her situation. She asked you during that meeting if there was any further information

a thorough investigation." (DE 407 at ¶ 93.) The January 10, 2008 notification letters did not disclose that the Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 case in the Southern District of Florida was the subject of the NPA entered into by Epstein and the Office, or that there had been any potentially binding resolution. (DE 407 at

a standard CVRA victim notification letter.' The notification letter promised that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe l's rights, including "the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and " to be reasonably heard at any public pr

ney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's criminal investigation of Epstein in and around 2006 to 2008 and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York's criminal investigation leading to his indictment in 2019. 184. Over the many years of the venture between JP Morgan and Epstein, num

Filed 01/13/23 Page 5 of 130 continue to possess—tremendous wealth and power and have demonstrated a clear ability to cause her serious harm. 10. Jane Doe l's safety, right to privacy, and security outweigh the public interest in her identification. 11. Jane Doe l's legitimate concerns outweigh any preju

in all courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida, the District of Minnesota, and the Northern District of California. My bar admission status in California and Minnesota is currently in

2008, informing Jane Doc 1 and Jane Doe 2 that the case was still under investigation and that it could be a lengthy process (Ex. J) were accurate. Jane Doe l's re- interview was part of that continued investigation, so no one was deceived. The process was not lengthier only because Epstein ultimately entere