Epstein Secrets

the existence of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA). After that day, the victims gradually became aware of the existence of the NPA, as reflected in Jane Doe's reply in support of her petition. See Exhibit 2. And in proceedings held over the next few months, Judge Marra ordered that the NPA be made availab

NOT CONFER WITH PETITIONER. The Government finally makes a factual argument about the state of negotiations in this cate. The brief discussion (see Gov'ts Response at 7-8) is somewhat vague. One short passage in the response, however, seems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about tF.e ple

red on FLSD Docket 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON IN 1E: JANE DOE, Petitioner. FILED by— _ D.C. JULY 1 2038 STEVEN 'LLANO.% )RE CLERK U.S. DiST. CT. S.D. OF P.A. • LV. !S. VICTIM'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESP

NOT CONFER WITH PETITIONER. The Government finally makes a factual argument about the state of negotiations in this case. The brief discussion (see Gov'ts Response at 7-8) is somewhat vague. One short passa€,e in the response, however, seems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about tie ple

red on FLSD Docket 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON IN 1E: JANE DOE, Petitioner. FILED by— _ D.C. JULY 1 2038 STEVEN 'LLANO.% )RE CLERK U.S. DiST. CT. S.D. OF P.A. • LV. !S. VICTIM'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESP

NOT CONFER WITH PETITIONER. The Government finally makes a factual argument about the state of negotiations in this case. The brief discussion (see Gov'ts Response at 7-8) is somewhat vague. One short passa€,e in the response, however, seems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about tl-e pl

tigators. S.R.'s status as a victim of a federal offense was confirmed when she was interviewed by 'Attorney Edwards filed his Motion on behalf of "Jane Doe," without identifying which of his clients is the purported victim. Accordingly, I will address facts related to C.W., T.M., and S.R. All three of

NOT CONFER WITH PETITIONER. The Government finally makes a factual argument about the state of negotiations in this case. The brief discussion (see Gov'ts Response at 7-8) is somewhat vague. One short passage in the response, however, seems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about the plea