Epstein Secrets

ivity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was

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

ivity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was

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

ivity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was

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

ivity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was

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

ivity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was

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

anently labeled a "Registered Sex Offender," and was jailed in 2008. Epstein also entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida barring his prosecution (and prosecution of his known and unknown co-conspirators) for violations of the TVPA and other sex offenses in

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

to engage in commercial sex acts and in other ways. 472. As outlined above, the United States Department of Justice (including the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida) was investigating Epstein's federal criminal liability for violating (among ot

conspiracy's knowledge extended to the names of Epstein's victims, because Epstein and his co-conspirators knew the names of the victims, including Jane Doe l's name. JP Morgan, through its officer Jes Staley, also new many of the names of the victims. 445. JP Morgan conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)

imes against dozens of young women and girls, some as young as 14 years old. With respect to the specific discoveries, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida found that some of the victims "went to Mr. Epstein's house only once, some went there as much as 100 times or more." 43. As a consequ

-trafficking venture had—and 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