Epstein Secrets

y Lefkowitz in Support of Their Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 161); Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's 3 EFTA00177813 A. The Applicability of Rule 410. Any assessment of the merits of the intervenors' contentions must begin with an understanding

tion agreement" ("the agreement") between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO/SDFL) and Jeffrey Epstein (Epstein) pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. §3771. Under the agreement, Epstein agreed to (1) plead guilty to two then pend

the Southern District of Florida (USAO/SDFL) and Jeffrey Epstein (Epstein) pursuant to the Crime Victims'

ould render Rule 410 ambiguous and would violate Mr. Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. The rule's central fea

hin the meaning of the CVRA. As such, they have standing to assert rights under the CVRA, as they have done in this case. See e.g. United States v. Thetford, F. Supp. 2d , 2013 WL 1309851 (ND. Ala. 2013). Presented with these claims, the court is obligated to decide whether, as crime victims, petition

ITIONERS ARE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM CHALLENGING THE NPA On September 10, 2008, Jane Doe No. 1 filed an action in Palm Beach County, Florida, E.W. I. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 50-2008-CA-028058-XXXXMB, seeking money damages from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. P. On September 11, 2008, Jane Doe No.

r than to assert that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused both. However, the differing circumstances of the two petitioners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 r

0. When asked whether Epstein "pulled you closer to him in a sexual way," Jane Doe No. 2 replied: A. I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. Id. at 22. At the end of her interview, Jane Doe No. 2 was asked if she had any questions for the agents or AUSA Id. at 57

agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email

chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." In United States 1. Thetford, 935 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (N.D. Ala. 2013), victims of a boat theft sought to reopen the defendant's guilty plea. The victims complained that the FBI f

officer under his direction." Consequently, the discretionary decision not to notify additional victims of the NPA, and risk likely impeachment by Epstein's attorneys if a criminal prosecution ensued, cannot be the basis of a finding that the government violated the CVRA. The main thrust of petitioner

00 Miami , FL 33131 Roy E. Black BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN & STUMPF 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami FL 33131 Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00799973 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 11 of 11 Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attor

te 1300 Miami FL 33131 Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00799973 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KA

al decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing, or parole." Id. at 424(citation omitted). Similarly, in United States v. Thetford 935 F.Supp.2d 1289 (N.D.Ala. 2013), Jack and Shirley Winslett had their boat stolen by Michael Thetford. A third party subsequently purchased the W

289 (N.D.Ala. 2013), Jack and Shirley Winslett had their boat stolen by Michael Thetford. A third party subsequently purchased the Winslett's boat. Thetford was criminally charged and entered into a plea agreement with the Government. The Winsletts sought to reopen the plea under § 3771(d), complaining

s from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. P. On September 11, 2008, Jane Doe No. 2 file an action in Palm Beach County, Florida, L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 50-2008-CA- 28051-XXXXMB, seeking money damages from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. Q. 6 "A judicial admission is a formal conce

r than to assert that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused both. However, the differing circumstances of the two petitioners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 r

0. When asked whether Epstein "pulled you closer to him in a sexual way," Jane Doe No. 2 replied: A. I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. Id. at 22. At the end of her interview, Jane Doe No. 2 was asked if she had any questions for the agents or AUSA Villafafia

agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email

chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." In United States v. Thetford, 935 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (N.D. Ala. 2013), victims of a boat theft sought to reopen the defendant's guilty plea. The victims complained that the FBI f

s from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. P. On September 11, 2008, Jane Doe No. 2 file an action in Palm Beach County, Florida, L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 50-2008-CA- 28051-XXXXMB, seeking money damages from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. Q. 6 "A judicial admission is a formal conce

r than to assert that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused both. However, the differing circumstances of the two petitioners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 r

0. When asked whether Epstein "pulled you closer to him in a sexual way," Jane Doe No. 2 replied: A. I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. Id. at 22. At the end of her interview, Jane Doe No. 2 was asked if she had any questions for the agents or AUSA Villafafia

agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email

chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." In United States v. Thetford, 935 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (N.D. Ala. 2013), victims of a boat theft sought to reopen the defendant's guilty plea. The victims complained that the FBI f

officer under his direction." Consequently, the discretionary decision not to notify additional victims of the NPA, and risk likely impeachment by Epstein's attorneys if a criminal prosecution ensued, cannot be the basis of a finding that the government violated the CVRA. The main thrust of petitioner

K KORNSPAN & STUMPF 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami , FL 33131 Tel: (305) 371-6421; Fax: 305-358-2006 Email: Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00601691 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 11 of 11 Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attor

ax: 305-358-2006 Email: Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00601691 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KA

al decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing, or parole." Id. at 424(citation omitted). Similarly, in United States v. Thetford 935 F.Supp.2d 1289 (N.D.Ala. 2013), Jack and Shirley Winslett had their boat stolen by Michael Thetford. A third party subsequently purchased the W

289 (N.D.Ala. 2013), Jack and Shirley Winslett had their boat stolen by Michael Thetford. A third party subsequently purchased the Winslett's boat. Thetford was criminally charged and entered into a plea agreement with the Government. The Winsletts sought to reopen the plea under § 3771(d), complaining

nt argues that its internal deliberations led to a decision not to notify victims because the line prosecutor wanted to avoid the possibility that "Epstein's counsel would impeach the victims and my credibility by asserting that I told victims they could receive money for implicating Epstein." DE 403-10

ick Komspan & Stumpf 201 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 305-371-6421 Fax: 358-2006 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Is/ &ale. p. 5cloanda 1 I EFTA00600127

2006 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Is/ &ale. p. 5cloanda 1 I EFTA00600127

ution. The provision confirms that crime victims do not have "the right to dictate government strategy or demand who to prosecute." United States v. Thetford, 935 F.Supp.2d 1289 (N.D. Ala. 2013) (citing In re W.R. Huff Asset Mgt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005)). But as the Court knows, from the ve

07 (emphasis added). This conclusion underscores that inapplicability of Mohawk in the present circumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to the litigation, having intervened solely for the limited purpose of seeking to prevent the disclosu

circumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to

ecutorial discretion to the government." Doe v. United States, F.Supp.2d , 2013 WL 3089046 at *5 (M. June 19, 2013). See, e.g., United States v. Thetford, F.Supp.2d 2013 WL 1309851 at * 1 M. March 29, 2013)(CVRA rights "do not extend to giving crime victims veto power over the prosecutor's discret

07 (emphasis added). This conclusion underscores the inapplicability of Mohawk in the present circumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to the litigation, having intervened solely for the limited purpose of seeking to prevent the disclosu

ircumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to

rial discretion to the government." Doe v. United States, F.Supp.2d , 2013 WL 3089046 at *5 (S.D.Fla. June 19, 2013). See, e.g., United States v. Thetford, F.Supp.2d 2013 WL 1309851 at * 1 (N.D.Ala. March 29, 2013)(CVRA rights "do not extend to giving crime victims veto power over the prosecutor's d

hat there shall be no judicial review of the final decision of the Attorney General by a complainant." Id. § 3771(f)(2)(D); see also United States v. Thetford, 935 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1282 (ND. Ala. 2013) ("These rights, however, do not extend to giving crime victims veto power over the prosecutor's discretio

Defining the Scope of 18 U.S.C. § 666, 46 Colum. JE. & Soc. Probs. 207, 237-45 (2012) (arguing for br