Epstein Secrets

) & (8). It is now beyond dispute, for example, that in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his The victims are contemporaneously filing a motion to have their facts accepted by the Court. EFTA00078993 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM

ein agreed to a "confidentiality" provision in the agreement barring its disclosure to anyone — including the victims. For the next nine months, as Epstein was well aware, the U.S. Attorney's Office assiduously concealed from the victims the existence of this signed non-prosecution agreement. Indeed, th

t's desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients

formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his The victims are contempo

criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take t

ld apply. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . . .." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[l]t' the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts hav

t's desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients

ls the victims of federal sex crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein ...." As you know, in 2008 your Office d

criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take t

confer with the attorney for the Government in the case"). Two days later (July 91h), the Government sent her a notice that, in light of defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and 18-month jail sentence, the Government had agreed to defer all federal prosecution — including a

y Epstein ...." As you know, in 2008 your Office did not object to adding Jane Doe No. 2 into this litigation, recognizing that she was a victim of Epstein's crimes and had interests at stake in the case. We continue to be perplexed that you are not extending the same consideration to Jane Doe No. 3 an

ld apply. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . . .." Marbury-v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[i]f the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts have

, vs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. I JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenor. I INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPST

PRECLUDE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES A. Mr. Epstein was not a Party to the Underlying Litigation and

o prosecuting what was, at heart, a local sex abuse case." See Jeffrey Sloman, Alex Acosta Acted with Professionalism and Integrity in Handling the Jeffrey Epstein Case, Miami Herald Op-Ed, Feb. 15, 2019. The USAO-SDFL's decision to enter into the NPA was also influenced by its consideration of the privacy interest

EEMENT 1 EFTA00299022 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND ARGUMENT I. PRINCIPLES OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS PRECLUDE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES A. Mr. Epstein was not a Party to the Underlying Litigation and There is no Judgment Against him B. There is no Judicial Finding of "Bad

teenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County on one count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fla. Stat. §796.07. See State v. Jeffiey E. Epstein, 50-2006-CF-009454-AXXX-MB. In or around November 2006, while the state court charge was pending, Mr. Epstein learned that the United States Attorn

of relief against Mr. Epstein.3 III. THE CVRA ITSELF DOES NOT AUTHORIZE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES Citing a line of cases beginning with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Petitioners contend that the CVRA authorizes "the invalidation of an illegal non- prosecution agreement so that t

ring on Appropriate Remedies (unredacted), and a complete set of exhibits, including the e-mails in Exhibit A. The e-mails in Exhibit A are between Epstein's defense attorney and AUSA Villafalta. They were produced in civil litigation between Epstein and some of his victims. Epstein's attorneys redacted

e 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (tereinaRer, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Of fice has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in vio

t's desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients

formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his I The victims are contem

criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take t

ould apply. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . .." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[i]f the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts have

RA rights to confer and fairness in cases involving white- collar and other wealthy defendants who commonly engage in pro-charge plea negotiations. Jeffrey Epstein's case illustrates my point. The U.S. Attorney's Office assigned specific attorneys, with AUSA Villafana being the lead prosecutor and primary attorn

rey Epstein. In her petition, Ms. Wild alleges that when federal prosecutors secretly negotiated and entered into a non- prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007, they violated her rights under the CVRA—in particular, her rights to confer with the government's lawyers and to be treated fairly by the

ized by notorious sex trafficker and child abuser Jeffrey Epstein. In her petition, Ms. Wild alleges that

t resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identif

opriate equitable remedy"). Furthermore, it has long been an "indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (quoting 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *23). For that reason, "[w]here legal rights ha

ictims Sue Epstein Estate. ABC World News Tonight (8/20, story 8, 1:35, Muir, 6.49M) reported 'three more alleged victims' are suing the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, "claiming they were recruited and sexually abused. And two say ft happened while he was under house arrest and during work release while he was wea

st and during work release while he was wearing an ankle bracelet." ABC's Linsey Davis: "One accuser claims she was 17 when she was first groomed by Epstein in New York back in 2007, during the same time he was under federal investigation for alleged sex crimes against more than 30 minor girls." Two For

ree more alleged victims' are suing the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, "claiming they were recruited and sexual

termination arguably presents basic questions concerning the abuse of presidential power and, in his complaint, McCabe comes out of the box quoting Marbury v. Madison and suggesting that his case presents the question of whether The US government remains 'a government of laws, and not of men.' Can't get

case, the victims had (for example) no CVRA right to confer with prosecutors about a secret non-prosecution agreement barring federal prosecution of Epstein for crimes committed against the victims. This position contravenes the CVRA's plain language. The CVRA covers agencies involved in the "detection"

REC. S4260, 54269 (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (discussing § 377 l(d)(1) and explaining "[tjhis provision " The Government also attempts to raise Jeffrey Epstcin's "rights to Due Process." Gov't Resp. at 46. The victims are mystified as to why the Government would want to assert the rights of the criminal who

n- prosecution agreement (NPA) it negotiated with Jeffrey Epstein — an agreement that blocked federal pros

This argument contradicts fundamental American jurisprudence, which holds that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . .." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). 'I'he victims have deferred full briefing on the remedy issue because they understa

t the victims' pleadings are facially deficient, the Court must assume the truth of the victims' allegations — specifically that the Government and Epstein deliberately conspired to enter into a secret non- prosecution agreement in violation of the victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CV

the CVRA. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . . .." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[i]f the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts have