Epstein Secrets

' Rights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, that affect all crime victims in this Circuit. After over a decade of litigation, the Majority holds that Jeffrey Epsteie's victims were not authorized to bring this petition because the CVRA does not permit stand- alone suits, and, therefore, it should have been dismisse

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

ida to some extent). While he was in custody on these charges, Epstein was found dead. Statement of Attorney General William P. Barr on the Death of Jeffrey Epstein (Aug. 10, 2018), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pristatement-attorney-general-william-p- barr-death-jeffrey-epstein. In June 2020,

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

e-charge model does not raise 'serious constitutional problems," there is no issue. Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council. 485 U.S. 568. 575. 108 S. Ct. 1392. 1397. 99 L.Ed.2d 645 (1988)). But I do not believe the text is so clear, and—as I discuss below—I believe the

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c)( I). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff Jane Doe has failed to carry her burden of showing that anything on the Epstein interview tape sought through the subpoenas challenged here may be compelled from movants under either the reporter's privilege recognized in this

prove perjury (a federal crime) on the part of Epstein." Edwards then cites a deposition transcript, without providing the relevant pages, "wherein Jeffrey Epstein clearly impresses that he does not recognize George Rush from the New York Daily News." Offering this as a "criminal event," Edwards states that, "[

on PACER. S.D. Fla. Civil Docket for Jane. Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein. Case # 9:08-cv- 80893-KAM ("Docket"), DE

on that any of those people . . . have spoken to Mr. Epstein about Jane Doe or any of the other specific victi

HERE ARE NO MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE 17 CONCLUSION 18 ii EFTA00207333 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Altemosc Constr. Co. v. Building & Constr. Trades Council 443 F. Supp. 489 (E.D. Pa. 1977) 19 Apicella v. McNeil Labs. Inc. 66 F.R.D. 78 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) 4 Mel v. Murphy, 70 F.R.D. 651 (D.R.I. 1976) 5

ve Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c)( I). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden of showing that anything on the Epstein interview tape sought through the subpoenas challenged here may be compelled from movants under either the reporter's privilege recognized in this

prove perjury (a federal crime) on the part of Epstein." Edwards then cites a deposition transcript, without providing the relevant pages, "wherein Jeffrey Epstein clearly impresses that he does not recognize George Rush from the New York Daily News." Offering this as a "criminal event," Edwards states that, "[

found on PACER. S.D. Fla. Civil Docket for ME v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case # 9:08-cv- 80893-KAM ("Docket"), DE

on that any of those people . . . have spoken to Mr. Epstein about or any of the other specific victims," Edw

HERE ARE NO MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE 17 CONCLUSION 18 ii EFTA00728010 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Altemosc Constr. Co. v. Building & Constr. Trades Council 443 F. Supp. 489 (E.D. Pa. 1977) 19 Apicella v. McNeil Labs. Inc. 66 F.R.D. 78 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) 4 Mel v. Murphy, 70 F.R.D. 651 (D.R.I. 1976) 5

WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE THAT IT MIGHT OTHERWISE POSSESS 5 11. THE QUALIFIED JOURNALIST PRIVILEGE IS OVERCOME BY EDWARDS' COMPELLING NEED TO OBTAIN JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OWN WORDS ABOUT HIS SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINOR GIRLS AND HIS LACK OF REMORSE 8 A. Edwards Needs Epstein's Own Words to Defend Against Epstein's Civil

Damages 8 B. Epstein's Statements Are Not Available from Any Other Source CONCLUSION 12 EFTA00729036 TABLE OF AUTHORMES Cases Doe No. 102 v. Epstein, No. 9:09-CV-80656-KAM (S. D. FIa. 2009) 4 Altemose Constr. Cot v. Building & Constr. Trades Council, 443 F. Supp. 489 (ED. Pa. 1977) 7 Flores

S OVERCOME BY EDWARDS' COMPELLING NEED TO OBTAIN JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OWN WORDS ABOUT HIS SEXUAL ABUSE OF MI

le sources" since "the record is quite clear that Mr. Epstein has regularly been asserting, and will continue

00729036 TABLE OF AUTHORMES Cases Doe No. 102 v. Epstein, No. 9:09-CV-80656-KAM (S. D. FIa. 2009) 4 Altemose Constr. Cot v. Building & Constr. Trades Council, 443 F. Supp. 489 (ED. Pa. 1977) 7 Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co., 178P.Id 1176, 1183 (Ariz. App. 2008) Ulrich v. Coast Dental Services. In