Epstein Secrets

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

an "appear: rather, as the CVRA requires, she filed a petition for writ of mandamus. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3): see also 16 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3932 (3d ed. 2019) (explaining that a mandamus petition is "an original application to the court of appeals"). Th

' 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

an "appeal"; rather, as the CVRA requires, she filed a petition for writ of mandamus. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3); see also 16 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3932 (3d ed. 2019) (explaining that a mandamus petition is "an original application to the court of appeals"). The

566 78, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), lieges that she was "forced to engage in sexual acts with Dershowitz in, among other locations, [Jeffrey] Epstein's mansion ...." (Complaint ("Compl."), dated Apr. 16, 2019 [dkt. no. 1], at ¶ 36). Prior to filing the Complaint, she had filed a joinder motion in

what she believed happened" but Dershowitz asserted that Ms. had "made an honest mistake and had confused [Dershowitz] with another friend of Mr. Epstein." (Id.) Boies says that Dershowitz "was never able to substantiate his assertions" and that the Firm was "increasingly uncovering evidence that wa

acts with Dershowitz in, among other locations, [Jeffrey] Epstein's mansion ...." (Complaint ("Compl."),

had confused [Dershowitz] with another friend of Mr. Epstein." (Id.) Boies says that Dershowitz "was never ab

Dershowitz's quarrel properly is with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which "represented a major break from the common law and code systems." Arthur R. Miller From Conley to Twombly to lqbal: A Double Play on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60 Duke L.J. I, 3.5 (2010) (Explaining that the drafters of

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 342 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 1 of 14 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON ------------------'/ Related cases:

the court from having to rule on same. (DE 316). Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 342 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2009 Page 2 of 14 Doe v. Epstein 08-CIV-80119 Page No. 2 Defendant filed his Rule 4 Appeal (DE 282) and his Supplementary Brief (DE 283), which address several of the 5th Amendmen

Phone 561/515-3148 Fax ( Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2

ant may legitimately use the Fifth Amendment to avoid having to answer inquiries during any phase of the discovery process. See 8 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 2018, at 273 (2d ed. 1994) ("[C]ourts have repeatedly held that the privilege against self-i