Epstein Secrets

rand tampion. ftbdLiidtddafLS teadi.01444.41a la News Emus.* News Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Crime Victims' Rights in Registered Pedophile Jeffrey Epstein Case In a landmark decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Court on April 18 2014, ruled In favor of two crime victims represented by

tell the girls." U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 359. The reasonable inference is that the "marching orders" agreed to between the Government and Epsteinls-tiefense-eounsel-was-that-ne-mention-weuld-be-made-octhe-ROli-pfeseeutiewegreement between-the-U,SrAttertieyls-Gfflee-anii-Epsteiur as-fie-subseque

0. hi—approximately—May-2009r eounsekfer—Jene—Dee44—and—Jane—Dee—#2—propeundefl diseoveFy—request-s—in—bech—state—ttafi—fedecal—eivikeases—against—Epsteier seeking—to—obtain eorrespendenee-hetween-Epstein-and-pfeseeutefs-regar4ing-his-piea-agreemem—infoFmatien-that the-6178-.-Attemey2s-Offiee-was-unwi

of Crime Victims' Rights in Registered Pedophile Jeffrey E Epstein Case Posted on Wed, Apr 23,2014 1.1.1/4

H • Proven Resells • Willa • Bles SOICh Current Adsak ID PSS Feed Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Crime Victims' Rights in Registered Pedophile Jeffrey E Epstein Case Posted on Wed, Apr 23,2014 1.1.1/401 ij-inti reek attiglIST1014 Patti 1 ol IPLIBLIsHi N THE UNIT I D STATES COURT OF APPEALS FUR THE ELEVENTH

o settle civil suits BY SUSAN SPENCER.WENDEL Pam 80•01 Post Shoff Meer Friday. Seplamber 10.2009 WEST PALM BEACH — fiflonaire Mender sex offender Jeffrey Epstaln's secret non-proseaNch weaned ha 'Ouch with Wein prosecutor, was Waxed Friday. Offering the not pubic look et the deal Epstein's high-powered legal c

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

2006 the FBI began investigating allegations that Jeffrey E. Epstein had sexually abused dozens and dozens of

ter-about-the-money isuo, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time-tha

, that Epstein could've spent behind bars had he been prosecuted in the federal system. They're hoping that the correspondence, ordered released by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, will shed light on what they say is an unusually lenient deal. "I can say that I've been teaching criminal law for more than two decades and I hav

driguez advised he had very limited contact with Mr. Epstein. If Rodriguez needed to relay a message to Mr. E

d Six, to-wit The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in end for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid. in the Circuit and State aforesaid. COUNT ONE FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION on or about or between th

esses and register himself as an agent. I also observed Epstein has his El Zorro Ranch Corporation, New York Strategy Group, Ghislaine Corporation, J Epstein and Company and the Financial Strategy Group registered to this same address. Finally, a third call is received by at 12:02 pm from the same corp

y of Palm Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid.

I wrote that, but I didn't write what you 13 said. 14 4. 15 16 you write that? 17 18 19 20 21 22 about what happened when you went to Jeff Epstein's house You wrote in this exhibit, "I got some stupid court s-h-i-t on the 20th. Bull s-h-i-t." Didn't A. Yes. Q. Referring to this deposition, d

his associates. ) (describing character of party defendant Epstein as a "sexual predator" (a term defined by Florida

y of Palm Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid. i

Gam, rims33133 9 a/ 31$ EFTA00231018 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[wjhen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

esses and register himself as an agent. I also observed Epstein has his El Zorro Ranch Corporation, New York Strategy Group, Ghislaine Corporation, J Epstein and Company and the Financial Strategy Group registered to this same address. Finally, a third call is received by at 12:02 pm from the same corp

d Six, to-wit The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in and for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid. in the Circuit and State aforesaid. COUNT ONE FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION on or about or between th

ourt. I was• later 20 informed that it was a deposition. 21 Q. I'm going to ask you some questions now 22 about what happened when you went to Jeff Epstein's house — 2S-- three-Yearragerr— Gkeig 24 A. Uh -huh. 25 Q. When the police interviewed you one month Ph. - Fax. 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.,

y of Palm Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid.

his associates. ) (describing character of party defendant Epstein as a "sexual predator" (a term defined by Florida

y of Palm Beach, upon their oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid. i

ery well and did not want to speak with me about Mr. Epstein. She was very fond of Epstein and did not want t

iovt. NOM* 33133 Go1316 EFTA00232138 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KANI Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

ket 07)21:2008 Page 16 of 100 1. The plaintiff seeks damages in connection with her own illegal conduct. The plaintiff concedes that she went to Jeffrey Epstein's house "to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation." (Am. Compl. ¶ 13.) The plaintiff also concedes, in the guise of an allegation, that "

respectfully state as follows: Introduction Six months ago, this plaintiff filed virtually the identical lawsuit in this Court. See Jane Doe #1 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-cv-80069-KAM (S.D. Fla. filed Doe v. Epstein et at, Case No. 50 2008 CA 006596 XXXX MB (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. filed Mar. 6, 2008). Lewis

A. Yes. Q. Didn't you tell that to the police? A. Yes. And I will continue. I have never had sex with him. Q. Did what happened upstairs at Jeff Epstein's house take you completely by surprise,. A. Yes. Q. Now the civil complaint that you filed against Mr. Epstein for fifty million dollars alleged

in's house you had 17 never told Jeff that you were under 18, right? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Before you got to Epstein's house had you 20 ever told Jeffrey that you were under 18? 21 A. No. I never spoke to the man before that. 22 Q. And you only went to Jeff Epstein's house 23 that one time thre

his associates. ) (describing character of party defendant Epstein as a "sexual predator" (a term defined by Florida

the instant case, adding two nominal defendants Mr. Epstein's personal secretary, and MB one of Jane Doe #1'

vt, kouo• 33133 5 of 316 EFTA00234229 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w]hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

011 Pages w/cover: 4 Fax #: Direct #: Please see the attached letter, in response to your letter to Martin Weinberg of July 27, 2011, concerning Jeffrey Epstein. Thank you. Documena EFTA00180294 07/29/2011 13: 12 FAX a 002/004 Jay P. LeatowItz. P.C. To ilaiactly: jay.lefkowitzekirklend.cOm KIRKLAND &

oncerning the request by the New York District Attorney for copies of the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") and the "victim list" in regards to Mr. Epstein. We continue for the reasons stated herein to believe that any such disclosure would violate the confidentiality agreement between your Office and

Jack 2:114:5 jackpot 32:9 jail 41:7 Jane 1:4,15,18,22 2:3,7 3:5,5,7,11 5:17 6:8,9,16 11:12 21:4 29:14 29:22 33:5 35:13 42:22 Jay 2:20 4:18 Jeffrey 1/ 37:12 jeopardize 9:15 Jeopardy 15:17 join 26:11,15 Josefsberg 2:1,2,5 3:18,20,21,23 19:7 19:7,1021:25 23:1 24:5 25:25 26:7,11 26:12,16 27:

ourt. I was• later 20 informed that it was a deposition. 21 Q. I'm going to ask you some questions now 22 about what happened when you went to Jeff Epstein's house 23 three years ago. Okay? 24 A. Oh-huh. 25 Q. When the police interviewed you one month Ph. 561.682.0905 - Fax. 561.682.1771 1655 Pal

. § 1446, this notice of removal is timely. Only defendant Epstein has been served with process. Defendants 21 Lew

ment ("NPA") and the "victim list" in regards to Mr. Epstein. We continue for the reasons stated herein to be

rt, f tomm 33113 Sol 316 EFTA00180359 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w 'hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent fro

e meeting? 2 A. No. They -- yeah. No. They have it. I'm 3 guessing. I don't have it. 4 Q. How much money are you hoping to get out of 5 Mr. Epstein? 6 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form of the 7 question. Attorney/client privilege. 8 BY MR. TEIN: 9 Q. How much money are you hoping to get

ket 07/21/2008 Page 16 of 100 1. The plaintiff seeks damages in connection with her own illegal conduct. The plaintiff concedes that she went to Jeffrey Epstein's house "to give Epstein a massage for monetary compensation." (Am. Compl. ¶ 13.) The plaintiff also concedes, in the guise of an allegation, that "

court. I was later 20 informed that it was a deposition. 21 Q. I'm going to ask you some questions now 22 about what happened when you went to Jeff Epstein's house 23 three years ago. Okay? 24 A. Uh-huh. 25 Q. When the police interviewed you one month You wrote in this exhibit, "I got some Ph. 56

you got to Epstein's house you had never told Jeff that you were under 18, right? A. No. Q. Before you got to Epstein's house had you ever told Jeffrey that you were under 18? A. No. I never spoke to the man before that. Q. And you only went to Jeff Epstein's house that one time three years ago,

his associates. ) (describing character of party defendant Epstein as a "sexual predator" (a term defined by Florida

How much money are you hoping to get out of 5 Mr. Epstein? 6 MR. LEOPOLD: Objection to the form of the 7

GEM% FM1:433133 I of 311 EFTA00180412 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "Ewlhen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent from

vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER DENYING INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER This cause is before the Court on Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's Unopposed Motion for a Supplemental Protective Order. (DE 261). The once-unopposed motion is now opposed by Petitioners (DE 298) and prospective in

ating the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. (DE 1). The parties and intervenors h

DER This cause is before the Court on Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's Unopposed Motion for a Supplemental Pr

he plea and non-prosecution negotiations between Mr. Epstein's counsel and the government." (Id. at 9). The C

order, arguing that "case law as well as sound and substantial policy considerations prohibit disclosure of the letters and emails prepared by Mr. Espstein's lawyers during plea negotiations with the government, and require that the letters and emails that Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 already have remain c

ral government and Epstein's attorneys)" (DE 190 at 2). Intervenor Epstein and his attorneys challenged these orders in an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (DEs 194, 195, 196). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed this Court's orders and lifted its stay on the order compelling the disclosure of the correspond

vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER DENYING INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER This cause is before the Court on Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's Unopposed Motion for a Supplemental Protective Order. (DE 261). The once-unopposed motion is now opposed by Petitioners (DE 298) and prospective in

ating the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. (DE 1). The parties and intervenors h

DER This cause is before the Court on Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's Unopposed Motion for a Supplemental Pr

he plea and non-prosecution negotiations between Mr. Epstein's counsel and the government." (Id. at 9). The C

order, arguing that "case law as well as sound and substantial policy considerations prohibit disclosure of the letters and emails prepared by Mr. Espstein's lawyers during plea negotiations with the government, and require that the letters and emails that Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 already have remain c

ral government and Epstein's attorneys)" (DE 190 at 2). Intervenor Epstein and his attorneys challenged these orders in an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (DEs 194, 195, 196). The Eleventh Circuit affirmed this Court's orders and lifted its stay on the order compelling the disclosure of the correspond

175 Epstein’s state guilty plea.250 As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to resolve the case in this manner, but OPR concludes that in light of all the s

to represent her “because she was unable to get anyone from the [USAO] to tell her what was actually going on with the federal criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein.”347 Villafaña told OPR that Wild did not contact her directly and she was not aware of 344 In

] OPR’s conclusion that deferring prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein to the State Attorney rather than proceed

parents finding out about their involvement with Mr. Epstein. Additionally,

uns for the first tune Feb 19 - Villafada completes third update 10 prosecution memorandum Feb 28 - USAO nmifies DOJ Civli Rights Division that Epstem investigation is ongoing Additional Key Dates Dec 17.2010 - DOJ Office of Legal Counsel issues opinion regarding CVRA Oct 20 I I - DOJ revises

lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights apply: the district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre-charge, but a sharply divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion, a decision that has now been vacated while the entire court hears the case en banc. Because the Supreme Court had

re the important facts, taken from the 11th Circuit's opinion: The case arose in 2006, the FBI began investigating allegations that wealthy investor Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused dozens and dozens of minor girls. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida accepted Epstein's case for p

stor Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused dozens and dozens of minor girls. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida accepted Epstein's case for prosecution, and the FBI issued victim notification letters to my two clients, minors Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2, in June and Aug

n investigating allegations that wealthy investor Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused dozens and dozens of

alidate that agreement and permit prosecution of Mr. Epstein' More News We Recommend From Around the Web •

, that Epstein could've spent behind bars had he been prosecuted in the federal system. They're hoping that the correspondence, ordered released by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, will shed light on what they say is an unusually lenient deal. "I can say that I've been teaching criminal law for more than two decades and I hav