Epstein Secrets

d by Epstein's top assistant, Defendant 27. Defendant in furtherance of the scheme to exploit Plaintiff, escorted Plaintiff upstairs to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's large bathroom, where Defendant set up the 7 EFTA00729614 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 8 of 29 mas

legal acts against her. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. At all times material, Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, was an adult male, over 50 years old. Defendant Epstein is known as a billionaire, yet even those closest to him, including family members, long time employees and those that he considers his closest frie

ouse before taking her upstairs to be alone with Mr. Epstein. Upon information and belief, Defendant remains

y Epstein, was an adult male, over 50 years old. Defendant Epstein is known as a billionaire, yet even those closest

P mg, Civil Action No. CASE NO.: 9:10-cv-81111 JEFFREY EPSTEIN and WM Defendant (If the action is pend

e your answer or motion with the court. Date: SEPTEMBER 177 2010 Steven M. Larimore Clerk of Court SUMMONS s/Gregory Maestre Deputy Clerk U.S. District Courts EFTA00729606 Intentionally Left Blank EFTA00729607 Case 9:10-cv-81111-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/17/2010 Page 1 of 29 UNITED ST

' 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

tence" and, indeed, in his closed criminal case. 28 U .S .C. §2255(a)—(f); see also Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, Rule 3(b) (stating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket

Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2

rational juror, after hearing the evidence, could find that the question called for the names of minors that the defendant interacted with at any of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, that the defendant answered that she was aware of no such minors other than , and therefore that her answer was false. And even if the d

out whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired "people across the board" to "work for Jeffrey." (Id. at 245:7-18). counsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein's home, and the defendant testified t

sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? A. No. not that I recall. q

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's 170 EFTA0

, 2016 meeting (the "Daily News Article" or the "Article").35 The Article stated, among other things, that defense attorneys representing victims of Epstein and Maxwell "urged" the USAO-SDNY to "open an investigation of the duo" during that meeting. Citing two anonymous sources, the Article described th

rational juror, after hearing the evidence, could find that the question called for the names of minors that the defendant interacted with at any of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, that the defendant answered that she was aware of no such minors other than and therefore that her answer was false. And even if the def

out whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired "people across the board" to "work for Jeffrey." (Id. at 245:7-18). 'ounsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein's home, and the defendant testified t

, the following colloquy occurred: When you and Mr. Epstein were engaged in sexual activity that included th

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's 170 EFTA0

Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2

rational juror, after hearing the evidence, could find that the question called for the names of minors that the defendant interacted with at any of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, that the defendant answered that she was aware of no such minors other than Giuffre, and therefore that her answer was false. And even i

out whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired "people across the board" to "work for Jeffrey." (Id. at 245:7-18). Giuffre's counsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein's home, and the defendant te

e following colloquy occurred: Er. When you and Mr. Epstein were engaged in sexual activity that included th

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's 170 EFTA0

Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2

rational juror, after hearing the evidence, could find that the question called for the names of minors that the defendant interacted with at any of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, that the defendant answered that she was aware of no such minors other than Giuffre, and therefore that her answer was false. And even i

out whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired "people across the board" to "work for Jeffrey." (Id. at 245:7-18). Giuffre's counsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein's home, and the defendant te

e following colloquy occurred: Er. When you and Mr. Epstein were engaged in sexual activity that included th

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's 170 EFTA0

2016 meeting (the "Daily News Article" or the "Article") .36 The Article stated, among other things, that defense attorneys representing victims of Epstein and the defendant "urged" the USAO-SDNY to "open an investigation of the duo" during that meeting. Citing two anonymous sources, the Article descri

underage girls that the defendant met and brought to Epstein. Specifically: Q. Can you list for me all the girls that you have met and brought to Jeffrey Epstein's house that were under the age of 18? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. I could only recall my family members that were there a

out whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired "people across the board" to "work for Jeffrey." (Id. at 245:7-18). Giuffre's counsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein's home, and the defendant te

Q. Were you ever involved in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house that included the use of sex

tered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id. The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's dismissal

40 (Rev. (012002) Summons in • Civil Case UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Southern District of Florida. Case Number: (SCl/ g0 loqmkgs v. JANE DOE JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff Defendant 08-80893-Civ-MARRAMOHNSON SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE Ta(NanwandaddmssadeftsWan0 Jeffrey Epstein Palm Beach County Stockade 6

Number: (SCl/ g0 loqmkgs v. JANE DOE JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff Defendant 08-80893-Civ-MARRAMOHNSON

a. Case Number: (SCl/ g0 loqmkgs v. JANE DOE JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff Defendant 08-80893-Civ-MARRA

of this Court within a reasonable period of time after service. Steven M. Larimore Clerk of Court SITABIONS si 12 Blanchard Deputy Clerk U.S. District Courts AUG 13, 2008 DATE EFTA00234803

10 Page 1 of 2 A0440 (Rev. 12/09) Swains in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORJE C.L. Plaintiff V. JEFFREY. EPSTEIN Defendant Civil Action No. 10-80447-CV-MARRA/JOHNSON SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION To: (Defendant's matte and address) JEFFREY EPSTEIN 358

of 2 A0440 (Rev. 12/09) Swains in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORJE C.L. Plaintiff V. JEFFREY. EPSTEIN Defendant Civil Action No. 10-80447-CV-MARRA/JOHNSON SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION To: (Defendant's matte and address) JEFFREY EPSTEIN 358 EL BRILL0

laintiff V. JEFFREY. EPSTEIN Defendant Civil Action No. 10-80447-CV-MARRA/JOHNSON SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION To: (Defendant's matte and address) JEFFREY EPSTEIN 358 EL BRILL0 WAY PALM BEACH, FL 33480 A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting th

o unlit file your answer or motion with the court. Date: 03/31/2010 Steven M. Larimore Clerk of Court SUMMONS s/Jose Conway Deputy Clerk U.S. District Courts EFTA00605093