Epstein Secrets

legal relief that Petitioners have sought pursuant to the CVRA is the setting aside of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners se

oners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo that Petitioners' rights under the CVRA were violated when Epstein and the USAO-SDFL entered into the Non- Prosecution Agreement, constitutional due process guarantees do not allow either the Non- Prosecution Agreeme

secution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the So

tion Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA00209772 contract."); Lomayaktewa

From: David Mitchell < To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: <no subject> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:33:16 +0000 Attachments: MeetAdFin_121114_inv.pdf Please find the most re

From: David Mitchell < To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: <no subject> D

From: David Mitchell < To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: <no sub

rnerstone the Company and is vital to the business case of AdFin Milestone 2 , Is very similar to Milestone 1 but it is with another Company called Casale which is smaller than Media Math but seems eager to create a data relationship with AdFin. I would say because of the December holidays this will al

00803 00030550 MEBPRV0E311504521030 2 000000000 J EPSTEIN VIRGIN ISLANDS FOUNDATION TM ENHANCED EDUCATION

no Winn f:C! Jars ear we serf yea vs JR Mama on Ation ne woe a mctiam **WM trel rt • nitre aid ward looter ?Teton deka arose ate suseccled era 3 Casale to era a ea tanner yr. ere hire goal ad elision es dory a Wu Cal dry 77r deed d eta sword?, mu reed note reeerradi Ward wrtnAgad wen o:iaw iAe wi c

legal relief that Petitioners have sought pursuant to the CVRA is the setting aside of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners se

oners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo that Petitioners' rights under the CVRA were violated when Epstein and the USAO-SDFL entered into the Non- Prosecution Agreement, constitutional due process guarantees do not allow either the Non- Prosecution Agreeme

secution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the So

tion Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA00010478 --- PAGE BREAK ---