Epstein Secrets

15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in viol

he relitigation of which is barred by a prior federal nonprosecution agreement (the "NPA"). The government makes this drastic demand even though Mr. Epstein has never once attempted to flee the United States — despite a Florida federal judge's stated belief that he could void the NPA in appropriate circ

Street New York, NY 10007 RE: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, Criminal No. 19-490 Dear Judge Berman:

government makes this drastic demand even though Mr. Epstein has never once attempted to flee the United Stat

sed by a favorable decision. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOG), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000); see also, e.g., Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 (11th Cir. 1994) (en bane)). Moreover, "a pla

15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in viol

he relitigation of which is barred by a prior federal nonprosecution agreement (the "NPA"). The government makes this drastic demand even though Mr. Epstein has never once attempted to flee the United States — despite a Florida federal judge's stated belief that he could void the NPA in appropriate circ

Street New York, NY 10007 RE: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, Criminal No. 19-490 Dear Judge Berman:

government makes this drastic demand even though Mr. Epstein has never once attempted to flee the United Stat

sed by a favorable decision. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOG), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000); see also, e.g., Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 (11th Cir. 1994) (en bane)). Moreover, "a pla

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

ed by a favorable decision. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (7'OC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000); see also, e.g., Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc)). Moreover, "a pla

Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, Case No. 08- 80736-Civ-Marra (S.D. Fla.), that evidence gathered in the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein's conduct has revealed that a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (including the Southern District of New York and the Distri

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

sed by a favorable decision. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000); see also. e.g., Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town ofJupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (1 I th Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc)). Moreover, "a pl

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

ed by a favorable decision. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaiv Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000); see also, e.g., Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc)). Moreover, "a pla

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

ssed by a favorable decision. Friends of the Earth, Inc... Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000); see also, e.g., Young Apartments, Inc. I Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 (1 I th Cir. 1994) (en banc)). Moreover, "a plai

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

ssed by a favorable decision. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaiv Environmental Services (MCI Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000); see also, e.g., Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc)). Moreover, "a pla

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

ssed by a favorable decision. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaiv Environmental Services (MCI Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000); see also, e.g., Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris v. Evans, 20 F.3d 1118, 1121 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc)). Moreover, "a pla

t the victims' pleadings are facially deficient, the Court must assume the truth of the victims' allegations — specifically that the Government and Epstein deliberately conspired to enter into a secret non- prosecution agreement in violation of the victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CV

ternal quotation omitted). And, "Nit the initial pleading stage, a plaintiff may establish standing based on general factual allegations of injury." Young Apartments, Inc. I Town of Jupiter, Florida, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir. 2008). In this case, however, it is clear that the Government's alleged "jurisdictional"

t the victims' pleadings are facially deficient, the Court must assume the truth of the victims' allegations — specifically that the Government and Epstein deliberately conspired to enter into a secret non- prosecution agreement in violation of the victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CV

ernal quotation omitted). And, "[a]t the initial pleading stage, a plaintiff may establish standing based on general factual allegations of injury." Young Apartments, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, Florida, 529 F.3d 1027, 1038 (11th Cir. 2008). In this case, however, it is clear that the Government's alleged "jurisdictional