Epstein Secrets

, vs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. I JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenor. I INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPST

PRECLUDE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES A. Mr. Epstein was not a Party to the Underlying Litigation and

o prosecuting what was, at heart, a local sex abuse case." See Jeffrey Sloman, Alex Acosta Acted with Professionalism and Integrity in Handling the Jeffrey Epstein Case, Miami Herald Op-Ed, Feb. 15, 2019. The USAO-SDFL's decision to enter into the NPA was also influenced by its consideration of the privacy interest

EEMENT 1 EFTA00299022 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND ARGUMENT I. PRINCIPLES OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS PRECLUDE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES A. Mr. Epstein was not a Party to the Underlying Litigation and There is no Judgment Against him B. There is no Judicial Finding of "Bad

teenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County on one count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fla. Stat. §796.07. See State v. Jeffiey E. Epstein, 50-2006-CF-009454-AXXX-MB. In or around November 2006, while the state court charge was pending, Mr. Epstein learned that the United States Attorn

econd-guess the Executive's exercise of discretion over the initiation and dismissal of criminal charges." Id. at 738. 45 EFTA00299065 Although Fokker addressed DPAs, the same principles apply with even greater to force to NPAs, which typically involve no judicial supervision. By imposing the Epste

Accordingly, judicial authority is "at its most limited when reviewing the Executive's exercise of discretion over charging determinations." Id. In Fokker, the question before the D.C. Circuit was whether the district court had the power to decline to enter a speedy trial waiver because it believed tha

15 (quoting former First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman). Indeed, one of the experts that Interve

r determining remedy, neither party disputes that Mr. Epstein has a right to be heard . . . . Mr. Epstein resp

igation. As Epstein's own exhibits makes clear, the release covers only claims for "compensatory or punitive damages": [Jane Doe] individually, and Jeffrey Epstein, individually (jointly referred to as "Parties"), enter into this Settlement Agreement and General Release ("Settlement Agreement") in order to res

ITIONERS ARE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM CHALLENGING THE NPA On September 10, 2008, Jane Doe No. 1 filed an action in Palm Beach County, Florida, E.W. I. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 50-2008-CA-028058-XXXXMB, seeking money damages from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. P. On September 11, 2008, Jane Doe No.

r than to assert that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused both. However, the differing circumstances of the two petitioners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 r

0. When asked whether Epstein "pulled you closer to him in a sexual way," Jane Doe No. 2 replied: A. I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. Id. at 22. At the end of her interview, Jane Doe No. 2 was asked if she had any questions for the agents or AUSA Id. at 57

agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email

rges — no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring — lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion." Fokker, 818 F.3d at 742. The 11 EFTA00211728 As to the third time period, when the Government found out on Friday, June 27, 2008, at approximately 4:15

s from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. P. On September 11, 2008, Jane Doe No. 2 file an action in Palm Beach County, Florida, L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 50-2008-CA- 28051-XXXXMB, seeking money damages from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. Q. 6 "A judicial admission is a formal conce

r than to assert that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused both. However, the differing circumstances of the two petitioners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 r

0. When asked whether Epstein "pulled you closer to him in a sexual way," Jane Doe No. 2 replied: A. I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. Id. at 22. At the end of her interview, Jane Doe No. 2 was asked if she had any questions for the agents or AUSA Villafafia

agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email

rges — no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring — lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion." Fokker, 818 F.3d at 742. The II EFTA00799835 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 408 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2017 Page 12 of 32 As to the third time p

s from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. P. On September 11, 2008, Jane Doe No. 2 file an action in Palm Beach County, Florida, L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 50-2008-CA- 28051-XXXXMB, seeking money damages from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. Q. 6 "A judicial admission is a formal conce

r than to assert that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused both. However, the differing circumstances of the two petitioners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 r

0. When asked whether Epstein "pulled you closer to him in a sexual way," Jane Doe No. 2 replied: A. I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. Id. at 22. At the end of her interview, Jane Doe No. 2 was asked if she had any questions for the agents or AUSA Villafafia

agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email

rges — no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring — lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion." Fokker, 818 F.3d at 742. The 11 EFTA00591472 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 401-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 13 of 33 As to the third tim