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

F.2d 1324, 20 EFTA00299040 1325 (9th Cir. 1975). As this Court has recognized, "a contracting party is the paradigm of an indispensable party." HDR Engineering, Inc. v. R.C.T. Engineering, Inc., No. 08- 81040-CIV-ICAM, 2010 WL 2402908, *2 (S.D.Fla. June 15, 2010) (citation omitted). "Parties to a contract are ind

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

he earlier or later court was misled; and (3) whether the inconsistent later position would unfairly prejudice the opposing party. Tampa Bay Water,. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 25 EFTA00211742 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013) citing Robinson I. Tyson Foods. Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (I I th Cir. 2010). In their st

sponse to Government's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and states: I. JANE DOE 2 CLEARLY EXPRESSED HER DESIRE NOT TO BE TREATED AS A VICTIM OF EPSTEIN During the Government's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in 2006, Jane Doe 2 expressed her clear and unequivocal desire not to be treated as a vi

as a victim of his conduct. 22. The Plaintiff is included in the list of victims identified by the Federal Government as victims of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's illegal conduct. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is thus estopped by his plea and agreement with the Federal Government from denying the acts alleged

did not want underage girls providing him massages. D.E. 403-3 at 9. She lamented that Epstein was the subject of a criminal investigation: I hope Jeffrey, nothing happens to Jeffrey because he's an awesome man and it would really be a shame. It's a shame that he has to go through this because he's an

e sole issue before the Circuit Court was whether defendant Epstein was entering pleas of guilty that were voluntary

stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit

the victims explained in their motion for summary judgment (DE 361), the undisputed facts of this case show that for nine months, the Government and Epstein conspired to conceal a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) from Epstein's victims in order to prevent them from voicing any objection to the agreement.

ed Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (and several other victims) in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein for injuries my clients suffered as a consequence of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of them. 2. I have previously filed an affidavit in this matter (see DE 225-1). This affidavit repeats some of the information contai

Undisputed Fact 1 ("Between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls,

she, herself] procured additional young women for Mr. Epstein and [was] paid commissions or referral fees for

position would create the perception that either the earlier or later court was misled." DE 401-2 at 25 (emphasis added) (citing Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013)). In this case, even treating the state court proceedings as the "earlier" proceedings, the Government does n

sponse to Government's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and states: I. JANE DOE 2 CLEARLY EXPRESSED HER DESIRE NOT TO BE TREATED AS A VICTIM OF EPSTEIN During the Government's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in 2006, Jane Doe 2 expressed her clear and unequivocal desire not to be treated as a vi

as a victim of his conduct. 22. The Plaintiff is included in the list of victims identified by the Federal Government as victims of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's illegal conduct. Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is thus estopped by his plea and agreement with the Federal Government from denying the acts alleged

did not want underage girls providing him massages. D.E. 403-3 at 9. She lamented that Epstein was the subject of a criminal investigation: I hope Jeffrey, nothing happens to Jeffrey because he's an awesome man and it would really be a shame. It's a shame that he has to go through this because he's an

e sole issue before the Circuit Court was whether defendant Epstein was entering pleas of guilty that were voluntary

stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit

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

RECEIVED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS THROUGH AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND SUBMIT EVIDENCE ON ISSUES PERTAINING TO REMEDIES. 6 A. As an Intervenor, Epstein Has Received Procedural Due Process 6 B. The Court's Findings About Epstein Counsel's Awareness of Concealment of the Non- Prosecution Agreement a

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