Epstein Secrets

uring those negotiations against either party. BACKGROUND The Court is very familiar with this matter, having handled the civil suits filed against Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and this actions filed by Jane Does #1 and #2 against the United States. For purposes of this Supplemental

of the government, the Jane Does have only received the portions of the correspondence written by government attorneys — all of the writings of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, excepts for a few short portions by Jack Goldberger— have been redacted. The Intervenor Attorneys ask that the Court order that the Ja

gotiations between the Intervenors (on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein) and the U.S. Attorney's Office. The Inte

by government attorneys — all of the writings of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, excepts for a few short portions by

t the negotiation of a plea bargain is a critical phase of litigation for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel." Padilla v. Kentucky, U.S. 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1485 (2010) (citation omitted). This includes the "critical obligation of counsel to advise the client of `the advantages a

uring those negotiations against either party. BACKGROUND The Court is very familiar with this matter, having handled the civil suits filed against Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and this actions filed by Jane Does #1 and #2 against the United States. For purposes of this Supplemental

of the government, the Jane Does have only received the portions of the correspondence written by government attorneys — all of the writings of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, excepts for a few short portions by Jack Goldberger— have been redacted. The Intervenor Attorneys ask that the Court order that the Ja

gotiations between the Intervenors (on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein) and the U.S. Attorney's Office. The Inte

by government attorneys — all of the writings of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, excepts for a few short portions by

t the negotiation of a plea bargain is a critical phase of litigation for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel." Padilla v. Kentucky, U.S. 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1485 (2010) (citation omitted). This includes the "critical obligation of counsel to advise the client of `the advantages a

ice arranging a highly unusual and secretive non-prosecution agreement. The victims have already explained at length why the correspondence between Epstein's lawyers and government prosecutors is simply not confidential material to which any kind of privilege or other protection could attach. See Jane

able here because it would, at most, bar admissibility of the correspondence into evidence "against the defendant who made the plea" — i.e., against Jeffrey Epstein. But the victims intend to obtain and use the correspondence to seek relief from the Government. Accordingly, the Rule cannot be used to bar the vic

ughly litigated by the defense attorneys' client (Jeffrey Epstein) more than a year ago, and Epstein's arg

o be sure, as the Government points out, effective defense counsel should always explore plea bargaining opportunities. See Gov't Resp. at 7 (citing Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.C.t 1473, 1485 (2010)). But this is a far cry from proving there is a "right" to plea bargaining or that protecting plea bargaining opportun