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

l review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether to institute criminal proceedings . ..." United States v. Fokker Services B. Y., 818 F.3d 733, 741 (D.C.Cir. 2016), quoting Newman v United States, 382 F.2d 479, 480 (D.C.Cir. 1967). As the Supreme Court noted in Wayte,

' Rights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, that affect all crime victims in this Circuit. After over a decade of litigation, the Majority holds that Jeffrey Epsteie's victims were not authorized to bring this petition because the CVRA does not permit stand- alone suits, and, therefore, it should have been dismisse

pstein. In her mandamus petition, Ms. Wild asserts that when federal prosecutors secretly negotiated and executed a non- prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007, they violated her rights under the CVRA—in particular, her rights to confer with and to be treated fairly by the government's lawyers. We

ida to some extent). While he was in custody on these charges, Epstein was found dead. Statement of Attorney General William P. Barr on the Death of Jeffrey Epstein (Aug. 10, 2018), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pristatement-attorney-general-william-p- barr-death-jeffrey-epstein. In June 2020,

t resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identifi

undary' that is marked by the formal initiation of criminal proceedings and that Chief Judge Srinivasan astutely recognized for the D.C. Circuit in Fokker Services. There is a world of difference between a court insinuating itself into a prosecutor's case before charges are filed and stepping in to "administer(

ISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS ATTENDANCE AT OR PARTICIPATION IN SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein has requested that he be permitted

conference to be convened in this matter. The right to participate in the settlement conference flows inexorably from Judge Marra's granting of Mr. Epstein's motion to intervene as of right at the remedy stage of these proceedings to advocate for why the remedy in this case—to the extent that the plain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS ATTENDANC

e flows inexorably from Judge Marra's granting of Mr. Epstein's motion to intervene as of right at the remedy

eview that the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding when and whether to institute criminal proceedings . . . ." United States v. Fokker Services B. V., F.3d 2016 WL 1319266 at *5 (D.C.Cir. April 5, 2016), quoting Newman v United States, 382 F.2d 479, 480 (D.C.Cir. 1967). Fokker Services ad

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

s. With an NPA, 'formal charges are not filed and the agreement is maintained by the parties rather than being filed with a court.' United States v. Fokker Services B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 738 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). "Non-prosecution agreements are similar to plea agreements, except adherence to a non-

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

s. With an NPA, `formal charges are not filed and the agreement is maintained by the parties rather than being filed with a court.' United States v. Fokker Services B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 738 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). "Non-prosecution agreements are similar to plea agreements, except adherence to a non-

officer under his direction." Consequently, the discretionary decision not to notify additional victims of the NPA, and risk likely impeachment by Epstein's attorneys if a criminal prosecution ensued, cannot be the basis of a finding that the government violated the CVRA. The main thrust of petitioner

00 Miami , FL 33131 Roy E. Black BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN & STUMPF 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami FL 33131 Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00799973 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 11 of 11 Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attor

te 1300 Miami FL 33131 Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00799973 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KA

retion. "Mudicial authority is ... at its most limited when reviewing the Executive's exercise of discretion over charging determinations." U.S. v. Fokker Services, BV, 818 F.3d 733, 741 (D.C.Cir. 2016), citing Cmty. for Creative Non- Violence v. Pierce 786 F.2d 1199, 1201 (D.C.Cir. 1986). Further, "decisions to

officer under his direction." Consequently, the discretionary decision not to notify additional victims of the NPA, and risk likely impeachment by Epstein's attorneys if a criminal prosecution ensued, cannot be the basis of a finding that the government violated the CVRA. The main thrust of petitioner

K KORNSPAN & STUMPF 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami , FL 33131 Tel: (305) 371-6421; Fax: 305-358-2006 Email: Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00601691 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 11 of 11 Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attor

ax: 305-358-2006 Email: Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00601691 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KA

retion. "Mudicial authority is ... at its most limited when reviewing the Executive's exercise of discretion over charging determinations." U.S. v. Fokker Services, BV, 818 F.3d 733, 741 (D.C.Cir. 2016), citing Cmty. for Creative Non- Violence v. Pierce 786 F.2d 1199, 1201 (D.C.Cir. 1986). Further, "decisions to