Epstein Secrets

to anyone else. The Agreed Order Cancelling Hearing provides, in its entirety: The Motion for Relief From Amended Order (D.E. #1068) and to Compel Jeffrey Epstein to Pay for the Production of All Documents in Response to his Requests filed by Interested Party Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman,

ions" (id. at p. 17) or a finding of criminal contempt "as may be appropriate" and monetary sanctions of $25,000 for each of the intervenors against Epstein for any noncompliance with the order at issue, for which amounts "Epstein [be] permitted to seek reimbursement from any of his attorneys who may ha

E OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FOWLER WHITE AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT,

in its files, having provided all hard files to Mr. Epstein's current counsel, Scott Link. Movants' Motions

nvincing is a higher standard and requires a high probability of success"). Importantly, the burden to prove contempt is on the Movants. Carroll v. TheStreetcom, Inc., II-CV-81173, 2014 WL 5474048, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2014). Fowler White is "not tasked with the affirmative responsibility of reversely

.S.C. § 1595 3, 4 Other Authorities Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 2, 9, 10 CONFIDENTIAL - FILED UNDER SEAL EFTA00805391 Third-Party Proposed Intervenors Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff (the "Intervenors") respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in support of their motion to intervene in v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ.

tective Order") for the reasons set forth below. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Intervenors are two of the defendants in an action captioned Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et al, No. 17 Civ. 616 (JGK), currently pending before Judge John G. Koeltl (the "Jane Doe Matter"). Jane Doe 43 ("Plaintiff" or "Jane Doe") filed

EFTA00805391 Third-Party Proposed Intervenors Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley Groff (the "Intervenors") res

are based primarily on the alleged misconduct of Mr. Epstein. Indeed, shortly after Jane Doe filed her suit ag

rder 1. The Court Has Broad Discretion to Modify the Protective Order This Court has broad power to modify existing protective orders. S.E.C. v. TheStreetcom, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001). Before modifying a protective order, the Court must first determine if the parties to the original order "reasona

me, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge the defendant with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.i ARGUMENT I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case The defendant seeks to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement ("NPA"

in illegal sex acts, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count Three charges the defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charges the defendant with transporti

NARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant

f America Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00102999 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case 3 A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York 4 1. The Text of the Agreement

ntobello v. United States, No. 94 Cr. (RPP), 1998 WL 113950 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 1998) 21 Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784 (2d Cir. 1999) 61 SEC v. TheStreetcom, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 109, 113 viii EFTA00103007 Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (VEC) 275 Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (KMW) 275 Smith v. Maryland, 442

, 2016 meeting (the "Daily News Article" or the "Article").35 The Article stated, among other things, that defense attorneys representing victims of Epstein and Maxwell "urged" the USAO-SDNY to "open an investigation of the duo" during that meeting. Citing two anonymous sources, the Article described th

rational juror, after hearing the evidence, could find that the question called for the names of minors that the defendant interacted with at any of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, that the defendant answered that she was aware of no such minors other than and therefore that her answer was false. And even if the def

out whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired "people across the board" to "work for Jeffrey." (Id. at 245:7-18). 'ounsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein's home, and the defendant testified t

, the following colloquy occurred: When you and Mr. Epstein were engaged in sexual activity that included th

such pre-existing documents not created in reliance on a protective order,which do not trigger the Martindell presumption in the Second Circuit, see TheStreetcom, 273 F.3d at 234-235; Davis, 702 F.2d at 422. Maxwell's arguments also do not extend to ositions, why 8I EFTA00100048 2. Maxwell's Fourth Amen