Epstein Secrets

ROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00003302 EFTA00157684 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT ISSUES IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN The manner in which federal prosecutors have pursued the allegations against Mr. Epstein is highly irregular and warrants full review by the Depar

ring the federal investigation; a letter from former CEOS attorney Stephanie Thacker that responds to CEOS's assessment of its limited review of Mr. E stein's case; and a point-by- point rebuttal to First Assistant United States Attorney recent letter which we believe contains factual inaccuracies typic

here, those problems unquestionably present multi jurisdictional obstacles that States and localities cannot confront effectively on their own. Mr. Epstcin's conduct was purely local in nature, and the State of Florida and Palm Beach County are effectively prosecuting and punishing that conduct. Althou

LP SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT ISSUES IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN The manner in which federal prosecutor

LP SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT ISSUES IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN The manner in which federal prosecutors

dent assessment of whether federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is both nertcruy and warranted in view of the le

is house if they were under the age of 18. See United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (1 3'Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v Puche, 350 F.3d t 137, 1149 (11th Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignorance is appropriate only if it is shown [among other things] ... that the defendant

EY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND IDENTIFY JANE DOE NUMBERS 101 AND 102 IN THIRD PART

CASE NO.: 08-CV-8038I-MARRA/JOHNSON EFTA00182748 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 2 of 8 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 2 JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE

OHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 101 AND 10

v. Epstein Page 4 Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, ("Mr. Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, her

ICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff,

ks. Page 4 haps://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv-Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt... 6/8/2009 EFTA00182793 Page 2 of 11 Westlaw. 162 F.3d 832 162 F.3d 832 (Cite as: 162 F.3d 832) C United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ra

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

run.") (citing Falter, 23 F.3d at 425-26). And other circuits have emphasized this distinction in the context of Section 3283. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d, at 922-25; Jeffries, 405 F.3d 685. Read together, the Second Circuit's decisions in Weingarten, Vernon, Enterprise, and Falter establish that Cong

, 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

of fairness and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a conviction against the accused." United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82,91 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "Such outrageous or conscience shocking behavior involves egregious invasion

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

f 27 claiming the protection has voluntarily disclosed work product to a party not covered by the work-product doctrine." United States v. Ary, 518 F.3d 775, 783 (10th Cir. 2008). Perhaps recognizing the difficulty inherent in its position under these well-recognized general principles, the Governme

2 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant, v. SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, Intervenors-Appellants No. 18-2868 Appellee Maxwell's Motion to Reconsider and Vacate th

AXWELL, Defendant, v. SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA

SLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant, v. SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD

able one. As Lugosch holds, it can be overcome by "specific, on-the- record findings that higher values necessitate a narrowly tailored sealing." 435 F.3d at 126. The Order to Show Cause is improperly dismissive both of the rebuttal of the presumption Ms. Maxwell is entitled to make and the procedure

owitz endin before Hon. Loretta Preska in the Southern District of New York. lack of credibility, and actual conduct in recruiting young girls for Jeffrey Epstein, are critical issues in the above-mentioned litigation. We write to notify you that gave approximately nine hours of deposition testimony across t

'. recent civil de sition testimony in their pending case before District Judge Preska establishes serious lack of credibility with respect to the Epstein-Maxwell matter and would cast doubt on the reliability of her submission at the upcoming sentencing. Professor Dershowitz has further advised that

and actual conduct in recruiting young girls for Jeffrey Epstein, are critical issues in the above-mention

sentencing court's decision-making, it is surely the prosecutor." Green, Candor in Criminal Advocacy, supra, at 446; cf. United States v. E.V., 500 F.3d 747, 754 n.12 (81° Cir. 2007) (referring to 'prosecutors' obligation to apprise the court of facts relevant to sentencing"). Consequently, the Offic

ecent civil deposition testimony in their pending case before District Judge Preska establishes Ms. serious lack of credibility with respect to the Epstein-Maxwell matter and would cast doubt on the reliability of ha submission arthe upcoming sentencing. Professor Dershowitz has further advised that al

sentencing court's decision-making, it is surely the prosecutor." Green, Candor in Criminal Advocacy. supra, at 446; cf. United States v. E.V., 500 F.3d 747, 754 n.12 (8th Cr. 2007) (referring to "prosecutors' obligation to apprise the court of facts relevant to sentencingl. Consequently, the Office

4. A CNN.com - Sandy Berger to plead guilty on documents charge - Apr I, 2005 (http://edition.am.com/2005/LAW/04/01/berger.plea0 15. na b Smith, is Jeffrey, Berger Case Still Roils Archives, Justice Dept., Washington Post, February 21, 2007 (http://www.washingtonpost.cotn/svp-dyn/content/article/2007/02

No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. hups://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Full&prit=HTMLE&mt=FederalGov... 2/27/2008 EFTA00192004 504 F.3d 737 504 F.3d 737, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,330, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,672 (Cite as: 504 F.3d 737) use," "sexual abuse," or "abusive sexua