Epstein Secrets

RINCESS CmfaPe. AJ41 112 a., kin inn t Cling lien. AShis i. vont 310 SO ICO. ttiti fel l053) 211-033 10S3) 211-011 migolifunpa tHrp (uulut) IP 3.EPSTEIN Royal Princess. Chiang Nal, J8/10/02 IIIIII/IllOtrOAIITO III041141; lit n.dlmnm ellissui o1Da 0.04:41,40 sotoo 12:51 bit (013) 211 -033 WOW (03

in a to 1 $11702 Guest's signature Dale EFTA00188680 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 310-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 20 of 28 11 J.EP.STEIN Royal Princess, Chiang Nal, 19/10/02 13:07 ROYAL PRINCESS O94/4 Alm I U Camir, lJan 114.4. Mon( I)44. A M.A.,. O4.4..44 W1O.4 TA: (0331 201.033

w about if I call you at 2 tomorrow? 1. The CVRA case is a Complaint about whether certain statutory rights were violated by the Govt. The Govt not JE is the defendant. Whether JD 3 or JD 4 are or are not victims is not the test of whether they are proper petitioners: they also must allege a basis

. . in the original pleading." Because the original petition in this case alleged that the Government violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this case would relate back to the date the petition was filed: July 7, 2008. This relation back eliminates any s

ered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 24 of 28 1, SHOPPERS TRAVEL, INC. SHOPPERS TRAVEL AGENT RS/RS BOOKING RFF ZXL1 07 303 5TH AVENUE NEW YORK J EPSTEIN 457 MADISON AVE 4TH FLOOR NEWYORK NY 10027 DATE: SEP 27 2002 DOE 3 RECORD TERMS; PAYMENT OUE UPON PRESENTATION SINGAPORE AIRLINES 27SEP NEW

nt violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this

e entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." DE 290-I at 3 (emphasis added). This descriptio

ion back in terms of lost evidence due to the passage of time or inadequate time for discovery. See Oslo I. Milwaukee Cnty.. 2007 WL 3228118. at *2 (E.D. Wis. 2007) (no evidence of prejudice; additional plaintiffs allowed). In fact, some jurisdictions require the opposing party to bear the burden of proving pr

. . in the original pleading." Because the original petition in this case alleged that the Government violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this case would relate back to the date the petition was filed: July 7, 2008. This relation back eliminates any s

ement with Jeffrey Epstein and, if so, what crimes were covered. Accordingly, the petition generally alleged that, "[u]pon information and belief, [Epstein] is engaged in plea negotiations with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida concerning federal crimes he is

nt violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this

e entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." DE 290-1 at 3 (emphasis added). This descriptio

ion back in terms of lost evidence due to the passage of time or inadequate time for discovery. See Otto v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2007 WL 3228118, at *2 (E.D. Wis. 2007) (no evidence of prejudice; additional plaintiffs allowed). In fact, some jurisdictions require the opposing party to bear the burden of proving pr

. . in the original pleading." Because the original petition in this case alleged that the Government violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this case would relate back to the date the petition was filed: July 7, 2008. This relation back eliminates any s

ement with Jeffrey Epstein and, if so, what crimes were covered. Accordingly, the petition generally alleged that, "[u]pon information and belief, [Epstein] is engaged in plea negotiations with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida concerning federal crimes he is

nt violated the rights of all the girls who were Jeffrey Epstein's victims, the proposed amendment in this

e entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." DE 290-1 at 3 (emphasis added). This descriptio

ion back in terms of lost evidence due to the passage of time or inadequate time for discovery. See Otto v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2007 WL 3228118, at *2 (E.D. Wis. 2007) (no evidence of prejudice; additional plaintiffs allowed). In fact, some jurisdictions require the opposing party to bear the burden of proving pr

RENA FAITH BY HAND of of the Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern Distri of Florida tams, on a 3132 July 25, 2007 Jeffrey Epstein •ELE.T., FACSIMILE Dear Mr. We have previously provided you with a memo as to why we believe no charge under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) could or should b

ting this statute. We also posited that the language of the statute would have to be stretched beyond recognition to fit the particular facts of Mr. Epstein's case! Enclosed is data that strongly supports the arguments we previously made. We have thoroughly analyzed every prosecution brought under the s

istri of Florida tams, on a 3132 July 25, 2007 Jeffrey Epstein •ELE.T., FACSIMILE Dear Mr. We have pr

beyond recognition to fit the particular facts of Mr. Epstein's case! Enclosed is data that strongly supports

sexual conduct upon which it is based. 2422(b); 2423; 2252(a)(2) & (a)(4)(B) Not Consummated Sin U.S. v. Doyle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1 1429 (E.D. Wis. 2007) Internet No information available but appears to have showed up for meeting arranged through Internet. 2422(b); 2423; 2252(a)(2) & (a)(4)(B)

m: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:49 AM To: Menthe', Matthew (USAFLS) Cc: Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein Hi Matt - I had hoped to have a revised indictment for our discussion today but Mr. Black's motion has demanded my immediate attention. However, i

ested him. Sentence 13 months; appealed conviction & sentence. Affirmed. CHARG 2422(b) Not Consummated Showed up for meeting 2 EFTA00226394 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) CASE ANALYSIS CHART A nationwide search of all cases listing charges under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) underscores the undeniable fact th

ummated Showed up for meeting 2 EFTA00226394 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) CASE ANALYSIS CHART

TS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE E.D. Wis. U.S. I Davidson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95757 E.D. ( Wis. 2006); U.S. I Doyle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11429 (E.D. Wis. 2007) Internet Defendant pretending to be a 16 yr-old gay teen approached a "15 yr-old male teen" on the Internet; engaged in sexually explicit commu