Epstein Secrets

the victims explained in their motion for summary judgment (DE 361), the undisputed facts of this case show that for nine months, the Government and Epstein conspired to conceal a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) from Epstein's victims in order to prevent them from voicing any objection to the agreement.

ed Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (and several other victims) in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein for injuries my clients suffered as a consequence of Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of them. 2. I have previously filed an affidavit in this matter (see DE 225-1). This affidavit repeats some of the information contai

Undisputed Fact 1 ("Between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls,

she, herself] procured additional young women for Mr. Epstein and [was] paid commissions or referral fees for

rnment deny that it sent "victim" notification letters to Jane Doe 2, both before it negotiated the NPA and after. See, e.g., DE 407 at 12,11 93-95 (Gov't Resp. to Victims' Statement of Undisputed Facts) (conceding a victim notification letter was sent to Jane Doe 2 in Jan. 2008). As the Court is well awar

simple one. The Government cannot contest that it concealed from the victims a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that it reached with a sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, who had committed federal crimes against dozens of minor victims. I EFTA00597318 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 417 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/1

Florida, located in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere in the United States and overseas. Victims' S.J. Mot., DE 361 at 8, 1 1. Because Epstein and his co-conspirators knowingly traveled in interstate and international commerce to sexually abuse Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and other similarly s

ement (NPA) that it reached with a sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, who had committed federal crimes against

er about the money issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time tha

ims' S.J. Mot."), DE 361 at 7-47 (listing 157 proposed undisputed facts). The Government has responded by contesting some facts, but not others. See Gov't Resp. to 2 EFTA00597319 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 417 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2017 Page 3 of 33 Petitioners' Statement of Undisputed Mater

tends represent "direct evidence" of a conspiracy (to recruit, groom, and sexually abuse minor females or to entice, transport or traffic them for Jeffrey Epstein's sexual pleasure) that Resp. at 36. 2 The proffered evidence is found at GX 401-404, 409-410 and 413 7 EFTA00090733 The government contends that

government clearly intends to rely on how open the alleged abuse was, the relevance of evidence that even the people who claim they were abused by Epstein during the same time frame but without any knowledge or participation by Ms. Maxwell becomes highly relevant to rebut such testimony. 12 EFTA00090

ELL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTIONS IN LIMINE Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON MORGAN &

rly distinguished from normal adult-child interactions. . . . Furthermore, there are no methods of known psychometrics to validly assess grooming. Gov't Resp., Ex. A, p 2 (emphasis added). The article concludes: Currently there is no consensus regarding how to define grooming. In addition, there is no va

case, the victims had (for example) no CVRA right to confer with prosecutors about a secret non-prosecution agreement barring federal prosecution of Epstein for crimes committed against the victims. This position contravenes the CVRA's plain language. The CVRA covers agencies involved in the "detection"

REC. S4260, 54269 (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (discussing § 377 l(d)(1) and explaining "[tjhis provision " The Government also attempts to raise Jeffrey Epstcin's "rights to Due Process." Gov't Resp. at 46. The victims are mystified as to why the Government would want to assert the rights of the criminal who

n- prosecution agreement (NPA) it negotiated with Jeffrey Epstein — an agreement that blocked federal pros

against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, . . [the victims] cannot invoke any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(I) of the CVRA. If an indictment is a prerequisite to CVRA rights, then depar

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

2). Epstein's lawyers, To 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 p

NT THIS PART OF THE VICTIMS' MOTION. In their motion (at pp. 4-6), the victims explained how the correspondence between government prosecutors and Jeffrey Epstein's counsel is highly relevant to their CVRA case. For example, they explained that significant parts of the correspondence specifically discuss the CV

A case. For example, they explained that significant parts of the correspondence specifically discuss the CVRA and the rights of the victims in the Epstein case. The victims have therefore asked this Court to make a finding of "admissibility" regarding the correspondence, consistent with an earlier ord

orrespondence between government prosecutors and Jeffrey Epstein's counsel is highly relevant to their CVR

arding the correspondence, consistent with an earlier order of the magistrate judge. In response, the Government "takes no position" on the motion. Gov't Resp. at 1. Accordingly, this part of the victims' motion should be granted. II. NONE OF THE MATERIALS IN THE CORRESPONDENCE ARE BARRED FROM DISCLOSUR

case, the victims had (for example) no CVRA right to confer with prosecutors about a secret non-prosecution agreement barring federal prosecution of Epstein for crimes committed against the victims. This position contravenes the CVRA's plain language. The CVRA covers agencies involved in the "detection"

NG. REC. S4260, S4269 (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (discussing § 3771(d)(1) and explaining "(t)his provision The Government also attempts to raise Jeffrey Epstein's "rights to Due Process." Gov't Resp. at 46. The victims are mystified as to why the Government would want to assert the rights of the criminal who

n- prosecution agreement (NPA) it negotiated with Jeffrey Epstein — an agreement that blocked federal pros

gainst Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, . . . [the victims] cannot invoke any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(1) of the CVRA. If an indictment is a prerequisite to CVRA rights, then depar

disputed — i.e., the Government does not contest that it deliberately concealed from the victims the existence of a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Accordingly, the Court should proceed on at least that basis. 1 EFTA00208024 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 05:02'20

o a grand jury subpoena is simply not a "grand jury matter" to which Rule 6(e) applies. The subpoena had been issued and its existence was known to Jeffrey Epstein -- what actions he himself took in response to the issuance of the subpoena obviously were not matters occurring before the grand jury; instead, th

a had been issued and its existence was known to Jeffrey Epstein -- what actions he himself took in respo

ed by evidence in the record." The Government has briefly recounted a few facts in opposition to a small sliver of the victims' proposed facts. See Gov't Resp. to Victims' Motion to Have Facts Accepted at 11-13. But none of these facts are supported by any evidence at all. The Government should have at le

ctims should be allowed to depose them. For example, two the witnesses are FBI agents who the Government claims properly informed the victims about Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. Three of the witnesses are Assistant U.S. Attorney's (AUSA's) who were heavily involved in discussions with defense coun

tions as well as organizing telephone calls and other contacts with victims that the Government maintains adequately informed the victims about the Epstein case. The sixth witness is the U.S. Attorney would made all final decisions on victim notifications and Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA).

nment claims properly informed the victims about Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. Three of th

nt on this point, the Government has contested those requests — even arguing that its FBI agents properly and fully informed the victims. See, e.g., Gov't Resp. to 2d RFA 14(a) (The Government "denies that, during the period from September 24, 2007,through June 2008, the USAO-SDFL did not inform Jane Doe 1

t the victims' pleadings are facially deficient, the Court must assume the truth of the victims' allegations — specifically that the Government and Epstein deliberately conspired to enter into a secret non- prosecution agreement in violation of the victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CV

es not cite the applicable civil rule is that it has yet to state clearly whether it is willing to abide by the civil rules in this case. See, e.g., Gov't Resp. Mot. Order Not Withhold Evid., DE #59 at 6-7 (refusing to take a position on whether civil rules apply or not). Indeed, the Government has yet to