Epstein Secrets

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the

Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor state offenses." Motion at 4. Instead, he pled guilty to two state felony offenses and served a prison

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement

e impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor sta

ntiality in their settlement/plea communications with the government and their concomitant protection from disclosure to the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir. 2007)(Perlman jurisdiction "does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief'); Gill v.

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the

Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor state offenses." Motion at 4, . Instead, he pled guilty to two state offenses, one of which was a fel

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement

e impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor sta

ntiality in their settlement/plea communications with the government and their concomitant protection from disclosure to the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir. 2007)(Perlman jurisdiction "does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief'); Gill v.

e of their plea negotiations; and, if so, whether a privilege bars crime victims from discovering plea negotiations. The United States investigated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, but failed to confer with the victims before entering a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Two victims filed suit agai

tates investigated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, but failed to confer with the victims before entering a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Two victims filed suit against the United States to enforce their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and sought to disc

CA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appeals from t

the privilege asserted by appellants is without a basis in Florida law" and that appellants "have no privilege of nondisclosure under state law"); Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596,599 (6th Cir. 2005) ("[Perlman] jurisdiction does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief."); see

07 (emphasis added). This conclusion underscores that inapplicability of Mohawk in the present circumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to the litigation, having intervened solely for the limited purpose of seeking to prevent the disclosu

circumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to

ntiality in their settlement/plea communications with the government and their concomitant protection from disclosure to the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir. 2007)(Perlman jurisdiction "does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief'); Gill v.

07 (emphasis added). This conclusion underscores the inapplicability of Mohawk in the present circumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to the litigation, having intervened solely for the limited purpose of seeking to prevent the disclosu

ircumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to

ntiality in their settlement/plea communications with the government and their concomitant protection from disclosure to the plaintiffs. See, e.g., Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir. 2007)(Perlman jurisdiction "does not depend on the validity of the appellant's underlying claims for relief'); Gill v.