Epstein Secrets

f, C.M.A., by and through her undersigned attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for an extension of time in which file to a response to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Stay And Or Continue Action For Time Certain Based. On Parallel Civil And Criminal Proceedings With Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Local

Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby moves this Court to strike all references to a "non- prosecution agreement" contained in defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's ("Epstein") Motion to Stay these proceedings. Under the Best Evidence Rule, Fed. R. Evid. 1002, and the principles underlying the rule, Epstein is required t

eement. In his motion to stay these proceedings, defendant Epstein has argued that he must invoke his Fifth Amendme

80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS

ed on FLSD Docket 04/09/2009 Page 2 of 14 against any stay -- particularly since it involves allegations of serious sexual abuse against a minor. I. EPSTEIN IS NOT FACING PENDING CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST HIM RELATED TO JANE DOE. Epstein's initial burden is to show some sort of risk of criminal prosecuti

Doe. Such risk and speculation about possible criminal charges does not establish a real need for a stay. See Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (refusing to grant a stay a civil proceeding before any indictment was returned because Fifth Amendment conce

) & (8). It is now beyond dispute, for example, that in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his The victims are contemporaneously filing a motion to have their facts accepted by the Court. EFTA00177009 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM

ein agreed to a "confidentiality" provision in the agreement barring its disclosure to anyone — including the victims. For the next nine months, as Epstein was well aware, the U.S. Attorney's Office assiduously concealed from the victims the existence of this signed non-prosecution agreement. Indeed, th

t's desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients

formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his The victims are contempo

criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take t

n by the court in the internal affairs of the Justice Department would clearly constitute a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine." Id. In Dresser Industries, Inc." United States, 596 F.2d 1231, 1237 (5' Cir. 1979), the court of appeals observed that "[t]he decision to prosecute is largely unreviewable by the

ed on FLSD Docket 04/09/2009. Page 2 of 14 against any stay — particularly since it involves allegations of serious sexual abuse against a minor. I. EPSTEIN IS NOT FACING PENDING CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST HIM RELATED TO JANE DOE. Epstein's initial burden is to show some sort of risk of criminal prosecuti

9/2009! Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.: 08-CIV-80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY COMPLAINT . Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby responds to the motion by def

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY COMPLAINT . Plaintiff, Jane Doe, hereby responds to the motion by defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein') to stay this action until late 2010. The motion for a stay should be denied. Defendant has not carried his heavy burden of justifying a stay in th

80893 - MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPO

Doe. Such risk and speculation about possible criminal charges does not establish a real need for a stay. See Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (refusing to grant a stay a civil proceeding before any indictment was returned because Fifth Amendment conce

l relevant times, the Office had approximately 20 Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to the West Palm Beach location. The prosecutor assigned to the Epstein case, I I end I were assigned to different sections within the Office. We reported to different supervisors. 11. I did not participate in any way

ent 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/03/2011 Page 2 of 4 violated Florida Bar rules and Department of Justice regulations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the undersigned retired from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the "Of

Justice regulations by representing employees of Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") in civil litigation after the

s retained to represent several other members of Mr. Epstein's staff in their civil depositions. I5.. After

on by the court in the internal affairs of the Justice Department would clearly constitute a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine." Id. In Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.2d 1231, 1237 (5th Cir. 1979), the court of appeals observed that tilt decision to prosecute is largely unreviewable by the

eference to the position taken by employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ employees relevant to the issue of whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prio

later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non- prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best

titioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ em

n by the court in the internal affairs of the Justice Department would clearly constitute a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine." Id. In Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.2d 1231, 1237 (511' Cir. 1979), the court of appeals observed that "[t]he decision to prosecute is largely unreviewable by

eference to the position taken by employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ employees relevant to the issue of whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prio

later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non- prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best

titioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ em

on by the court in the internal affairs of the Justice Department would clearly constitute a violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine." Id. In Dresser Industries, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.2d 1231, 1237 (51h Cir. 1979), the court of appeals observed that "[t]he decision to prosecute is largely unreviewable by t