Epstein Secrets

SUMMARY In March 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department opened a criminal investigation of Palm Beach homeowner, Jeffrey E. Epstein when the father and stepmother of complained to police about a visit by their daughter to Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home. After the police investig

tigation of Palm Beach homeowner, Jeffrey E. Epstein when the father and stepmother of complained to police about a visit by their daughter to Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home. After the police investigated the matter and interviewed Ms. Gonzales, no charges were brought. true motivation for going to th

11 FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION WITH JEE -, DIDN'T JE LEARN THAT BRAD WAS NOT THE INFORMANT? IF SO, WH

criminal investigation of Palm Beach homeowner, Jeffrey E. Epstein when the father and stepmother of comp

criminal investigation of Palm Beach homeowner, Jeffrey E. Epstein when the father and stepmother of compl

awsuit seeking substantial monetary damages from Mr. Epstein. apparently seeking her own payday, denied that

overnment could always find a way to indict Mr. Epstein even well after he completed the sentence required of him under the NPA. See United States' Response to Court's Order Requesting Position on Defendant's Motion to Stay, fn. 5, pp. 14-15. Moreover, Ms. Villafana served written notice on Mr. Epstein's counsel t

United States Attorney' t of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your client and The U.S. Attorney's Office has learned that rey stein as app ied to participate in the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office's ("PBSO") work release program, and PBSO has ranted that a lication. Mr. E ste

tein ias app ied to participate in the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office's ("PBSO") work release program, and PBSO has ranted that a lication. Mr. E stein is reportedly working for The Florida Science Foundation at est Palm Beach, FL 33401. After work each day, Mr. Epstein returns to the Palm Beach C

est Palm Beach, FL 33401. After work each day, Mr. Epstein returns to the Palm Beach County Stockade. While

's handling of the matter involving your client, Jeffrey Epstein. We have received and reviewed your lette

REY EPSTEIN RAL EFCOUR ESQ. OUNSEL TO JF_FER .Y EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EP

was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA 's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

osecution Agreement, an October 2007 Addendum and a letter dated December 19, 2007 from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez , Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein (DE 35 at 13).' Included in this preservation order are all Documents and data, including electronically stored information ("ES1"), relating to th

he Victim's Petition further alleges that in violation of the CVRA, Jane Doe #1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at 1¶3-6). The "Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "th

States, Case No.: 08-80736-CIV- MARRA/Johnson AND Jeffrey Epstein Dear Rolando: I write in my capacity as

Villafana indicates that "in the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the [USAO-SDFLA) entered into negotiations t

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at 1¶3-6). The "Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was) an orchestrated decision (between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein) to d

osecution Agreement, an October 2007 Addendum and a letter dated December 19, 2007 from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez , Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein (DE 35 at ¶3).' I I assume those involved in the above-referenced litigation, have copies of the relevant court filings, but if you desire any of t

he Victim's Petition further alleges that in violation of the CVRA, Jane Doe #1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "th

States, Case No.: 08-80736-C1V- MARRA/Johnson AND Jeffrey Epstein As a follow-up to your recent meeting co

on of It• indicates that "in the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the [USAO-SDFLA] entered into negotiations t

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

osecution Agreement. an October 2007 Addendum and a letter dated December 19, 2007 from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez , Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein (DE 35 at ¶3).r I assume those involved in the above-referenced litigation, have copies of the relevant court filings, but if you desire any of the

he Victim's Petition further alleges that in violation of the CVRA, Jane Doe #1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The -Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "th

States, Case No.: 08-80736-CIV- MARRA/Johnson AND Jeffrey Epstein As a follow-up to your recent meeting co

A. Marie indicates that "in the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the [USAO-SDFLA] entered into negotiations t

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The -Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

osecution Agreement, an October 2007 Addendum and a letter dated December 19, 2007 from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez , Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein (DE 35 at ¶3).' I I assume those involved in the above-referenced litigation, have copies of the relevant court filings, but if you desire any of t

he Victim's Petition further alleges that in violation of the CVRA, Jane Doe #1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "th

States, Case No.: 08-80736-C1V- MARRA/Johnson AND Jeffrey Epstein As a follow-up to your recent meeting co

Villafafia indicates that "in the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the [USAO-SDFLA] entered into negotiations t

1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision [between the "U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein] to d

e that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their rights under the Act by failing to advise them of a plea agreement it had reached with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. On September 9, 2010, this Court sua sponte entered an administrative order "closing" the case. The basis for this order was "the underlying [civil

te entered an administrative order "closing" the case. The basis for this order was "the underlying [civil settlements) between the victims and Mr. Epstein." Order at 1. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 hereby give notice that they intend to make subsequent filings in this case shortly. They accordingly re

a plea agreement it had reached with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. On September 9, 2010, this Court sua sp

ying [civil settlements) between the victims and Mr. Epstein." Order at 1. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 hereb

INSON JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution. (DE 41). On September 8, 2010, the Court entered an Order administratively closing this case in light of related