Epstein Secrets

77 everything, but I really do not think that Mr. Epstein is going to engage in serious negotiations until

orking on a deferred [sic] prosecution agreement because it may well be that we cannot reach agreement here.” The defense redline version required Epstein to plead guilty to a federal information charging two misdemeanor counts of attempt to intentionally harass a person to prevent testimony, the pendi

154 The Affirmation read: “I, Jeffrey E. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution

d victims of state crimes secure civil financial settlements.” 154 The Affirmation read: “I, Jeffrey E. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum to same dated October 30, 2007.” 155 Villafaña sent Lefkowitz a five-page letter r

147 Acosta and Villafaña were copied on this email. 148 The Addendum is attached as Exhibit 4 to this Report. 94 D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea The addendum did not bring the case to conclusion. Instead, the matter entered a new, protracted phase, which inv

154 The Affirmation read: “I, Jeffrey E. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution A

from “imprisoned” to “jail sentence.” 174 The Information is attached as Exhibit 5. 175 State v. Epstein, case nos. 06-CF-9454 and 08-CF-9381, Transcript of Plea Conference at 41-42 (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, June 30, 2008) (Plea Hearing Transcript). Belohlavek told OPR that reciting the statutory language of the ch

ent 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 0731/2009 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.

fendant opposes the request as "needless, unwarranted and excessive." (DE 127 at 5). Nonetheless, Defendant states in his response that "neither Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys, nor their agents intend to have any direct or indirect contact with Plaintiffs counsels' clients." (DE 127 at 4). The Court not

ICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff,

s, Defendant states in his response that "neither Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys, nor their agents intend to ha

clients." (DE 127 at 4). The Court notes that Defendant is already under court order not to have direct or indirect contact with any victims. See Transcript of Plea Conference at 20. During the course of Defendant's state plea conference of June 30, 2009, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillio explicitly ins

ment 238 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/31/2009 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant

fendant opposes the request as "needless, unwarranted and excessive." (DE 127 at 5). Nonetheless, Defendant states in his response that "neither Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys, nor their agents intend to have any direct or indirect contact with Plaintiffs counsels' clients." (DE 127 at 4). The Court not

ICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA

s, Defendant states in his response that "neither Mr. Epstein nor his attorneys, nor their agents intend to ha

clients." (DE 127 at 4). The Court notes that Defendant is already under court order not to have direct or indirect contact with any victims. See Transcript of Plea Conference at 20. During the course of Defendant's state plea conference of June 30, 2009, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillio explicitly ins