Epstein Secrets

ring on Appropriate Remedies (unredacted), and a complete set of exhibits, including the e-mails in Exhibit A. The e-mails in Exhibit A are between Epstein's defense attorney and AUSA Villafalta. They were produced in civil litigation between Epstein and some of his victims. Epstein's attorneys redacted

e 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (tereinaRer, the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"); IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Of fice has charged Epstein by indictment with solicitation of prostitution, in vio

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 I The victims are contem

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

ention. CI Id (permissive intervention denied because it would unduly delay and prejudice imminent settlement of the original claims), aff'd sub nom New York News v. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 487 (2d Cir. 1992). Here, the proposed intervention does not create a risk of undue delay or prejudice to the adjudication

ment 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/012011 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

n FLSD Docket 05/012011 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 "Office"). Th

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. 15. After

on. C.f. Id. (permissive intervention denied because it would unduly delay and prejudice imminent settlement of the original claims), aff'd sub nom New York News v. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 487 (2d Cir. 1992). Here, the proposed intervention does not create a risk of undue delay or prejudice to the adjudication

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

ntion. CI Id. (permissive intervention denied because it would unduly delay and prejudice imminent settlement of the original claims), aff'd sub nom New York News v. Klieel, 972 F.2d 482, 487 (2d Cir. 1992). Here, the proposed intervention does not create a risk of undue delay or prejudice to the adjudication

iv. P. 24(b)(1)(b) (doc. #79). The motion to intervene should be denied. appears to be merely the cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to whether or not this Court rules that the Government violated Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime Victims'

d of "common question of law or fact" sufficient to support his permissive intervention into this case. Accordingly, as with the similar motion for Epstein's defense attorneys, his motion to intervene in this Crime Victims' Rights Act case is without merit and should be denied. Alternatively, if the Co

cat's paw of a possible real party in interest — Jeffrey Epstein. It is of no concern to whether or not

l reluctance of courts to intervene unless requested by one of the parties." Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules-1983 Amendment (emphasis added). New York News, Inc.. Kheel, 972 F.2d 482, 488 (2d Cir. 1992). If motion is allowed to succeed, then legions of bystanders will have the ability to intervene in l