Epstein Secrets

, vs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. I JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenor. I INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPST

PRECLUDE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES A. Mr. Epstein was not a Party to the Underlying Litigation and

o prosecuting what was, at heart, a local sex abuse case." See Jeffrey Sloman, Alex Acosta Acted with Professionalism and Integrity in Handling the Jeffrey Epstein Case, Miami Herald Op-Ed, Feb. 15, 2019. The USAO-SDFL's decision to enter into the NPA was also influenced by its consideration of the privacy interest

EEMENT 1 EFTA00299022 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND ARGUMENT I. PRINCIPLES OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS PRECLUDE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES A. Mr. Epstein was not a Party to the Underlying Litigation and There is no Judgment Against him B. There is no Judicial Finding of "Bad

teenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County on one count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fla. Stat. §796.07. See State v. Jeffiey E. Epstein, 50-2006-CF-009454-AXXX-MB. In or around November 2006, while the state court charge was pending, Mr. Epstein learned that the United States Attorn

procedural due process. "It is hornbook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an action challenging its validity...." School Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Secretary of U.S. Dept of Educ., 584 F.3d 253, 303 (6th Cir. 2009). "No procedural principle is more deeply imbedded in the common law that, in a

Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States, Case No. 08- 80736-Civ-Marra (S.D. Fla.), that evidence gathered in the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein's conduct has revealed that a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (including the Southern District of New York and the Distri

oners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo that Petitioners' rights under the CVRA were violated when Epstein and the USAO-SDFL entered into the Non- Prosecution Agreement, constitutional due process guarantees do not allow either the Non- Prosecution Agreeme

secution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the So

nts contractual rights to a contracting party (Epstein) who has not been made a party to the proceedings before the Court. See, e.g., School Din. of City of Pontiac v. Secretary of U.S. Dept qf Educ., 584 F.3d 253. 303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hornbook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an actio

legal relief that Petitioners have sought pursuant to the CVRA is the setting aside of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners se

oners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo that Petitioners' rights under the CVRA were violated when Epstein and the USAO-SDFL entered into the Non- Prosecution Agreement, constitutional due process guarantees do not allow either the Non- Prosecution Agreeme

secution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the So

ts contractual rights to a contracting party (Epstein) who has not been made a party to the proceedings before the Court. See, e.g., School Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Secretary of U.S. Dept. of Ethic., 584 F.3d 253, 303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hombook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an acti

legal relief that Petitioners have sought pursuant to the CVRA is the setting aside of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners se

oners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo that Petitioners' rights under the CVRA were violated when Epstein and the USAO-SDFL entered into the Non- Prosecution Agreement, constitutional due process guarantees do not allow either the Non- Prosecution Agreeme

secution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the So

ts contractual rights to a contracting party (Epstein) who has not been made a party to the proceedings before the Court. See, e.g., School Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Secretary of U.S. Dept. of Ethic., 584 F.3d 253, 303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hombook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an acti

legal relief that Petitioners have sought pursuant to the CVRA is the setting aside of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners se

oners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo that Petitioners' rights under the CVRA were violated when Epstein and the USAO-SDFL entered into the Non- Prosecution Agreement, constitutional due process guarantees do not allow either the Non- Prosecution Agreeme

secution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the So

ts contractual rights to a contracting party (Epstein) who has not been made a party to the proceedings before the Court. See, e.g., School Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Secretary of U.S. Dept. of Ethic., 584 F.3d 253, 303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hombook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an acti