Epstein Secrets

) & (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

r restitution measures against nonconvicted defendants." hi re W.R. Huff Asset Mgt. Co., LLC, 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). In W.R. Huff petitioners filed two writs of mandamus seeking to vacate settlement agreements of forfeiture actions between the United States and members of the

notice of court proceedings as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) are frivolous; the only court proceedings that have taken place in connection with Epstein's criminal offenses were state court proceedings involving state criminal offenses, for which the CVRA does not 2 EFTA00799496 Case 9:08-cv-8073

ling was also necessary to ensure secrecy, so that as few persons as possible were aware that minor girls were coming at unusual hours to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's mansion. 48. Defendant, Sarah Kellen, also needed (directly or indirectly) to make transportation arrangements for many of the girls, as they were

f is included in the list of victims identified by the Federal Government as victims of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's illegal conduct. Defendant, Jeffrey Page 5 of 17 EFTA00799582 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 90 of 101 Epstein, is thus estopped by his ple

ert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the

nd we are going to be filing civil cases against Mr. Epstein, and this agreement, undoubtedly it will play a b

tims of a crime veto power over any prosecutorial decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing or parole.") (citing In re W.R. Huff, 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Nothing in the CVRA requires the Government to seek approval from crime victims before negotiating or entering i

notice of court proceedings as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) are frivolous; the only court proceedings that have taken place in connection with Epstein's criminal offenses were state court proceedings involving state criminal offenses, for which the CVRA does not 2 EFTA00208824 Petitioners' righ

ling was also necessary to ensure secrecy, so that as few persons as possible were aware that minor girls were coming at unusual hours to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's mansion. 48. Defendant, also needed (directly or indirectly) to make transportation arrangements for many of the girls, as they were often too yo

f is included in the list of victims identified by the Federal Government as victims of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's illegal conduct. Defendant, Jeffrey Page 5 of 17 EFTA00208910 Epstein, is thus estopped by his plea and agreement with the Federal Government from denying the acts alleged in this Compla

ert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the

nd we are going to be filing civil cases against Mr. Epstein, and this agreement, undoubtedly it will play a b

tims of a crime veto power over any prosecutorial decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing or parole.") (citing In re W.R. Huff, 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Nothing in the CVRA requires the Government to seek approval from crime victims before negotiating or entering i

notice of court proceedings as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) are frivolous; the only court proceedings that have taken place in connection with Epstein's criminal offenses were state court proceedings involving state criminal offenses, for which the CVRA does not 2 EFTA00081017 Case 9:08-cv-8073

ling was also necessary to ensure secrecy, so that as few persons as possible were aware that minor girls were coming at unusual hours to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's mansion. 48. Defendant, Sarah Kellen, also needed (directly or indirectly) to make transportation arrangements for many of the girls, as they were

f is included in the list of victims identified by the Federal Government as victims of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's illegal conduct. Defendant, Jeffrey Page 5 of 17 EFTA00081103 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 90 of 101 Epstein, is thus estopped by his ple

ert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the

nd we are going to be filing civil cases against Mr. Epstein, and this agreement, undoubtedly it will play a b

tims of a crime veto power over any prosecutorial decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing or parole.") (citing In re W.R. Huff, 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Nothing in the CVRA requires the Government to seek approval from crime victims before negotiating or entering i

notice of court proceedings as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) are frivolous; the only court proceedings that have taken place in connection with Epstein's criminal offenses were state court proceedings involving state criminal offenses, for which the CVRA does not 2 EFTA00795172 Case 9:08-cv-8073

ling was also necessary to ensure secrecy, so that as few persons as possible were aware that minor girls were coming at unusual hours to Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's mansion. 48. Defendant, Sarah Kellen, also needed (directly or indirectly) to make transportation arrangements for many of the girls, as they were

f is included in the list of victims identified by the Federal Government as victims of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's illegal conduct. Defendant, Jeffrey Page 5 of 17 EFTA00795258 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 90 of 101 Epstein, is thus estopped by his ple

ert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the

nd we are going to be filing civil cases against Mr. Epstein, and this agreement, undoubtedly it will play a b

tims of a crime veto power over any prosecutorial decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing or parole.") (citing In re W.R. Huff, 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Nothing in the CVRA requires the Government to seek approval from crime victims before negotiating or entering i

notice of court proceedings as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2) are frivolous; the only court proceedings that have taken place in connection with Epstein's criminal offenses were state court proceedings involving state criminal offenses, for which the CVRA does not 2 EFTA00205625 Petitioners' righ

D) see also First Am. Compl. 1 32-33, Doe'. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.) ("assert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the [Non-Prosecution] agreement between the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and the United States Government"); Comp

ert[ing] a cause of action against the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the

nd we are going to be filing civil cases against Mr. Epstein, and this agreement, undoubtedly it will play a b

tims of a crime veto power over any prosecutorial decision, strategy or tactic regarding bail, release, plea, sentencing or parole.") (citing In re W.R. Huff 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Nothing in the CVRA requires the Government to seek approval from crime victims before negotiating or entering in

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

ttlement, factors which Congress has required the court to consider. See 18 U.S.C. § 377l(dX2). W11. Huff 409 F.3d at 564. In this instance, as in W.R. Huff there was an un-convicted defendant, Epstein. Unlike in Wit. Huff here Epstein was the only defendant. Nonetheless, the AUSA who investigated Epste

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, Ann Marie Villafana, end I were assigned to different sections within the Office. We reported to different supervisors. 11. I did not partic

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

ttlement, factors which Congress has required the court to consider. See 18 U.S.C. § 377l(dX2). W11. Huff 409 F.3d at 564. In this instance, as in W.R. Huff there was an un-convicted defendant, Epstein. Unlike in Wit. Huff here Epstein was the only defendant. Nonetheless, the AUSA who investigated Epste

to do anything at all to unearth all the hurt and pain it has taken me this long to process." Julie K. Brown, Prosecutors finally want to hear from Jeffrey Epstein's victims, MIAMI HERALD, 2019, https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article230275434.html (last visited June 21, 2019). 18 EFTA00085726

osecutor's conferral obligations; and the government violated the CVRA by failing to advise the victims that it intended to enter into the NPA with Epstein. The government will not EFTA00085709 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2019 Page 2 of 32 what they call "rescissi

ring into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein? Petitioners seek 1 This Court previousl

ovided in law," thus recognizing that there would be numerous situations when it would be impossible for a victim to receive restitution. See In re W.R. Huff, 409 F.3d 555, 563 (2d Or. 2005). The statute under which Petitioners urge this Court to award restitution does not make the government liable for

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

tlement, factors which Congress has required the court to consider. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(2). W.R. me, 409 F.3d at 564. In this instance, as in W.R. Huff, there was an un-convicted defendant, Epstein. Unlike in W.R. me, here Epstein was the only defendant. Nonetheless, the AUSA who investigated Epst