Epstein Secrets

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

s obligated to address and resolve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter juris

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

s obligated to address and resolve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter juris

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

s obligated to address and resolve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter juris

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

s obligated to address and resolve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter juris

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 EFTA00205603 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

s obligated to address and resolve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter jurisdi

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

s obligated to address and resolve the question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding any further with this matter. E.g., University of South Alabama American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter jurisdi

to the EFTA00205483 criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, including the prosecution memo and draft

elief they seek and that, because Petitioners still have the opportunity to confer with an attorney for the government and to pursue charges against Jeffrey Epstein in other Districts, their claim is not ripe. F2 Pursuant to Eleventh Circuit law, Respondent respectfully requests that the Court stay discovery in

the U.S. Attorney, asking for an investigation of various alleged improprieties occurring in the negotiation of the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein (Request for Production No. 17). This allegation of misconduct was referred to the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility. Ho

ing the Court's subject matter jurisdiction must properly be addressed and resolved before this Court takes any further action in the case. E.g. , University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co. , 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that "the district court should have resolved the issue of subject matter juri