Epstein Secrets

notice of rights under the Crime Victim Rights Act (CVRA). Emergency Petition, ¶ 5. The instant case is unique in several respects. First, in 2006, Jeffrey Epstein was charged with felony solicitation of prostitution in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida. This charg

fteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida. This charge was based upon the offenses alleged in paragraph 1 of the petition. Second, while Epstein has been under federal investigation, he has not been charged in EFTA00206814 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07)15!20

se is unique in several respects. First, in 2006, Jeffrey Epstein was charged with felony solicitation of

ve the federal investigation. al 5. At that time, Mr. Epstein had been charged by the State of Florida with so

e thing, the court's discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief. Dean 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies pre- charge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted

notice of rights under the Crime Victim Rights Act (CVRA). Emergency Petition, ¶ 5. The instant case is unique in several respects. First, in 2006, Jeffrey Epstein was charged with felony solicitation of prostitution in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida. This charg

fteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida. This charge was based upon the offenses alleged in paragraph 1 of the petition. Second, while Epstein has been under federal investigation, he has not been charged in EFTA00235078 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07)15!20

se is unique in several respects. First, in 2006, Jeffrey Epstein was charged with felony solicitation of

ve the federal investigation. al 5. At that time, Mr. Epstein had been charged by the State of Florida with so

e thing, the court's discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief. Dean 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies pre- charge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted

f his clients is the purported victim. Accordingly, I will address facts related to C.W., T.M., and S.R. All three of those clients were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's while they were minors beginning when they were fifteen years old. 'Please note that the dates on the U.S. Attorney's Office letters to C.W. and T.

ney. That attorney was James Eisenberg, and his fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, the target of the investigation.' 5. In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("the Office") entered into negotiations to resolve the investigation. At that

States Attorney assigned to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. The case was investigated by the Federal

f the investigation.' 5. In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern

e thing, the court's discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief. Dean 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies pre- charge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted