Epstein Secrets

ted. Continental Casualty Co. v. Fibreboard Corp., 4 F.3d 777, 778 (' Cir. 1993). The non-prosecution agreement in this case was signed in 2007, and Epstein entered his pleas of guilty in July 2008, in Florida circuit court. I k was sentenced by the state court, and has served his sentence. Individuals

n for sexually abusing them. During the course of that litigation, in June 2001, they obtained correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ultimately settled their civil suits in July 2010. During the settlement discussions, they informed Epste

hether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for

in "the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." Declaration of Marie V

does not authorize an unbridled gallop to any and all information in the government's files." 558 F.Supp.2d at 425. Similarly, in United States v. Coxton, 598 F.Supp.2d 737 (W.D.N.C. 2009), several crime victims invoked the. CVRA in at attempt to obtain portions of the pit-sentence investigation repo

rejected claims by victims that one or more of the rights in section 3771(a) create a right of access to information in the government's possession; Coxton (no right 4 EFTA00230167 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 5 of 9 to PSR); Kenna (same); and Sacane (no

nted. Continental Casualty Co.'. Fibreboard Corp., 4 F.3d 777, 778 (' Cir. 1993). The non-prosecution agreement in this case was signed in 2007, and Epstein entered his pleas of guilty in July 2008, in Florida circuit court. I k was sentenced by the state court, and has served his sentence. Individuals

n for sexually abusing them. During the course of that litigation, in June 2001, they obtained correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ultimately settled their civil suits in July 2010. During the settlement discussions, they informed Epste

hether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for

in "the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." Declaration of Marie V

ided ample information concerning the applicable Sentencing Guidelines and other issues related to the defendants' sentencing. The district court in Coxton found that the victims in that case were present during trial and continued to enjoy access to the United States Attorney's Office. Id. at 740. Th

rejected claims by victims that one or more of the rights in section 3771(a) create a right of access to information in the government's possession; Coxton (no right 4 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000921 EFTA00230745 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 5 of 9 to PSR); Ke

necessary" (doc. #17 at I). The Office asserted that the Court need only take judicial notice of the fact that no indictment had been filed against Epstein to resolve the case. On August I, 2008, the victims filed a response to the Government's "Notice" (doe. #19), giving a proposed statement of facts

n for sexually abusing them. During the course of that litigation, in June 2001, they obtained correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ultimately settled their civil suits in July 2010. During the settlement discussions, they informed Epste

hether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for

in "the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." Declaration of Marie V

rejected claims by victims that one or more of the rights in section 3771(a) create a right of access to information in the government's possession; Coxton (no right 4 EFTA00177150 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 5 of 9 to PSR); Kenna (same); and Sacane (no

, dots not authorize an unbridled gallop to any and all information in the government's files." 558 F.Supp.2d at 425. Similarly, in United States'. Coxton, 598 F.Supp.2d 737 (W.D.N.C. 2009), several crime victims invoked the CVRA in at attempt to obtain portions of the pre-sentence investigation repor

case, the victims had (for example) no CVRA right to confer with prosecutors about a secret non-prosecution agreement barring federal prosecution of Epstein for crimes committed against the victims. This position contravenes the CVRA's plain language. The CVRA covers agencies involved in the "detection"

REC. S4260, 54269 (statement of Sen. Feinstein) (discussing § 377 l(d)(1) and explaining "[tjhis provision " The Government also attempts to raise Jeffrey Epstcin's "rights to Due Process." Gov't Resp. at 46. The victims are mystified as to why the Government would want to assert the rights of the criminal who

n- prosecution agreement (NPA) it negotiated with Jeffrey Epstein — an agreement that blocked federal pros

ctims cannot review the PSR is that the PSR is already reviewed by the Court. Thus, in the first PSR case cited by the Government, United States v. Coxton, 598 F.Supp.2d 737 (W.D.N.C. 2009), the Court declined to disclose PSR information to the victims because "[n]othing in the PSR enhances or changes