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

ate cause analyses. Id. at 350, citing 27 EFTA00177077 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (20° Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the

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

, citing 27 EFTA00230092 ff ell.;;;;;:t; --- ------- 1 Case 9:O8-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2gd Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the c

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

mate cause analyses. Id. at 350, citing 27 EFTA00078861 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2nd Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the c

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

A Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON EFTA00208063 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 57-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2n° Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the c

reference 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

etitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ e

ment that a victim be "directly and proximately harmed" encompassed the traditional "but for" and proximate cause analyses. Id. at 350, citing In Re Rendon Galvis , 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2 ' Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the