Epstein Secrets

s from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. P. On September 11, 2008, Jane Doe No. 2 file an action in Palm Beach County, Florida, L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 50-2008-CA- 28051-XXXXMB, seeking money damages from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. Q. 6 "A judicial admission is a formal conce

r than to assert that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused both. However, the differing circumstances of the two petitioners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 r

0. When asked whether Epstein "pulled you closer to him in a sexual way," Jane Doe No. 2 replied: A. I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. Id. at 22. At the end of her interview, Jane Doe No. 2 was asked if she had any questions for the agents or AUSA Villafafia

agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email

s of subordinate employees in the DOJ were considered judicial admissions, a party's judicial admissions on questions of law have no legal effect.6 Dabertin v. HCR Manor Care, Inc., 68 F.Supp.2d 998, 1000 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Plainly, at the time the NPA was negotiated in 2007, the then-current version of

s from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. P. On September 11, 2008, Jane Doe No. 2 file an action in Palm Beach County, Florida, L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 50-2008-CA- 28051-XXXXMB, seeking money damages from Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing her. Ex. Q. 6 "A judicial admission is a formal conce

r than to assert that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused both. However, the differing circumstances of the two petitioners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 r

0. When asked whether Epstein "pulled you closer to him in a sexual way," Jane Doe No. 2 replied: A. I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. Id. at 22. At the end of her interview, Jane Doe No. 2 was asked if she had any questions for the agents or AUSA Villafafia

agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email

s of subordinate employees in the DOJ were considered judicial admissions, a party's judicial admissions on questions of law have no legal effect.6 Dabertin v. HCR Manor Care, Inc., 68 F.Supp.2d 998, 1000 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Plainly, at the time the NPA was negotiated in 2007, the then-current version of

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

bserved that, "[fjactual admissions can be binding as judicial admissions; admissions of legal conclusions cannot." Id.(citations omitted). See also Dabertin v. HCR Manor Care, Inc., 68 F.Supp.2d 998, 1000 (N.D. Dl. 1999)("It is well established that judicial admissions on questions of law have no legal

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

bserved that, "[f]actual admissions can be binding as judicial admissions; admissions of legal conclusions cannot." Id.(citations omitted). See also Dabertin v. HCR Manor Care, Inc., 68 F.Supp.2d 998, 1000 (N.D. Ill. 1999)("It is well established that judicial admissions on questions of law have no legal

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

bserved that, "[f]actual admissions can be binding as judicial admissions; admissions of legal conclusions cannot." Id.(citations omitted). See also Dabertin v. HCR Manor Care, Inc., 68 F.Supp.2d 998, 1000 (N.D. III. 1999)("It is well established that judicial admissions on questions of law have no legal

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

served that, "[f]actual admissions can be binding as judicial admissions; admissions of legal conclusions cannot." Id. (citations omitted). See also Dabertin v. HCR Manor Care, Inc. , 68 F.Supp.2d 998, 1000 (N.D. III. 1999)("It is well established that judicial admissions on questions of law have no lega