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

subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by estoppel, Micklerl Nimishillen and Tuscarawas Railway Co., 13 F.3d 184, 189 (6' Cir. 1993), and Intercontinental Travel 44 EFTA00177094 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 45 of 54 Marketing, Inc.' FDIC, 45 F.3d 1278, 1286 (9

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

ject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by estoppel, Mickley. v. Nimishillen and Tuscarawas Railway Co., 13 F.3d 184, 189 (611' Cir. 1993), and Intercontinental Travel 44 EFTA00078878 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 45 of 54 Marketing, Inc. v. FDIC, 45 F.3d 1278, 1286 (

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

bject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by estoppel, Mickler v. Nimishillen and Tuscarawas Railway Co., 13 F.3d 184, 189 (611' Cir. 1993), and Intercontinental Travel 44 Respondent's Exhibit A Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRAMOHNSON EFTA00208080 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 57-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/20