Epstein Secrets

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

771(d)(3) in seeking relief, but they lack standing to seek such relief since the rights provided in section 3771(a) have not attached. In Baloco v. Drummond Company, Inc., 631 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2011), the Eleventh Circuit observed that the Supreme Court discussed the standing inquiry 50 EFTA00230115

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

771(d)(3) in seeking relief, but they lack standing to seek such relief since the rights provided in section 3771(a) have not attached. In Baloco v. Drummond Company, Inc., 631 F.3d 1350 (11ih Cir. 2011), the Eleventh Circuit observed that the Supreme Court discussed the standing inquiry 50 EFTA00078884 Case 9:08-cv

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

71(d)(3) in seeking relief, but they lack standing to seek such relief since the rights provided in section 3771(a) have not attached. In Baloco v. Drummond Company, Inc., 631 F.3d 1350 (11ih Cir. 2011), the Eleventh Circuit observed that the Supreme Court discussed the standing inquiry 50 Respondent's Exhibit A Cas