Epstein Secrets

ess/victim through information Palm Beach Police Department. obtained during the trash pulls. During the sworn taped statement, advised she was at Jeffrey Epstein's house one time, approximately two months ago. She was approachedasirl, , who was dating roommate, for an opportunity to make some quick money. ad

of Jeffrey E stein 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach. Several of the victims were recruited by and brought to the residence by to perform massages for Epstein for which received monetary compensation. During the visit they would be introduced to Epstein's assistant, who in turn would record their teleph

ual activity that took place at the residence of Jeffrey E stein 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach. Several of t

in the kitchen of the house. She was also introduced to a white female known to her as . She was led upstairs to the main bedroom known to her as Jeff Epstein's bedroom. arranged the massage table and covered the table with a sheet. She brow t out the massage oils and laid them next to the massage bed. , t

ssi stated he was employed for eleven years with Mr. Epstein, from approximately 1993 through 2004. Alessi sta

rital Elms Region I 8 1 Drug In Lenge D U O rrEFFJ4DA Local Address (Street Apt Number) ICAO (Cale) (2/0) Phone ) ( Residence Type- I. City 2. n_N_ 3 . Florida 4. Out of Slate Permanent Address (Street Apt Number) IOW (Sale) (Zip) Phone ( ) Address Source BuSinin4 Address (Name.

It has utterly failed to even offer any such cause — much less show that it is good cause. Second, the Government — with the apparent contrivance of Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys — has made inaccurate representations about the nature of the non-prosecution agreement in its notices to the victims and in its filing b

well as to the Court — lies with Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys'. See Gov't Response at 5 ("the [inaccurate] victim notification letter was provided to Epstein's attorneys prior to being sent, who approved the language of which the petitioners now complain."). The apparent approval by Jeffrey Epstein's at

-2006 Amendments version of the law applies. See Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss, for More Definite Statement

he terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffre

made a part of the record and the extent to which Mr. Epstein, through his attorneys, was culpable. Sincerely

jury and the causal conduct; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. I. City of Clearwater, Fla., 351 F.3d 1112, 1116 (11ffi Cir. 2003). Petitioners already have obtained access to the agreement, so they cannot claim a denia

f his clients is the purported victim. Accordingly, I will address facts related to C.W., T.M., and S.R. All three of those clients were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's while they were minors beginning when they were fifteen years old. 'Please note that the dates on the U.S. Attorney's Office letters to C.W. and T.

thern District of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your client, On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) entered a plea of guilty to violations of Florida Statutes Sections 796.07 (felony solicitation of prostitution) and 796.03 (procurement of minors

401 (561)8204711 Facsimile: (561)8204777 July 9, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE Brad Edwards, Esq. The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, [.LC Re: Jeffrey 4..stein/QIN...la NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM Dear Mr. Edwards: By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southe

ceed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein EFTA00233829 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document

expand or create an exemption to Florida's public records law. Wait I. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1979); Times Publishing Co. I. City of St. Petersburg, 558 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Principles of federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause may, in limited circumstances, a

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

y, or property interest implicated in the CVRA, and courts arc hesitant to find that a substantive due process right has been created. See Collins I. City of Harker Heights. Texas, 503 U.S. 115, 5 EFTA00177151 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 6 of 9 125 (19

which of his clients is the purported victim. Accordingly,) will address facts related to , S. and S.R. All three of those clients were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's while they were minors beginning when they were fifteen years old. 'Please note that the dates on the U.S. Attorney's Office letters to III and In

fteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida. This charge was based upon the offenses alleged in paragraph 1 of the petition. Second, while Epstein has been under federal investigation, he has not been charged in EFTA00183654 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/15/20

treet, Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020. Re: Jeffrey E eir m/SaVhiii: NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICT

ve the federal investigation. al 5. At that time, Mr. Epstein had been charged by the State of Florida with so

expand or create an exemption to Florida's public records law. Wait I. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1979); Times Publishing Co. I. City of St. Petersburg, 558 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Principles of federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause may, in limited circumstances, a

s an initial matter, the motion should be denied because the non-prosecution agreement entered into between the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein was never filed in the instant case by the United States, either under seal or otherwise. On August 14, 2008, this Court held a telephonic hearing

r attorneys shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard." (DE 26 at 1.) Presumably, petitioners' motion to unseal is an effort to modify the terms of the Protective Order, to enable

between the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein was never filed in the instant case by th

jury and the causal conduct; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. I. City of Clearwater, Fla., 351 F.3d 1112, 1116 (11th Cir. 2003). Petitioners already have obtained access to the agreement, so they cannot claim a denial