Epstein Secrets

the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l• 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209356 17. Doe No. 1,

come of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l• 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209356 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Do

r rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida investigated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of the victims and notified them that they were protected "victims" under the CVRA. The Office, however, ultimately reached a plea dea

ell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10.

ION 20 EFTA00209358 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003) 22 Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011) 21 Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, 236-40 (6th Cir. 2011) 14, 15, 19 In re Sealed Case, ---

the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14.

come of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14. Sloman, Jef

7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14. Sloman, Jeffrey 15. 101010MRNI,PIIIIMP 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209568 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Doe No. 2, Jane Note: As they have in the court bel

r rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida investigated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of the victims and notified them that they were protected "victims" under the CVRA. The Office, however, ultimately reached a plea dea

ate jurisdiction. His appeal must accordingly be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc.'. South Florida Water Management Dist, 647 F.3d 6 It is instructive to note that, even though the correspondence at issue is between Epstein's attorneys and the Government's attorneys,

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the

Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor state offenses." Motion at 4. Instead, he pled guilty to two state felony offenses and served a prison

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement

e impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor sta

intiffs rely for the proposition that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management Dist, 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011), is wholly inapposite. The issue in that case was whether intervenors had standing to appeal a consent decree, and

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the

Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor state offenses." Motion at 4, . Instead, he pled guilty to two state offenses, one of which was a fel

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement

e impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor sta

intiffs rely for the proposition that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management Dist, 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011), is wholly inapposite. The issue in that case was whether intervenors had standing to 19 EFTA00584621 Plaintiffs