Epstein Secrets

ed. R. Evid. 501 4, 16 iv EFTA00209469 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 6 of 25 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

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

ant. Indeed, so inactive were plaintiffs that the district court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution sua sponte in September, 2010. Doc. 38. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 189) at 5 ("Over the course of the next eighteen months, the CVRA case stalled as petitioners pursued collateral civil claims agai

ed. R. Evid. 501 4, 16 iv EFTA00209538 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 6 of 25 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

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

ant. Indeed, so inactive were plaintiffs that the district court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution sua sponte in September, 2010. Doc. 38. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 189) at 5 ("Over the course of the next eighteen months, the CVRA case stalled as petitioners pursued collateral civil claims agai

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT THE REMEDY STAGE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS Jeffrey Epstein hereby moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(a)(2) a

the stage at which the Court will consider what remedy to order if it finds that the government violated the plaintiffs' rights under the CVRA. Mr. Epstein does not seek to intervene generally in the case, as the duties and obligations imposed by the CVRA apply solely to the government; the statutory r

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT

violated the plaintiffs' rights under the CVRA. Mr. Epstein does not seek to intervene generally in the case,

motion, the government contended, inter alia, that the remedy of rescission of the non-prosecution agreement was prohibited on due process grounds. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 189) at 6-7. It was not until June 19, 2013, that the Court denied the motion and indicated

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT THE REMEDY STAGE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS Jeffrey Epstein hereby moves, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 24(a)(2) a

the stage at which the Court will consider what remedy to order if it finds that the government violated the plaintiffs' rights under the CVRA. Mr. Epstein does not seek to intervene generally in the case, as the duties and obligations imposed by the CVRA apply solely to the government; the statutory r

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PROSPECTIVE LIMITED INTERVENTION AT

violated the plaintiffs' rights under the CVRA. Mr. Epstein does not seek to intervene generally in the case,

motion, the government contended, inter alia, that the remedy of rescission of the non-prosecution agreement was prohibited on due process grounds. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 189) at 6-7. It was not until June 19, 2013, that the Court denied the motion and indicated

07 (emphasis added). This conclusion underscores the inapplicability of Mohawk in the present circumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to the litigation, having intervened solely for the limited purpose of seeking to prevent the disclosu

ircumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to

3771(dX3), in favor of pursuing civil settlement actions against Mr. Epstein prior to, rather than concurrently with, litigating their CVRA rights. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 189) at 5 ("Over the course of the next eighteen months, the CVRA case stalled as petitioners pursued collateral civil claims agai