Epstein Secrets

the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in which the crime occurred." Since no federal criminal charge was filed against Epstein, petitioners sought relief under the second clause, by filing their emergency petition in the Southern District of Florida on July 7, 2008. Petitio

st Epstein, using the Podhurst Orseck, P.A. law firm, which had been suggested to her in the September 3, 2008 letter. Exhibit B Jane Doe No. 102'. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 09-80656-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.). In her complaint against Epstein, Jane Doe #3 stated that she received numerous phone calls from one of Ep

ber 3, 2008 letter. Exhibit B Jane Doe No. 102'. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 09-80656-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.).

e entire agreement between the United States and Mr. Epstein." Exhibit A at 3. In January 2009, Jane Doe #3 r

ional condition attached to the government's waiver of sovereign immunity, and as such must be strictly construed." Center for Biological Diversity I. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331, 1334 (11th Cir.2006), citing Spannaus, 824 F.2d at 55. Also, petitioners' contention that, because the CVRA contains no statute of

Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 became familiar enough with the non-prosecution agreement to both invoke its provisions in their lawsuits against Jeffrey Epstein under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.1 United States' Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject matter Jurisdiction, D.E. 205-6, Exhibits A -

wsuit was that the government failed to consult with them prior to what they believed would be the disposition of the federal investigation against Epstein. D.E. I II 3,4. They knew, at the time their petition was filed, that Epstein had "recently been prosecuted and pleaded guilty, on June 30, 2008, i

h invoke its provisions in their lawsuits against Jeffrey Epstein under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.1 United States'

Docket 02/23/2015 Page 23 of 25 government's waiver of sovereign immunity, and as such must be strictly construed. Center for Biological Diversity I. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331, 1334 (11th Cir. 2006), citing Spannaus I. Dept. of Justice 824 F.2d 52, 55 (D.C. Cir. 1987). "[A] waiver of the Government's soverei

Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2 became familiar enough with the non-prosecution agreement to both invoke its provisions in their lawsuits against Jeffrey Epstein under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.' United States' Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject matter Jurisdiction, D.E. 205-6, Exhibits A —

wsuit was that the government failed to consult with them prior to what they believed would be the disposition of the federal investigation against Epstein. D.E. 1,11 3,4. They knew, at the time their petition was filed, that Epstein had "recently been prosecuted and pleaded guilty, on June 30, 2008, i

h invoke its provisions in their lawsuits against Jeffrey Epstein under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.' United States'

tional condition attached to the government's waiver of sovereign immunity, and as such must be strictly construed. Center for Biological Diversity I. Hamilton 453 F.3d 1331, 1334 (116 Cir. 2006), dtkgi Spannaus I. Dept. of Justice, 824 F.2d 52, 55 (D.C. Cir. 1987). "[A] waiver of the Government's sovereign

Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 became familiar enough with the non-prosecution agreement to both invoke its provisions in their lawsuits against Jeffrey Epstein under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.1 From its inception, the premise of their CVRA lawsuit was that the government failed I Jane Doe No. 3, who seeks to be add

d I Jane Doe No. 3, who seeks to be added as a party, also wasted little time in utilizing the non-prosecution agreement to seek money damages from Epstein. After receiving written notice in January 2009 from the U.S. Attorney's Office of Epstein's guilty pleas and the potential of obtaining compensatio

h invoke its provisions in their lawsuits against Jeffrey Epstein under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.1 From its incept

tional condition attached to the government's waiver of sovereign immunity, and as such must be strictly construed. Center for Biological Diversity I. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331, 1334 (IP" Cir. 2006), citing Spannaus I. Dept. of Justice, 824 F.2d 52, 55 (D.C. Cir. 1987). "[A] waiver of the Government's soverei