Epstein Secrets

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'

d in part on other grounds 545 F.2d 919 (5th Cir. 1977). Plaintiff McLellan filed suit against his former employer, defendant Mississippi Power and Light Company, for discharging him for violating company policy by filing a voluntary petition in bankruptcy. Id. at 871. Defendant filed a timely motion to dism

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'

d in part on other grounds 545 F.2d 919 (5th Cir. 1977). Plaintiff McLellan filed suit against his former employer, defendant Mississippi Power and Light Company, for discharging him for violating company policy by filing a voluntary petition in bankruptcy. Id. at 871. Defendant filed a timely motion to dism

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

in part on other grounds, 545 F.2d 919 (511' Cir. 1977). Plaintiff McLellan filed suit against his former employer, defendant Mississippi Power and Light Company, for discharging him for violating company policy by filing a voluntary petition in bankruptcy. Id. at 871. Defendant filed a timely motion to dism