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'

ils to note the distinctions between amending to add plaintiffs, as opposed to defendants, and the different legal implications between the two. In Leachman I. Beech Aircraft Corp., 694 F.2d 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1981), plaintiff Heather Leachman sued the aircraft manufacturer, Beech Aircraft, on December 2, 1977, for damages due to

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'

ils to note the distinctions between amending to add plaintiffs, as opposed to defendants, and the different legal implications between the two. In Leachman I. Beech Aircraft Corp., 694 F.2d 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1981), plaintiff Heather Leachman sued the aircraft manufacturer, Beech Aircraft, on December 2, 1977, for damages due to

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

ils to note the distinctions between amending to add plaintiffs, as opposed to defendants, and the different legal implications between the two. In Leachman I. Beech Aircraft Corp., 694 F.2d 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1981), plaintiff Heather Leachman sued the aircraft manufacturer, Beech Aircraft, on December 2, 1977, for damages due to