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'

e May 1, 1979. Id. at 1303. This deadline for refiling was twice extended, to December 1, 1979, and finally to March 1, 1980. On February 22, 1980, Leachman and Northern Counties Lumber, Inc., filed a complaint 13 Government Exhibit A Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA EFTA00210581 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 312-1 Entered on FLSD Docke

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'

e May 1, 1979. Id. at 1303. This deadline for refiling was twice extended, to December 1, 1979, and finally to March 1, 1980. On February 22, 1980, Leachman and Northern Counties Lumber, Inc., filed a complaint against Beech. Northern Counties, the owner of the plane, was wholly owned by William Leachman at the time of the crash, and now

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

e May 1, 1979. Id. at 1303. This deadline for refiling was twice extended, to December 1, 1979, and finally to March 1, 1980. On February 22, 1980, Leachman and Northern Counties Lumber, Inc., filed a complaint against Beech. Northern Counties, the owner of the plane, was wholly owned by William Leachman at the time of the crash, and now