Epstein Secrets

t's desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients

ls the victims of federal sex crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein ...." As you know, in 2008 your Office d

criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take t

confer with the attorney for the Government in the case"). Two days later (July 91h), the Government sent her a notice that, in light of defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and 18-month jail sentence, the Government had agreed to defer all federal prosecution — including a

y Epstein ...." As you know, in 2008 your Office did not object to adding Jane Doe No. 2 into this litigation, recognizing that she was a victim of Epstein's crimes and had interests at stake in the case. We continue to be perplexed that you are not extending the same consideration to Jane Doe No. 3 an

NOT CONFER WITH PETITIONER. The Government finally makes a factual argument about the state of negotiations in this cate. The brief discussion (see Gov'ts Response at 7-8) is somewhat vague. One short passage in the response, however, seems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about tF.e ple

f his clients is the purported victim. Accordingly, I will address facts related to C.W., T.M., and S.R. All three of those clients were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's while they were minors beginning when they were fifteen years old. 'Please note that the dates on the U.S. Attorney's Office letters to C.W. and T.

ney. That attorney was James Eisenberg, and his fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, the target of the investigation.' 5. In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("the Office") entered into negotiations to resolve the investigation. At that

States Attorney assigned to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. The case was investigated by the Federal

f the investigation.' 5. In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern

NOT CONFER WITH PETITIONER. The Government finally makes a factual argument about the state of negotiations in this case. The brief discussion (see Gov'ts Response at 7-8) is somewhat vague. One short passage in the response, however, seems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about the plea

confer with the attorney for the Government in the case"). Two days later (July 9th), the Government sent her a notice that, in light of defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to %arious state charges and 18-month jail sentence, the Government had agreed to defer all federal prosecution — including a

f the victims had been told that the plea agreement gave them advantages in civil litigation against the defendant, then that would have "provid[ed) Epstein the means )f impeaching the victim witnesses . . ." Gov't Response at 5. But obviously the victims were already subject to impeachment on that grou

nt sent her a notice that, in light of defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to %arious state

NOT CONFER WITH PETITIONER. The Government finally makes a factual argument about the state of negotiations in this case. The brief discussion (see Gov'ts Response at 7-8) is somewhat vague. One short passa€,e in the response, however, seems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about tie ple

confer with the attorney for the Government in the case"). Two days later (July 9th), the Government sent her a notice that, in light of defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to %arious state charges and 18-month jail sentence, the Government had agreed to defer all federal prosecution — including a

f the victims had been told that the plea agreement gave them advantages in civil litigation against the defendant, then that would have "provid[ed) Epstein the means )f impeaching the victim witnesses . . ." Gov't Response at 5. But obviously the victims were aheady subject to impeachment on that groun

nt sent her a notice that, in light of defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to %arious state

NOT CONFER WITH PETITIONER. The Government finally makes a factual argument about the state of negotiations in this case. The brief discussion (see Gov'ts Response at 7-8) is somewhat vague. One short passa€,e in the response, however, seems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about tl-e pl