Epstein Secrets

RA rights to confer and fairness in cases involving white- collar and other wealthy defendants who commonly engage in pro-charge plea negotiations. Jeffrey Epstein's case illustrates my point. The U.S. Attorney's Office assigned specific attorneys, with AUSA Villafana being the lead prosecutor and primary attorn

rey Epstein. In her petition, Ms. Wild alleges that when federal prosecutors secretly negotiated and entered into a non- prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007, they violated her rights under the CVRA—in particular, her rights to confer with the government's lawyers and to be treated fairly by the

ized by notorious sex trafficker and child abuser Jeffrey Epstein. In her petition, Ms. Wild alleges that

t resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identif

t omits it in another ... , it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion."); t Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S. Ct. 296, 300, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983) (declining to read a term appearing in two subsections of a statute to have the same m

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

lusion."' United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itself quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))). There is no basis for departing from that rule. Given the strong evidence that Congress did not intend retroactively to a

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

lusion."' United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itself quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))). There is no basis for departing from that rule. Given the strong evidence that Congress did not intend retroactively to a

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

lusion."' United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itself quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))). There is no basis for departing from that rule. Given the strong evidence that Congress did not intend retroactively to a

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

lusion."' United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itself quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))). There is no basis for departing from that rule. Given the strong evidence that Congress did not intend retroactively to a

DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his u

ed on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 27 of 36 Defendant's mansion in or about the spring of 2003," FAC ¶ 18, and that she later was "lured ... to the Epstein mansion on at least one and perhaps two other occasions in the spring and/or summer of 2003." Id. ¶ 19. Since these vague allegations leave open the

01, Case No.: 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S

lusion."' United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itself quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))). There is no basis for departing from that rule. Given the strong evidence that Congress did not intend retroactively to a