Epstein Secrets

I don't think we are very far apart on this language. I had also suggested some language, to be included in the agreement on finality, provided that Jeffrey abided by all the terms of the agreement. Please let me know your thoughts on these. I will continue to review the document and speak with you tomor

JEFFREY EPSTEIN RAL EEC° ESQ. OUNSEL TO JEFFR Y EPSTEIN EFTA00184724 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 3

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. Incase note that the dates on the U.S. Attorney's Office letters to C.W. and T.M

of course, is a defense attorney who represented defendant Epstein. Recording information provided by a defense att

EDWARDS: Your Honor, as a factual 2 background, Mr. Epstein is a billionaire that 3 sexually abused and mol

States Attorney's Office will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed. Terms of the Agreement: I. Epstein shall plead guilty (not nob contendere) to an Information filed by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him t

ge 3 of 5 US_Atty_Cor_0085 EFTA00184713 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-61 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 7 of 8 In consideration of Epsteln's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation to victims, if Epstein successfully fiilfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreem

hy the provision limits tolling to "prosecution" rather than simply all claims. This conclusion is supported by Smith'. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005), which contemplated the statute of limitations period for 2255 claims and was decided after the PROTECT Act was enacted. In Smith, the Court did n

Y EPSTEIN RALD LEFCO r RT ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFR Y EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EP

in the woe position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted al trial. No more; no less. From

hearing shall be limited to the issue of whether Defendant Epstein's defense of the civil actions filed against him

of Breach USAO No. 2006R0 181 June 9, 2009 To Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney Robert

TATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: Dated: Dated: A. MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY EPSTEIN RALD LEFCO r RT ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFR Y EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011815 EFTA00192861 By signing this Addendum, Epstein assert

at two district courts have held that plaintiffs may pursue a § 2255 action even without a prior conviction, Smith I. Husband, 376 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005); Doe I. Liberatore 478 F. Supp. 2d 742 (E.D. Pa. 2007). But with due respect, these decisions overlook the relevant legislative history set forth a

alm Beach, Florida 33401 Dear Alex: Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York. New York 10022-4611 ynny.ldrkiend.00m October 23, 2007 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Facsirmler I write in response to Mr. email of October 22, 2007. First, I want to remind you that Mr. Epstein and your OM agreed to the terms of

.00m October 23, 2007 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Facsirmler I write in response to Mr. email of October 22, 2007. First, I want to remind you that Mr. Epstein and your OM agreed to the terms of the Federal Non Prosecution Agreement (the "Agreement"), which is a binding agreement between the parties. Mr. E

22-4611 ynny.ldrkiend.00m October 23, 2007 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Facsirmler I write in response to Mr.

tober 22, 2007. First, I want to remind you that Mr. Epstein and your OM agreed to the terms of the Federal N

y the provision limits tolling to "prosecution" rather than simply all claims. This conclusion is supported by Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005), which contemplated the statute of limitations period for 2255 claims and was decided after the PROTECT Act was enacted. In Smith, the Court did n

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

at two district courts have held that plaintiffs may pursue a § 2255 action even without a prior conviction. Smith v. Husband. 376 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005); Doe v, Liberatore, 478 F. Supp. 2d 742 (ED. Pa. 2007). But with due respect, these decisions overlook the relevant legislative history set forth 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

at two district courts have held that plaintiffs may pursue a § 2255 action even without a prior conviction. Smith v. Husband. 376 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005); Doe v, Liberatore, 478 F. Supp. 2d 742 (ED. Pa. 2007). But with due respect, these decisions overlook the relevant legislative history set forth 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

at two district courts have held that plaintiffs may pursue a § 2255 action even without a prior conviction. Smith v. Husband. 376 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005); Doe v, Liberatore, 478 F. Supp. 2d 742 (ED. Pa. 2007). But with due respect, these decisions overlook the relevant legislative history set forth 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

at two district courts have held that plaintiffs may pursue a § 2255 action even without a prior conviction. Smith v. Husband. 376 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005); Doe v, Liberatore, 478 F. Supp. 2d 742 (ED. Pa. 2007). But with due respect, these decisions overlook the relevant legislative history set forth 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

at two district courts have held that plaintiffs may pursue a § 2255 action even without a prior conviction. Smith v. Husband. 376 F. Supp. 2d 603 (E.D. Va. 2005); Doe v, Liberatore, 478 F. Supp. 2d 742 (ED. Pa. 2007). But with due respect, these decisions overlook the relevant legislative history set forth a