Epstein Secrets

, vs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. I JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenor. I INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPST

PRECLUDE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES A. Mr. Epstein was not a Party to the Underlying Litigation and

o prosecuting what was, at heart, a local sex abuse case." See Jeffrey Sloman, Alex Acosta Acted with Professionalism and Integrity in Handling the Jeffrey Epstein Case, Miami Herald Op-Ed, Feb. 15, 2019. The USAO-SDFL's decision to enter into the NPA was also influenced by its consideration of the privacy interest

EEMENT 1 EFTA00299022 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND ARGUMENT I. PRINCIPLES OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS PRECLUDE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES A. Mr. Epstein was not a Party to the Underlying Litigation and There is no Judgment Against him B. There is no Judicial Finding of "Bad

teenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County on one count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fla. Stat. §796.07. See State v. Jeffiey E. Epstein, 50-2006-CF-009454-AXXX-MB. In or around November 2006, while the state court charge was pending, Mr. Epstein learned that the United States Attorn

ion the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals may issue the writ on the order of a single judge pursuant to circuit rule or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court of appeals shall take up and decide such application forthwith within 72 hours after the petition has been filed, unless the litigants,

l 12, 2021 opposition. 8. In sum, the Indictment charges Maxwell with facilitating the 3 EFTA00091597 sexual abuse of multiple minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein between approximately 1994 and 1997.2 (Ind. ¶ 1). During that period, Maxwell played a key role in Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls by helping

use of multiple minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein between approximately 1994 and 1997.2 (Ind. ¶ 1). During that period, Maxwell played a key role in Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls by helping to identify, entice, and groom minor victims, who were as young as 14 years old, to engage in sex acts with

91597 sexual abuse of multiple minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein between approximately 1994 and 1997.2 (I

ederal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(g), the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that this opposition complies with the type-volume limitation of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. As measured by the word processing system used to prepare this opposition, there are 5,164 words in this opposition. Is' Assistant United States A

50 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae John Doe EFTA00792257 Case 18-2868, Document 153-1, 03/19/2019, 2521600, Page3 of 6 --against--- SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, Intervenors-Appellants. EFTA00792258 Case 18-2868, Document 153-1, 03/19/2019, 2521600,

n, a party in any judicial proceeding involving Maxwell, involving Plaintiff- Appellee ("M'), or otherwise relating to allegation that Respondent Epstein ("Epstein") sexually abused her. Nor is Amicus aware of any legal proceeding or law enforcement reports in which identified Amicus as a co-conspir

521600, Page3 of 6 --against--- SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD

forcement reports in which identified Amicus as a co-conspirator of Epstein or a person with whom she had sexual relations. Pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Second Circuit Local Rule 29.1(b), the undersigned counsel states: (a) that no party's counsel authored this brief in whole or in part; (b) tha