Epstein Secrets

I wanted to thank you for making the time for breakfast Friday. It was great to catch up. Following up on our conversation about the date for Mr. Epstein's plea, where you said that you didn't want to dictate a schedule to the state, as we discussed I have a case where I represent an individual who i

hout success, including allowing the Petitioners, that is Jane Does #1 and #2, and their counsel, the opportunity to meet with the U.S. Attorney, as Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys did.' Despite the Petitioners' earlier statement to the Court that no additional facts were needed, many hours were spent trying to revi

r information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you again for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, United States Attorney By: Jeffrey First Assistant United States Attorney cc: AUSA US_Atty_Cor_00226 EFTA00184837 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 02

nt set by Congress as of the date of the occurrences) or $150.000 (the amount currently set by statute) or some other agreed upon damage amount. Mr. P.pstein must pay for the services of the selected attorney representative as long as they are limited to settling the claims of the identified individuals.

OFFICE Finally, I would like to address a more general point Our Agreement was first signed on September 24th, 2007. Pursuant to paragraph II, Mr. Epsteinwas to use his best efforts to enter his guilty pies raid be sentenced no later than October 26,2007. As outlined in correspondence between our prosecu

ext week. Accordingly, I have now confirmed with Mr. Epstein's Florida counsel that the state's attorney's of

y to "victims" who arc not stale "victims." You additionally cite your Office's obligations under § 3771(c)( I) of the Justice for All Act of 2004, Ilowever, this subsection relates back to the "rights described in subsection (a)." Thus. since the rights set forth in subsection (a) only apply to the vict

August 3, 2012 Via E-mail: KELLERHALS FERGUSON FLETCHER KROBLIN LLP Jeffrey Epstein ATTN: Darren Indyke St. Thomas, VI RE: Jeffrey Epstein, et al v. Nick Lambros, et al. Civil No. 2012/ 21 Our File No. 00324.030.001 Dear Mr. I

t Superior Court CA . CLARKE Court Clerk II D03211.301 EFTA00296752 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN and L.S.J., LLC, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO. ST-12-CV-21 ) v. ) ) NICK LAMBROS and ACLC, LLC, d/b/a SOUND X, ) ) Defendants. ) ) O

ter in order to properly respond to the allegations of the Complaint, and given that extensions of time to respond to complaints are EFTA00296753 Epstein, et al., v. Lambros, et al. Case No. ST-12-CV-21 Order, March 20, 2012 Page 2 of 2 routinely agreed to by counsel in this jurisdiction as a profe

illpIpeiR 360 WESTPCSMNIEErfErAliSNY 8ANONGTONOLUNCIE 0909 847-3&249II (*nee 6477381-1107 FAX nskasolusemalin can NAide Aaron gReSt. PARA** Jentsy Epstein SW: . EINEM ,SENID I PART, I DESCRIPTION A 14: 2 -is; 2 ell: 1 Vi!i 1 44! I ea. i tit; et, I ea l die I -tia. IlLI. 4*. a MI

-mail: KELLERHALS FERGUSON FLETCHER KROBLIN LLP Jeffrey Epstein ATTN: Darren Indyke St. Thomas, VI RE:

d to the Complaint, or until April 9, 2012. Ordinarily, that should provide sufficient time for Defendant to obtain counsel and have counsel answer. Ilowever, given that this case is in its infancy, given that it may take some time for newly retained counsel in the Virgin Islands to become familiar with

reates big investment profits for billionaire clients without revealing how he does it or whose portfolios he ban, dies. But now, investment whiz Jeffrey Epstein's darkest personal secrets have allegedly been bared in an ex- plosive, seamy prostitution case in- volving underage girls Instead of marveling at hi

element as far as the age is concerned." Dekle said. After an 11-month investi- gation, Palm Beach police said there was probable cause to charge Epstein. 53. with unlawful sex acts with a minor Epstein: Two politicians have returned dona- tions since he was charged with soliciting minors. and

r jurors were then called into Brown's courtroom one by one and asked if they had heard VA 5.1.4.‘E sLir wrwrire °MIMS Moore was a juror in the Jeffrey limb murder trial until it was discovered she neglected to disclose her daughter's murder. Moore say anything about her life that had relevance t

house to give him massages, Goldberg- er said. "Mr. Epstein absolute- ly insisted anybody who came to his ho

. provide evidence that he knew the girls were teenagers. One girl couldn't show up when Mr. Epstein wanted because she had soccer Another time. Mr Ep- stein had to wait for his "massage session because the girl he wanted was still in class. Why didn't State Attorney Barry Krischer let a jury decide wh

. Therefore. skirmishes are expected to continue despite the official cease-fire. The hope is that large-scale operations would be sus- pended. Ilowever, observers fear that ongoing clashes could push back the arrival of the multinational force, which would fuel a cycle of more violence and furth

EY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 09-80469-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON CASE NO.: 09-80591-CIV-MARRA-JOHNSON CASE NO.: 09-80656-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO JANE DOE NO. 101 AND JANE DOE NO. 102'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND IDENTIFY JANE DOE NUMBERS 101 AND 102 IN THIRD PART

CASE NO.: 08-CV-8038I-MARRA/JOHNSON EFTA00182748 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 2 of 8 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 2 JANE DOE NO. 6, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-80994-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-80993-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE

OHNSON Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS JANE DOE NOS. 101 AND 10

v. Epstein Page 4 Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, ("Mr. Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, her

ICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintiff,

20 908 F.Supp. 1265 908 F.Supp. 1265 (Cite as: 908 F.Supp. 1265) one, and therefore his assertion cannot be a lie or a breach of the Agreement. Ilowever, Hoffenberg misled the Government about specific facts relevant to his role at DCC. Each misleading statement, omission, and lie was itself a brea

e R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 Re: Jeffrey Epstein INair Alex: 777 South Finumon Sunni tun Attuuluu, et-tidying, 900'7 (213) 080-8400 www.lorNItuul.com December I I. 2007 HICSul Wu: (213) 600.

at this case is not only extraordinary and unprecedented. it is deeply and uniquely troubling. The constellation of issues. large and small. renders Jeffrey's matter entirely sal genesis. We say this not lightly. Indeed, as you will glean from our two letters. we arc gravely concerned Mat in addition to

Was I S because said .. . if you're not then he [Epsteinl won't wally let you in his house. So I said I wa

ded to review some of the issues and concerns of Mr. Epstein's defense learn. Importantly. I appreciate your a

gating claims. but based on the belief that a guardian ad litem would not be appropriate lbr adults that are capable of making their own decisions. Ilowever. the IJSAO included into the Agreement that we pay Ibr the attorney representative -- when originally Ms. Villafana stated that the representative co

THOMAS/ST. JOHN Plaintiff CASE NO. ST-I2-CV-2I JEFFREY EPSTEIN and LLC Vs. t ACTION FOR: NICK LAMBR

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS/ST. JOHN Plaintiff CASE NO. ST-I2-CV-2I JEFFREY EPSTEIN and LLC Vs. t ACTION FOR: NICK LAMBROS and ACLC, LW, d/b/a SOUND X Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF ENTRY OF A(N) ORDER TO:GREG J.,

t Superior Court CA . CLARKE Court Clerk II D03211.301 EFTA00308364 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN and L.S.J., LLC, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO. ST-12-CV-21 ) v. ) ) NICK LAMBROS and ACLC, LLC, d/b/a SOUND X, ) ) Defendants. ) ) O

ter in order to properly respond to the allegations of the Complaint, and given that extensions of time to respond to complaints are EFTA00308365 Epstein, et al., v. Lambros, et al. Case No. ST-12-CV-21 Order, March 20, 2012 Page 2 of 2 routinely agreed to by counsel in this jurisdiction as a profe

d to the Complaint, or until April 9, 2012. Ordinarily, that should provide sufficient time for Defendant to obtain counsel and have counsel answer. Ilowever, given that this case is in its infancy, given that it may take some time for newly retained counsel in the Virgin Islands to become familiar with