Epstein Secrets

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE NO. 2, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ____________________________________/ JANE DOE NO. 3, CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN,

pstein to Stay and/or Continue the Action for Time Certain Based on Parallel Civil and Criminal Proceedings. See, e.g., docket entry 51 in C.M.A. v. Epstein and Kellen, case no. 08- 80811 (attached). Epstein moves for a stay until the expiration of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with the United St

E UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE ITS POSITION REGARDING DEFENDANT EPSTEIN’S MOTION TO STAY/CONTINUE THE CIVIL CASES PENDING

tered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2009 Page 3 of 4 4 Jeffrey Epstein to Stay and/or Continue the Action for Ti

A. v. Epstein and Kellen, case no. 08- 80811 (attached). Epstein moves for a stay until the expiration of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) because, he claims, the USAO has taken the position that he is violating the NPA by defending the civil actions filed against him. Therefore,

2008. In that communication, we urgently requested that your Office conduct an independent review of the proposed federal prosecution of our client, Jeffrey Epstein. The dual reasons for our request that you review this matter are (i) the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and

he Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (“CEOS”) has already determined that our substantive arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were “compelling.” However, in contradiction to Mr. Sloman’s assertion that CEOS had provided an independent, de novo review, CEOS m

arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were “compelling.” However, in c

ed for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and (ii) the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal law by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “USAO”) to a prominent public figure who has close ties to former President Clinton. The need for review is now all the more exigent.

2008. In that communication, we urgently requested that your Office conduct an independent review of the proposed federal prosecution of our client, Jeffrey Epstein. The dual reasons for our request that you review this matter are (i) the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and

he Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (“CEOS”) has already determined that our substantive arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were “compelling.” However, in contradiction to Mr. Sloman’s assertion that CEOS had provided an independent, de novo review, CEOS m

arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were “compelling.” However, in c

ed for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and (ii) the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal law by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “USAO”) to a prominent public figure who has close ties to former President Clinton. The need for review is now all the more exigent.

2008. In that communication, we urgently requested that your Office conduct an independent review of the proposed federal prosecution of our client, Jeffrey Epstein. The dual reasons for our request that you review this matter are (i) the bedrock need for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and

he Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (“CEOS”) has already determined that our substantive arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were “compelling.” However, in contradiction to Mr. Sloman’s assertion that CEOS had provided an independent, de novo review, CEOS m

arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is not warranted were “compelling.” However, in c

ed for integrity in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and (ii) the profound questions raised by the unprecedented extension of federal law by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “USAO”) to a prominent public figure who has close ties to former President Clinton. The need for review is now all the more exigent.

ugh his undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Response in Opposition to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Epstein seeks Summary Judgment on the claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution set forth in Brad Edwards’ Fourth Amended Counterclaim. Each of th

Epstein. Sexual Abuse of Children By Epstein 1. Defendant Epstein has a nexual preference for young children. Depos

e and did in fact believe that Epstein and his attorneys knew of the seriousness of the criminal investigation — him and corresponded constantly with the United States Attorney’s Office in an attempt to avoid the filing of numerous federal felony offenses, which effort was successful. See Correspondence from U.S. Attorney’s Office to

ged by Epstein’s lawyers to victim notifications, the [United States Attorney’s Office] reevaluated its obligations to provide notificat

, Index No. 30129/10 - against - : (Pickholz, J.) JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, ; Defendant-Appellant. x NOTICE OF MOT

, Index No. 30129/10 - against - : (Pickholz, J.) JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, ; Defendant-Appellant. x NOTICE OF MOTI

written by Rebecca Rosenberg and Danika Fears, which was published by the Post on January 7, 2015, entitled “DA’s office ‘went easy’ on sex offender Epstein.” 4840-5788-8644v. 1 3930033 -000039 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016424 --- PAGE BREAK --- os Annexed hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an ar

s acquaintance. Looking up at from his downwards position, he looked me over and gave a smile to Ghislane, an obvious notion of his approval. He was Jeffrey Epstein as she pronounced for him, as if | supposed to recognize his name or something. He affirmed, “It was his pleasure” and replied to just call him Jeffr

y deepest appreciation for the once in a lifetime chance they had given to a girl of my history. This time when Juan answered the door he told me Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell were waiting for me upstairs in the massage room. I began my hike up the familiar spiraling staircase and through to the room where m

This time when Juan answered the door he told me Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell were waiting for me upstairs in t

out of this and making good money in the meantime. Al! I had to do was keep lying to myself long enough until I eventually believed it. Arriving at Jeffrey’s on time the next afternoon, as I always did, understanding punctuality was a sign of respect and I wanted them to feel as if they had my deepest appr

out let alone talk about with them for the first time since I had started my entire life over. His next response left me nothing short of speechless. The United States Attorney’s Office for the district of Florida was giving me a notification of being an identified victim. Jeffrey was finally caught for his atrocious acts of perversi

owing specific facts as the undisputed material facts in this case. Each of the following facts is numbered separately and individually to facilitate Epstein’s required compliance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) (“The adverse party shall identify . . . any summary judgment evidence on which the adverse party

Epstein, Sexual Abuse of Children By Epstein 1. Defendant Epstein has a sexual preference for young children. Depos

did in fact believe that Epstein and his attorneys knew of the seriousness of the criminal investigation against him and corresponded constantly with the United States Attorney’s Office in an attempt to avoid the filing of numerous federal felony offenses, which effort was successful. See Correspondence from U.S. Attorney’s Office to

tz (attached hereto as Exhibit “H”), she attached the proposed plea agreement describing Epstein’s witness tampering as follows: "UNITED STATES vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN PLEA PROFFER” On August 21, 2007, FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards traveled to the home of Leslie Groff to serve her with a f

the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (“USAO”). Moreover, CEOS did not assess

We come to you in that spirit and respectfully ask for a review of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter involving our client, Jeffrey Epstein. While we are well aware of the rare instances in which a review of this sort is justified, we are confident that the circumstances at issue warrant

utors”—-even though such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (“USAO”). Moreover, CEOS did not assess the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement now in effect

credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (

d by Epstein’s law- yers to victim notifications, the [United States Attomey’s Office] reevaluated its obligations to provide notificat

12 The Virgin Islands Daily News PERVERSION OF JUSTICE Saturday, March 2, 2019 Federal prosecutors admit backing down Epstein’s attorneys applied relentless pressure, they say By JULIE K. BROWN Miami Herald In recent court filings, the government was forced to answer quest

forced to answer questions about its negotia- tions, finally admitting in 2013 that federal prosecutors had backed down under relentless pressure by Jeffrey Epstein’s attomeys. “The government admits that, at least in part as a result of objections lodged by Epstein’s law- yers to victim notifications, the [United

bsite Ohne 1833 compared his crimes to “stealing a bagel.” Photo by FLORIDA SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY was 50 years old. Epstein’s sentencing hearing Jeffrey Edward Epstein appeared at his At the end of the 68-minute hearing, the 55-year-old silver-haired financier — accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls