Epstein Secrets

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

al complaint with obstruction of justice in eanneetinn with trying to obtain $50,000 from civil attorneys pursuing civil sexual assault cases against Rpatein as payment for producing the book to the attorneys. See Criminal Complaint at 4, US. v. Rodriguez, No. 9:10-CR-80015-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2010) (Exhibit “G

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

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

e being molested by Epstein (see Alfredo Rodriguez deposition at 278-280, 385, 426-427); (e) Dershowitz reportedly assisted in attempting to persuade the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office that because the underage females alleged to have been victims of Epstein’s abuse lacked credibility and could not be believed that they were at Epst

estigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida’s Resolution of Its 2006–2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation November 2020 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Department of Justice (Departme

Its 2006–2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during

n by negotiating and executing a federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA). The NPA was intended to end a federal investigation into allegations that Epstein engaged in illegal sexual activity with girls.1 OPR also investigated whether USAO prosecutors committed professional misconduct by failing to con

cial responsible for the NPA. On July 10, 2019, Acosta held a televised press conference to defend his and the USAO’s actions. Acosta stated that the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office “was ready to allow Epstein to walk free with no jail time, nothing.” According to Acosta, because USAO prosecutors considered this outcome unacce