Epstein Secrets

copies of redacted letters provided to victims "C.W.", "T.M.", and "S.R." by AUSA Villafatia and the

leges that in violation of the CVRA, Jane Doe #1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision

copies of redacted letters provided to victims "C.W.", "T.M.", and "S.R." by AUSA Villafatia and the

leges that in violation of the CVRA, Jane Doe #1 was not consulted with respect to the USAO-SDFLA's negotiations with Epstein (DE 1 at ¶¶3-6). The "Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe # 2 Status Report and Response to Court's Order to Show Lack of Prosecution" (DE 41) argues that "there [was] an orchestrated decision

ties to Petitioner in this case (identified as "C.W." in the Government's pipers). But neither Petiti

t the Government to produce all evidence that it possesses supporting these facts, for reasons the victims explain in their contemporaneously-filed Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence. 3 EFTA00210792 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM

ions of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. See, e.g., Complaint, E.W. v. Epstein, Case No. 50 2008 CA 028058 XXXXMB AB

at 234-37; Tr. July 11, 2008, 18-19, 22-23, 28- 29? 21. In October 2007, shortly after the initial plea agreement was signed, FBI agents contacted Jane Doe NI. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents and met in person with Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained that Epstein would 3 On about August 14, 200

ions of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. See, e.g., Complaint, E.W. v. Epstein, Case No. 50 2008 CA 028058 XXXXMB AB

that the plea agreement made it impossible to prosecute Epstein federally for his crimes against them, they would have objected to this resolution. Jane Doe NI and Jane Doe #2 thus detrimentally relied on the inaccurate representations of the U.S. Attorney's Office that their cases were still under investi

ions of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. See. e.g., Complaint, E.W. v. Epstein, Case No. 50 2008 CA 028058 XXXXMB AB

ary 2008 and May 2008. At no time before reaching the non-prosecution agreement did the Justice Department notify any victims, including for example Jane Doe NI, about the non-prosecution agreement. The victims were therefore prevented from exercising their CVRA right to confer with prosecutors about the ca

D STATES ATTORNEY DELIVERY EY FACSIMILE Kenneth W. Starr, Esq Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Figue

tter that contained the language from "Part 3" of the Agreement. Based upon that communication, your Affiant sent the victim notification letter to Jane Doe NI and attached it to your Affiant's July 9,2008 Declaration. 6. Although copies of all of the victim notification letters, including the one addres

D STATES ATTORNEY DELIVERY EY FACSIMILE Kenneth W. Starr, Esq Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Figue

tter that contained the language from "Part 3" of the Agreement. Based upon that communication, your Affiant sent the victim notification letter to Jane Doe NI and attached it to your Affiant's July 9,2008 Declaration. 6. Although copies of all of the victim notification letters, including the one addres