Epstein Secrets

positions Epstein wanted, Epstein's counsel began "a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors" ( in the words of then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta). While Epstein sought to challenge his agreement at higher levels of the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office continued to conce

utors" ( in the words of then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta). While Epstein sought to challenge his agreemen

HERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08.80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2 REGARDING MEDIATION COME NOW Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 (the "victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to provi

de the realm of the attorney's work product, or any attorney-client privilege. Id. (citations omitted). The deposition of the former U.S. Attorney, R. Alexander Acosta, should not be permitted. As the U.S. Attorney, he would not have been involved in direct consultation with victims or their representatives. Moreo

such scrutiny ... so the integrity of the administrative process must be equally respected." Id. at 422 (citations omitted). Any deposition of Mr. Acosta by petitioners would present a substantial risk that petitioners would seek to dissect and question every factor considered by Mr. Acosta in decidin

on FLSD Docket 02/01/2016 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR DEPOSITIONS OF GOVERNMENT WITNESS

e interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the Defendant will be served by the following procedure; THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecu

ure; THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern Distric

R, individually, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING JANE DOE NO. 1 REACHING AGE OF MAJORITY Plaintiffs, Jane Doe No. 1, by and through Jane Doe's Father as parent and natural guardian, and Jane Doe's Father and

Goldberger did not provide the state court with a true copy of the complete Agreement, and he should take steps to correct that error. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney B A. Marie Villafafia Assistant United States Attorney cc: Karen Atkinson, Chief, Northern Division EFTA00234672 Exhi

may be perceived as implicating any of the issues generically addressed in the NPA (a document including sentences within paragraph 8 that even Mr. Acosta agreed were "far from simple"), we intend to address such issues with you prior to any filing and hope that you will agree to review the draft fili

8-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 EFTA00234702 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 21 of 22 SERVICE LIST JANE DOE NO. 1011. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-CV-80591-MARRAJJOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Robed Critton, Esq. Burman,

Goldberger did not provide the state court with a true copy of the complete Agreement, and he should take steps to correct that error. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney cc: EFTA00213150 Exhibit 24 EFTA00213151 u; , i2.3.."01271 P:2 ZWItilams, Shannon R. From: sent To; Cc: Subjec

may be perceived as implicating any of the issues generically addressed in the NPA (a document including sentences within paragraph 8 that even Mr. Acosta agreed were "far from simple"), we intend to address such issues with you prior to any filing and hope that you will agree to review the draft fili

treet, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 EFTA00213180 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2009 Page 21 of 22 SERVICE LIST JANE DOE NO. 101 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-CV-80591-MARRIWOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Robert Critton, Esq. Burman,

tein. They asked her whether she had spoken to anyone else. She said yes, a private investigator had asked her the same questions. » Jeffrey Epstein: Acosta, Krischer trade barbs oyer sweetheart deal When they subpoenaed one of Epstein’s former employees, he told them the same thing. He and a private eye

told to be 'patient' while the investigation proceeded.” By then, it was too late. A deal had already been cut with then-South Florida U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta and.Epstein's attorneys to shelve a 52-page federal indictment against Epstein, a former math teacher turned money manager who counts Presidents Dona

e. Thank you. THE COURT: Thanks very much. MR. EDWARDS: I believe my next client who is going to speak is probably going to speak as Jane Doe. JANE DOE NO. 1: Yes, Jane Doe. THE COURT: We'll say Jane Doe No. 1, just for the record. JANE DOE NO. 1: Okay. Thank you for allowing us to speak today.

, Intervenor/Appellants hereby certify that the following persons have an interest in the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10 11 12

Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 1 of 75 No. 13-12923 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOES NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenors/Appellants ON APPEA

ments regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at 9-15. 4 EFTA00211721 significant because, "[i]t is

hat the Government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, because it did not violate the CVRA rights of either petitioner. EFTA00211718 II. JANE DOE NO. 2 CANNOT INVOKE THE CVRA BECAUSE SHE OPENLY OPPOSED AND WAS HOSTILE TO THE PROSECUTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN Petitioners have not distinguished the

ents regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Leflcowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at 9-15. 4 EFTA00799828 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume

iolate the CVRA rights of either petitioner. EFTA00799825 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 408 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2017 Page 2 of 32 II. JANE DOE NO. 2 CANNOT INVOKE THE CVRA BECAUSE SHE OPENLY OPPOSED AND WAS HOSTILE TO THE PROSECUTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN Petitioners have not distinguished the

ments regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at 9-15. 4 EFTA00591465 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume

late the CVRA rights of either petitioner. EFTA00591462 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 401-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 3 of 33 II. JANE DOE NO. 2 CANNOT INVOKE THE CVRA BECAUSE SHE OPENLY OPPOSED AND WAS HOSTILE TO THE PROSECUTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN Petitioners have not distinguished the