Epstein Secrets

l had provided. The U.S. Attorney's Office called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the h

WVVW.PATHTOJUSTICECOM Oro Tam Class Attie., Personal Injury Wrongful Death Commercial Liogation Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. January 29, 2015 Wilfredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 3

u personally so that they could bring their concerns to your attention. Very truly yours, FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Bradley J. Edwards Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah• BJE: mwk Enclosures This daytime business address is provided for identif

sed in the Crime Victims' Rights Act. DATED this 7th day of July, 2008. Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES, LLC Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar #542075 2028 Harrison Street Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Telephone: 954-414-8033 Facsimil

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

that, should CEOS reject Epstein's objections to the agreement, then U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "Mhis case is cur

gal counsel. In May 2008, the Office sent a similar letter stating "your case is currently investigation" to another victim (represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards). As late as the middle of June 2008 — more than eight months after the non-prosecution agreement had been signed -- the Assistant U.S. Attorney ha

l had provided. The U.S. Attorney's Office called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the h

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

uld choose the more expansive interpretation. Not only is the CVRA "remedial legislation" that should be broadly construed to achieve its purposes, Edwards v. Kia Motors of America, Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 948 (11th Cir 2008), but the sponsors of the CVRA stated that the right to confer was "intended to be

an appropriate briefing schedule and hold a hearing on the appropriate remedy for those violations. DATED: May 2, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, 27 EFTA00178083 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 28 of 29

eed additional facts, evidence, or there's going to be a stipulation submitted to me upon which I can rely. MR. EDWARDS: Sure. Your Honor, this is Brad Edwards. I believe that you do have a sufficient record, in that I don't think that -- I think that we're in agreement that additional evidence does not ne

EFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING ON THE APPROPRIATE REMEDIES. For all the reasons just explained, the Court should find that the Government has violated Jane Doe NI and Janc Doe #2's rights under the CVRA. At the tail end of its brief, however, the Government briefly raises a flurry of desperate arguments to avo

l had provided. The U.S. Attorney's Office called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the h

that, should CEOS reject Epstein's objections to the agreement, then U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "Whis case is cur

gal counsel. In May 2008, the Office sent a similar letter stating "your case is currently investigation" to another victim (represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards). As late as the middle of June 2008 — more than eight months after the non-prosecution agreement had been signed -- the Assistant U.S. Attorney ha

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

that, should CEOS reject Epstein's objections to the agreement, then U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "Mk case is curre

gal counsel. In May 2008, the Office sent a similar letter stating "your case is currently investigation" to another victim (represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards). As late as the middle of June 2008 — more than eight months after the non-prosecution agreement had been signed — the Assistant U.S. Attorney han

l had provided. The U.S. Attorney's Office called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the h

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

f victims provided to Mr. Epstein's counsel and did not receive either of the victim notification letters. She is, however, represented by Attorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who received both the initial and corrected victim notification letters that were sent to Jane Doe #1.

esolved on September 2, 2008, and on September 3, 2008, your Affiant sent the corrected victim notification letter to Jane Doe 41 via her attorney, Brad Edwards, Esq. 10. As explained in the July 9, 2008 Declaration, at the time that the Agreement was negotiated, Jane Doe #2 was represented by an attorney

ication letters. She is, however, represented by Attorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who r

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

f victims provided to Mr. Epstein's counsel and did not receive either of the victim notification letters. She is, however, represented by Attorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who received both the initial and corrected victim notification letters that were sent to Jane Doe #1.

esolved on September 2, 2008, and on September 3, 2008, your Affiant sent the corrected victim notification letter to Jane Doe 41 via her attorney, Brad Edwards, Esq. 10. As explained in the July 9, 2008 Declaration, at the time that the Agreement was negotiated, Jane Doe #2 was represented by an attorney

ication letters. She is, however, represented by Attorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who r

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

ration are AUSA letters to the victim's counsel, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. DE 14. Special Agent ' J1 A M, IV)* 's copied

gent ' J1 A M, IV)* 's copied on AUSA imwswiRglffers and Special Agent 1) 'Ph'i le cil'el ii,,yrkanA.I1 are referenced in certain letters to Mr. Edwards. DE 14. Moreover, Epstein's counsel, Jack Goldberger, Esq. is co ied on letters to Mr. Edwards. I also note that the Supplemental Declaration of sY

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

USA Villafaila's letters to the victim's counsel, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. DE 14. Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, F.B.I.

sbitt Kuyrkendall, F.B.I. is copied on AUSA Villafafia's letters and Special Agent Richards and Kuyrkendall are referenced in certain letters to Mr. Edwards. DE 14. Moreover, Epstein's counsel, Jack Goldberger, Esq. is copied on letters to Mr. Edwards. I also note that the Supplemental Declaration of A.

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