Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 I. UNITED STATES JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the following facts are not in dispute and may be accepted as true

ensued between the United States and Epstein. Despite the investigation revealing that Epstein had molested more than 40 minor girls, in Late 2007, the United Stales entered into a non- prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein - esseNiatly egree:ng to immunize Epstein for al of the Federal Sex crimes he committed

copy of the terms was not provided. A notification was not provided to Jane Doe #2 because the agreement limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. As a result, Jane Doe #2 never received a notification a letter about the agreement. The-rietifieation4id-net

on the [NPA] when seeking civil relief against Epstein . . . and affirmatively advanced the terms of the [NPA] as a basis for relief from Epstein." United States' Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 205-6 at 12-13. After reaping the benefits of the NPA, the

, that Epstein could've spent behind bars had he been prosecuted in the federal system. They're hoping that the correspondence, ordered released by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, will shed light on what they say is an unusually lenient deal. "I can say that I've been teaching criminal law for more than two decades and I hav

etter to Mr. Goldberger that "the U.S. Attorney's modification of the 2255 portion of the Agreement now limits our victim list to those persons whom the United States was prepared to include in an indictment. This means that, pursuant to Justice Department policy, these are individuals for whom the United States b

other instances where 5 counsel other than myself, not in the civil aspects, where 6 allegations have been made and letters have been sent by the 7 United States suggesting that there's been a violation of the 8 NPA. And under those circumstances, some notification was 9 provided. 10 THE COURT: Did it have

21 until 37:23 urge 22:9 use 10:25 11:8 20:24 23:1128:25 40:11 used 28:19 U.S 2:15 4:10 7:1,9 8:6 12:8,12 16:16 26:19 27:4,18,19 43:5,11,25 U.S.A 2:16 U.S.0 33:7 I various 3:1 10:25 very 4:21 5:711:1,2 1120 12:21 16:19 162417:12,12 23:1129:4 32:1 35:18 38:10 40:18 42:2 43:18 44:14 Via

rt, f tomm 33113 Sol 316 EFTA00180359 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 7 of 100 To cement this point, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has said that "[w 'hen [a] complaint does not claim a specific amount of damages, removal from state court is proper if it is facially apparent fro

familiar with this basic principle. Specifically, in Jane Doe No. I v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014), it was Edwards who argued that the United States failed to confer with his clients before entering a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Edwards' clients had sought to discover correspondence b

greement. Id. at 1001. The federal district court had overruled Epstein's counsel's privilege objections. Id. at 1002. On appeal, in relevant part, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Edwards' waiver argument and held that Epstein's counsel had waived the work-product privilege as it relates to Edwards' former clients

F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the common goal of reaching a quick settlement, the United States was undoubtedly adverse to Epstein during its investigation of him for federal offenses, and the intervenors' disclosure of their work product waive

, that Epstein could've spent behind bars had he been prosecuted in the federal system. They're hoping that the correspondence, ordered released by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, will shed light on what they say is an unusually lenient deal. "I can say that I've been teaching criminal law for more than two decades and I hav

008. After Epstein’s June 30, 2008 state court pleas, she sent out substantially similar notification letters to two victims who resided outside of the United States. 222 We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after

lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights apply: the district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre-charge, but a sharply divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion, a decision that has now been vacated while the entire court hears the case en banc. Because the Supreme Court had