Epstein Secrets

2:44 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Case 9:08-cv,80736-KA.ocurnen\ 48-5 Emered on FLSD Do.03/21/2011 I I :sentenced not later y,an October 26, 2007-. the UnitedjStates bas 110 objection to J;:pstein seJfsreporting to begin ~rving hls sentence ·not later than January 4, 2008. • 12. Epstein agrees that.he will no

lty and to ·provide compensation in the tQanner aescribed ab()ye, ifEpsteirt successfully fulfills allt>fthe tenns ~ _conditi9M of this agreement, the United Stat~s 1,1~0 agrees that it will niH institute: BilY criminal charges against any potential ~~onspirators ofEpstein, inclµding but not limited toi Sarah Ke

offense includcs; ;but is net limitadto; a conviction liy a foderabor miUtary'tribunal,-including courts-martial conducted by the Armed Forcos of tho United Status,, >and includes a conviction-orentry of a ploa of',guilty or nolo contendere resulting in a-sanctiun in anyistato of dio United-States or other juris

he gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. Ifthe United States receives a Freedom ofInformation Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein

ll.· .. attempt to obstruct justice, or ... to threaten, injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(t)(2)(B); see also United States v. Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988). The Bail Reform Act lists four factors to be considered in the detention analysis: (1) the nature and circ

text of the agreement purports to bind “the Government.” See Annabi, Tl\ F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (“Defendant’s argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it

foi additional contact no-aijdiMWl'fa^ were almost scripted.. The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed, before me this 1" davofMav, 2006 by Det Joe Recarey^ Signature of1h)liceX^ficef (I 1 frt-.lOj State of Florida- County of Palm Oichi Signature/A^esfi)ig<3ffietr Date 05/01/2006 Page.l2of22 CA/A

Criminal Justice System. The examiner has qualified an expert witness on numerous occasions in state and federalcourt, and was the polygraphist in United States'. Piccinonna [8B5 F2d 1539 (11th Cir. 1989)1, United States. . Luis Rodriguez (Uniteig States District Court, Southern District of Florida, case num

. daldat nanonal 061fn, ctiterksni), op, dlostdry. 'mu* of; untsUon a metal Malt Vieletlat Sawa Stres,acatly Its adaddultaidIrraedtatalittnuala in the Unitod States. Oro sEleelka SECRET Sdnedua, Desired: °Sul Tim (IC Tcnry 0 le:wary I Suntans &day Expected: "egitet V1-(1-fte"' Dab AvaWaa' CtuGS 4 1 acbc

t in reality drove them to Palm Beach. During the drive a The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed before me this 1" day of May, 2006 by Det Joe , who is personally known to me. signature of Police Officer F.S.S. ( 117.10) State of Florida County o Pal Beach Signal Date: i moo6 ing

Nacre NO. Name/Number : JUL-27-2011 03:01PM FLED : Phaser 33001.7P StartTime Time Mode Page Result 246 07-27 03:00PM 00'31 ECM 003/003 CLR United Slates Attorney's Unite Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, IN. 33401-6235 DATE 7/42720c _area? WeavAatcit

stein was wearing a white towel and laid on his stomach so that. may The foregoing instrument was sworn to or affirmed before day of May, 2006 by Det Joe who is personally known to nie. 7- 1 (1 7 Signature of Police Officer (F.S.S. 117.10) State of Florida County of Palm Beach Signatur A 3'ng Off