Epstein Secrets

the attached letter providing notice of a breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement on attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein. On Friday, June 12, 2009, Judge Marra will be presiding ova a hearing on Jeffrey Epstein's motions to stay all of the civil lawsuits filed against him by victims identified through our i

Apr-el lo ()Writ( Judge from Magistrate Judgment VI. RELATED/RE-FILED (50C IsSINMONIO • CASE(S). word perk a) Re-filed Case OYES 9) NO JUDGE Kenneth A. Marra b) Related Cases OYES ONO DOCK MBETER See Attached NU VII. CAUSE OF ACTION CI e Ilse U.S. Civil Statute under Mikis you ere filing and Wnie a Br

s for Jeffrey Epstein. On Friday, June 12, 2009, Judge Marra will be presiding ova a hearing on Jeffrey Epstei

y it' by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime." Lynce I. Mathis 519 U.S. 433, 441 (1997) (quoting Weaver,. Graham 450 U.S. 24, 29 (1981)). United States'. Sim!, 153 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added; internal alterations omitted). Even t

FFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON CAS

he government that Gonzalez approached him on another occasion for assistance in getting dis- missed a DWI for Jeff Lewis. Castaneda was unsure if Weaver had ultimately been successful in fixing the case. FN7. Castaneda told the government that an individual known as "Chuy" Hinojosa Page 4 of 11 P

xchange for getting the charges dismissed or sentences re- duced. Castaneda's role in this conspiracy was that of middleman, referring "clients" to Weaver, arran- ging meetings, receiving payments, and suggesting strategics for accomplishing fixes. Weavers role on the other hand was that of principal,

he transaction in- volving Jeff Lewis). Predicate Act Six-- referring to the dismissal of a marijuana charge for Silverio Garza-- pertained only to Weaver. FN I6. On appeal, Castaneda asserts four distinct errors that allegedly warrant the re- versal of his conviction. Because we con- clude that the g

rental car. victim. A motion may be filed before Judge Marra on the issue of inappropriate contact with and h

island. knew of other gifts given to , including Secret lingerie, birthday flowers, and a rental car. victim. A motion may be filed before Judge Marra on the issue of inappropriate contact with and harassment of M. 3 EFTA00191647 The one recruit whom I have kept in the indictment is Z. She is

se to criminal pen- alties and (2) the elimination of de- fenses available when the crime was committed, are plainly not in issue here. It is true Weaver, id. at 29, 101 S.Ct. at 964 also speaks in terms of the challenged law "disadvantag[ing] the offender affected by it." But that characterization

ions to Epstein's Motion to Compel and/or Identify. This Notice should only be filed in 08-80119, not in all of the Epstein cases.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 5/20/2009. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (1c3) (Entered: 05/20/2009) 05/22/2009 15 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruc

No. 102 v. Epstein Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Lead case: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Member case: (View

ition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime." 14/rice v. Mathis 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting Weaver v. Graham 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). U.S. v. Sieuel,153 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 1998). In improperly attempting to

1 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-Marra-Johnson Page 2 in multiple civil actions assert

observed in his opinion for **1498 the Court in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d

utory text.2 See also this Court's recent orders on motions to dismiss in other actions filed against EPSTEIN by "Jane Does," Case Nos: 08-CV-80119- MARRA/JOHNSON; 08-CV-80232-MARRA-JOHNSON; and 08-CV-80380-MARRA- JOHNSON; requiring sufficient allegations of predicate acts. A reading of §2422(b) shows

nition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime." Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). U.S. v. Siegel,153 F.3d 1256, 1259 (11th Cir. 1998). In improperly attempting to