orneys representing two of the 30 young women prosecutors say Epstein molested lodged their final written pleas aimed at spurring U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra to force federal officials to reopen their investigation into the sordid case. U.S. government lawyers in September will have another chance to defe

they violated the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act by failing to alert Epstein’s victims of the terms of what some describe as a “sweetheart deal.” Marra could make a decision as early as this fall. The stakes for all crime victims are high, said attorneys Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell, who filed t

against them,” Edwards and Cassell wrote. While Judge Marra could allow a jury to decide the complex case, pr

talks would be undermined if U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra in West Palm Beach allows the correspondence to b

einberg said. "We believe the issue raised before Judge Marra has importance beyond just the litigation between

ges against Epstein. The defense attorneys’ motion to intervene states the sanctity of plea talks would be undermined if U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra in West Palm Beach allows the correspondence to be used in the third-party civil action brought by the alleged victims. New York litigator Jay Lefko

litigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein ran an expansive criminal entirpitge that involved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the federal litigation, the legal team representing ever clients intended to pursue an appeal of that dismi

lved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the fed

at there was some improper coercion involved in, for example, Jane Doe’s case, his remedy was to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra who was presiding over the matter. Far from raising any such claim, Epstein sinisly chose to settle that case. He is therefore now barred by the doct

a Fifth Amendment right not to do so. “Stonewalling and delaying,” Horowitz said. “I'm not surprised.” Horowitz said he has asked US. District Judge Kenneth Marra to order Epstein to turn over the information. A local attorney for Epstein, Jack Goldberger, did not respond to a ré- quest seeking comment. Epste

overnmeni’s action violated the girls’ rights under the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Edwards and Cassell want the agreement nullified and want Marra to unseal un-redacted plea deal correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein’s defense team. If he agrees, that action could spur a

ible (Motion in Limine 18) oo. eeeesseesseceseesseesseceseesseesseceseesseeeseeeseeessesseessaeeseecseeesaeesaecsseesseeseeeeeeseessees 26 19. Judge Marra’s ruling is relevant and admissible (Motion in Limine 19)... eee 29 20. The transcript of the tape recording of Mr. Dershowitz’s conversation with R

eeseecseeesaeesaecsseesseeseeeeeeseessees 26 19. Judge Marra’s ruling is relevant and admissible (Motion in Li

orida to serve 18 months in jail in exchange for admitting he solicited a 14-year-old hooker. Their lawyer, Brad Edwards, has asked US District Judge Kenneth Marra to toss the deal - which included an agreement that Epstein's wouldn't face federal prosecution, which could have led to a longer jail term - Celeb P

reement that Epstein's wouldn't face federal prosecution, which could have led to a longer jail term - Celeb Ph because they weren't consulted on it. Marra has asked for more 2C1€ ( information before he rules. Epstein's rep, Howard Ruben stein, said, "The lawsuit has absolutely no merit. They're just l

you already. Let me turn then to point number 19. Here again, we have a narrow issue presented to your Honor. We are asking that you exclude Judge Marra's ruling on the joinder motion. As your Honor is well aware, the triggering event in this case was when Ms. Giuffre, then known as Jane Doe Number 3,

ed to your Honor. We are asking that you exclude Judge Marra's ruling on the joinder motion. As your Honor is

ble up or inundate you, as I know other ITN News colleagues have also been in touch with you. I just wanted to make sure I was on your radar if Judge Marra rules next week. Best, Donna Paine Sent from my iPad On Jan 23, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Paul Cassell <cassellp @law.utah.edu> wrote: Hi Donna, | am p

I just wanted to make sure I was on your radar if Judge Marra rules next week. Best, Donna Paine Sent from m

ral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE. Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra’s order striking s

he party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE REC

pending civil cases in federal court in West Palm Beach against Epstein. A status check is set for Thursday in those cases before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra. Doe could have settled the lawsuit for $50,000 but is asking for $50 million in damages, Cassell said Tuesday. "Jane Doe was repeatedly sexually ass

in those cases before U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra. Doe could have settled the lawsuit for $50,000 b

e government has "inaccurately described the agreement ... creating a false impression that the agreement protects the victims.” U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the claims, even if true, haven't damaged Edwards’ case. "If and when such alleged mischaracterizations become relevant to an issue to be

will be ordered.” Seeking to keep the agreement sealed, Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee argued that the agreement is not part of any case before Marra. "The non-prosecution agreement has never been filed under seal in federal court,” he wrote. He also denied that the agreement has been inaccuratel

agreement. My clients did not learn and understand this fact until July 11, 2008, when the agreement was described during a hearing held before Judge Marra on the Crime Victims’ Rights Act action that I had filed. In the summer of 2008 I filed complaints against Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of i, E.W., and

eement was described during a hearing held before Judge Marra on the Crime Victims’ Rights Act action that I ha

he party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE REC

ral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE. Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra’s order striking s

r Rule 21, Doe v. United States, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2016). 7. Attached as

Florida, this 6" day of April, 2015. ea fo “in KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 10 GIUFFRE002853

r Rule 21, Doe v. United States, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2016). I declare under

16, 39, and 49. " DE 293, in its entirety. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 6" day of April, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge 10 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014856

and admissible (Motion in Limine 18) ooo... cecccecccccccccesscececsseececsseeeceseescesseesssueescnsssescesseessesssesensseeesssaeeess 26 19. Judge Marra’s ruling is relevant and admissible (Motion in Limine 19).................00. 29 20. The transcript of the tape recording of Mr. Dershowitz’s convers

sueescnsssescesseessesssesensseeesssaeeess 26 19. Judge Marra’s ruling is relevant and admissible (Motion in Li

ubx YES iN COMPLAINT O UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 complaint: JURY DEMAND: . go NO Vill. RELATED (See Instructions): (SEE ATTACHED) : CASE(S) IF ANY JUDGE KENNETH A. MARRA DOCKET NUMBER 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON Jane Doe 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein 3-W-O*€ SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR OF

(SEE ATTACHED) : CASE(S) IF ANY JUDGE KENNETH A. MARRA DOCKET NUMBER 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON Jane Doe

litigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein ran an expansive criminal enterprise that involved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the federal litigation, the legal team representing Edwards' clients intended to pursue an appeal of that d

lved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the fed

h others to obtain minors not only for his sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others.” United States District Court Judge Marra February 21, 2016 Summary Judgement Order at 2, Case No.: 9:08-cv-80786 (internal citations omitted). One of the persons with whom Epstein acted in c

fication of others.” United States District Court Judge Marra February 21, 2016 Summary Judgement Order at 2, C

crimes cases before the Epstein agreement. They nevertheless forged ahead with a pact with Epstein that violated the law. U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra wrote: “When the Government gives information to victims, it cannot be misleading. While the Government spent untold hours negotiating the terms and

ed the law. U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra wrote: “When the Government gives information to