Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-37909House OversightFBI Report

Document argues against federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, citing alleged lack of victimhood and FBI involvement

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #012158
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage repeats already‑public claims about Epstein’s alleged lack of criminal history and suggests the FBI tried to label a witness as a victim. It provides no new names, dates, financial transac Claims that women involved did not view themselves as victims Allegation that the FBI attempted to persuade a witness she was a victim Argument that a federal prosecution would be an unprecedented mi

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Tags

jeffrey-epsteinprostitutionfbilegal-theoryfederal-prosecutionlegal-exposurehouse-oversightlaw-enforcement-interaction
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP don’t feel comfortable with. And I said okay, but I willingly took it off.” See Tab 6, a. © MEN also stated “[slome girls didn’t want to go topless and Jeffrey didn’t mind.” See Tab 6, e Mr. Epstein did not engage in luring. o Mr. Epstein’s message books show that several masseuses would regularly call Mr. Epstein’s assistants, without any prompting by Mr. Epstein or his assistants, asking to visit Mr. Epstein at his home. o MRE stated “a lot of gitls begged me to bring them back [to Mr. Epstein’s house].” e There was no alcohol or drugs involved, a fact that is not in dispute. ¢ Mr. Epstein has no prior criminal history, a fact that is not in dispute. ¢ These women do not see themselves as victims. © MR indicated under oath that the FBI attempted to persuade her that she was in fact a “victim” of federal crimes when she herself repeatedly confirmed that she was not. See Tab 14. p. 9-12 and Tab 15, BE. B, p. 7. Conclusion Jeffrey Epstein, a self-made businessman with no prior criminal history, should not be prosecuted federally for conduct that amounts to, the solicitation of prostitution. A federal prosecution based on these facts would be an unprecedented exercise of federal power, a misuse of federal resources, and a prosecution that would carry with it the appearance, if not the reality, of unwarranted selectivity given the incongruity between the facts as developed in this matter and the factual paradigms for all other reported federal prosecutions under each of the three statutes being considered. It would require the pursuit of a novel legal theory never before sanctioned by federal law—and that indeed is inconsistent with each of the statutes prosecutors have identified. Accordingly, we respectfully request that you direct the U.S. Attomey’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to discontinue its involvement in this matter, and return responsibility for this case to the State of Florida. 17

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA02016959

0p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00014068

0p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02414102

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also possible that

reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also possible that other improper relationships exist between Government agents and Epstein. Please provide any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the possibility of any improper relationship, including: a) involvement in and/or awareness of any aspect of the Government's criminal investigation and/or possible prosecution/non-prosecution of Epstein; b) Attorney liklimenvolvement in and/or awareness of the Government's interest."( witness, subject, or target of the Epstein investigation, including Sarah Ghislaine Maxwell, Nadia Marcinkova, Lesley Groff, Haley Robson, Louella Ruboyo, Larry Morrison, Larry Visoki, David Rogers, William Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh; c) All documents, correspondence, and other information reflecting telephone calls (includin telephone logs and telephone billing statements) made by or received by m Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science

1p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02351991

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 1 of 33

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the Court upon Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 361); the United States's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 408); Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion to Compel Answers (DE 348) and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion for Finding Waiver of Work Product and Similar Protections by Government and for Production of Documents (DE 414). The Motions are fully briefed and ripe for review. The Court has carefully considered the Motions and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. I. Background The facts, as culled from affidavits, exhibits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and reasonably inferred, for the purpose of these motions, are as follows: From betw

33p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.