Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00235157DOJ Data Set 9Other

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00235157
Pages
2
Persons
7
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 30-p A µ, Egtnefleop FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 Page 1 of 2 • Szadeverai, • AND ASSOCIATES October 15, 2008 AUSA United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Re: Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America Case No.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Dear Mr..: I am writing to inquire about whether Mr. Epstein has violated his Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Government. As you know, the Government has repeatedly described the Non-Prosecution Agreement as guaranteeing to the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse at least $150,000 in civil damages. The Government has made these representations in reliance on a current provision in the U.S. Code — 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) — which provides for an automatic amount of damages of at least $150,000. At the time that the Non-Prosecution Agreement was drafted and signed, that was the law that was in effect. In Epstein's latest filing in federal court, however, he takes the

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
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.
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 30-p A µ, Egtnefleop FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 Page 1 of 2 • Szadeverai, • AND ASSOCIATES October 15, 2008 AUSA United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Re: Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America Case No.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Dear Mr..: I am writing to inquire about whether Mr. Epstein has violated his Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Government. As you know, the Government has repeatedly described the Non-Prosecution Agreement as guaranteeing to the victims of Epstein's sexual abuse at least $150,000 in civil damages. The Government has made these representations in reliance on a current provision in the U.S. Code — 18 U.S.C. § 2255(a) — which provides for an automatic amount of damages of at least $150,000. At the time that the Non-Prosecution Agreement was drafted and signed, that was the law that was in effect. In Epstein's latest filing in federal court, however, he takes the position that the pre-2006 Amendments version of the law applies. See Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss, for More Definite Statement and To Strike Directed to Plaintiff Jane Doe's Complaint at 9, Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 08-CIV-80893-Marra/Johnson (discussing § 2255 and stating that the "applicable version of the statute" is "pre-2006 Amendments"). The 2006 Amendments altered § 2255(a), by increasing the presumed minimum damages from $50,000 to $150,000. See Pub. L. 109-248, Title VII, § 707(b), (c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 650. In light of Epstein's latest filing, I write to ask several questions: (1) Would you stipulate that you told me several times that Epstein had agreed to pay at least $150,000 to the identified victims of his abuse? (2) Did Epstein in fact agree to pay damages to the identified victims of his abuse at least $150,000? (3) Did the Government tell victims, either directly or through counsel, that Epstein had agreed to pay his victims at least $150,000? 2028 HARRISON STREET,SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 OFFICE: 954-414-8033/305-935-2011 FAX: 954-924-1530/305-935-4227 B EC BRADEDWARDSLAW.COM EFTA00235157 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 30-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 Page 2 of 2 MS AUSA United States Attorney's Office October 15, 2008 Page Two (4) Is Epstein in compliance with his Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Government when he is now taking the legal position, through his attorneys, that he only has to pay the victims $50,000 damages under § 2255? Thank you for any clarification you can provide on these questions. Sincerely, BE/sg Brad Edwards cc: AUSA United States Attorney's Office 2028 HARRISON STREET,SUITE 202, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33020 OFFICE: 954-414-8033/305-935-2011 FAX: 954 - 924-1530/305-935-4227 BROBRADEDWARDSLAW.COM EFTA00235158

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

J AW OFFICE

J AW OFFICE dirne -/Cre4teeieli ANO 1SsOCIATES Ok-tob:r 9. 7.092 AUSA United States Attorney's Office Miami, Florida 33132 Re: Jane Doe # and Jane Doe #2 v. United States of America Case No.: 08-80736-CIV-aHNSON Dear Mr. In I am writing to call to your attention two potentially false statements that the Government made, albeit inadvertently, in a sworn declaration submitted to the Court in connection with the above-captioned case. I request that your office file a corrected declaration and accompanying explanation. The first statement is found at page 3 to 4 of the July 9th, 2008 declaration of= There a provision in a plea agreement with Mr. Jeffrey Epstein is recounted. As we understand the Government's current position in this case, it is that this provision is not in fact part of the plea agreement in this case. If our understanding is correct, then Ms. has filed a false affidavit with the court, albeit inadvertently. We respectfully request that she file a new

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

eiasErg:08-cv

eiasErg:08-cv 1 2 3 80119-KAM Document 180 Entered UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT WEST PALM CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 51 DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA BEACH DIVISION 4 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 5 JANE DOE, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, vs. JUNE 12, 2009 7 8 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 9 Defendant. 10 11 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: 13 14 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. Mermelstein & Horowitz 15 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33160 305.931.2200 16 For Jane Doe 17 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 18 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 19 Jane Doe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 954.522.3456 20 ISIDRO M. GARCIA, ESQ. 21 Garcia Elkins Boehringer 224 Datura Avenue 22 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jane DOE II 561.832.8033 23 RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 24 2290 10th Avenue North Lake Worth, FL 33461

51p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

CM/ECF - Live Database

CM/ECF - Live Database r Page 1 of 3 U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80736-KA M Doe'. United States of America Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Cause: no cause specified Date Filed: 07/07/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant LRJ Date Filed # Docket Text 07/07/2008 1 EMERGENCY PETITION for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act 18 USC 3771 against United States of America Filing fee $ 350. Receipt#: 724403, filed by Jane Doe. (rb) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/07/2008 2 CERTIFICATE OF EMERGENCY by Jane Doe re 1 Complaint (rb) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/07/2008 3 ORDER requiring U.S. Attorney to respond to 1 Complaint filed by Jane Doe by 5:00 p.m. on 7/9/08. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/7/08. (ir) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/09/2008 4 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Dexter Lee on behalf of United States of America (

204p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 290 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2015 Page 1 of 14

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 290 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2015 Page 1 of 14 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 OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE #3 AND JANE DOE #4'S CORRECTED MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 21 FOR JOINDER IN ACTION Respondent United States, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Corrected Motion pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action (D.E. 280), and states: I. PETITIONERS' MOTION TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL PARTIES SHOULD BE DENIED AS UNTIMELY This action was commenced by Jane Doe #1 on July 7, 2008 (D.E. I). The Court ordered the Government to file a response by July 9, 2008, which was done. On July 11, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the emergency petition. At that hearing, Jane Doe #2 was added to the petition. Now, over six years into the litigation, petitio

14p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res

65p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/16/2008 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. VICTIMS' REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO VICTIMS' MOTION TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT COME NOW the Petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and reply to the Government's Opposition to Victims' Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement. The victims have moved for a lifting of the protective order barring them from publicly disclosing or discussing the terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffrey Epstein has made no response to this motion. The Government, however, contends that the victims' motion should be denied because the victims cannot show any injury from the protective order. The Go

6p

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.