Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00613665DOJ Data Set 9Other

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 1 of 6

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta00613665
Pages
6
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

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 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT 1 EFTA00613665 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 2 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 9:08-cv-80736-ICAM JANE DOE NO. 1 and JANE DOE NO. 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. VICTIMS FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe 2, to file this first amended petition for enforcement of rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. I. Petitioners Jane Doe No. I, Jane Doe No. 2, Jane Doe, No. 3, and Jane Doe No. 4 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the petitioners"), now adults, were as minor girls the victims of federal sex crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Defendant") and by other co-conspirators between about 1998 and 2006. These crimes included sex trafficking of children (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591), use of a means of interstate commerce entice a minor to commit prostitution (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422), travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct (in violation of 18 U.S.0 § 2423), wire fraud (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343), and conspiracy to commit such crimes (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371). The Defendant and others committed these crimes within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Florida in Palm Beach County, 1 EFTA00613666 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 3 of 6 Florida, as well as in other jurisdictions inside and outside the United States. The Defendant and his co-conspirators committed similar crimes against dozens of other victims. 2. Upon information and belief, in and around 2005 to 2007, the Defendant and others were the subject of a federal criminal investigation conducted by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (hereafter "the U.S. Attorney's Office") for crimes committed against the petitioners and other similarly situated victims. In around September 2007, the Defendant and the U.S. Attorney's Office entered a non- prosecution agreement ("NPA"), under which the Defendant and other potential co- conspirators would not be prosecuted for their federal crimes against petitioners and other similarly-situated victims, in exchange for the Defendant's guilty plea to two state offenses, including solicitation of a minor for prostitution. On June 30, 2008, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach, the Defendant entered his guilty plea to the State offenses and, pursuant to the previous agreement, was sentenced to 18 months in jail. 3. Upon information and belief, around and after September 2007, the Defendant and the U.S. Attorney's Office conspired together to make the NPA confidential and thereafter conceal its existence from the petitioners and other similarly situated victims for as long as possible. This conspiracy was designed to prevent the outcry that would have resulted from awareness by the petitioners, other victims, and members of the public that a wealthy, politically-connected defendant was receiving only a short county jail sentence for hundreds of federal sex crimes committed against minor girls. Among the means used by the conspiracy to conceal the existence of the non-prosecution agreement were false statements directed by the Office that the case was "still under investigation" 2 EFTA00613667 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 4 of 6 and the Office was considering whether to file charges, when in fact the Office had already entered into the NPA. 4. Under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, when the investigation had focused on the Defendant — and at all times thereafter — the petitioners and other similarly-situated crime victims had the rights (among others) to notice of their rights under the CVRA, to reasonably confer with the prosecutors, to notice of court hearings involving them, and to be treated with fairness. 5. By cooperating together to conceal the NPA's existence until after it has become fully effective — and by taking other improper steps to prevent the investigation and prosecution of the Defendant and his co-conspirators — the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Defendant denied and continues to deny petitioners and other similarly-situated victims their rights (among others) to reasonably confer with prosecutors about the NPA and other aspects of the case, to notice that the June 30, 2008, hearing related to crimes committed against them, to restitution, and to be treated with fairness. WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully request this Court grant them appropriate remedies to fully enforce their rights, including (1) a declaration that the NPA is illegal and was entered into in violation of their rights, (2) a declaration that if after consultation with the victims the U.S. Attorney's Office determines that prosecution of Epstein and of others is appropriate then prosecution is permitted, (3) a declaration that the Office shall reasonably confer with the petitioners and other similarly-situated victims about whether to prosecute Epstein and his co-conspirators, (4) a release of all information surrounding the circumstances of the Office's initial decision not to pursue 3 EFTA00613668 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 5 of 6 criminal prosecution, and (5) all other appropriate remedies that the Court deems just and proper. The petitioners request appropriate discovery and an evidentiary hearing to prove their allegations and secure the relief requested above. DATED: February 6. 2015 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33301 Telephon Facsimile E-mail: and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. 332 S. 1400 E. a m Salt Lake Cit , UT 84112 Telephone Facsimile: E-Mail: Attorneys for Victims • This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah 4 EFTA00613669 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 311-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/06/2015 Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on February 6, 2015, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafafia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach FL 33401 Fax: E-mail: Attorneys for the Government /s/ Bradley J. Edwards 5 EFTA00613670

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Case #9:08-CV-80736-ICAM
Case #9:08-CV-80736-KAM

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01695623

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22

Ca_4ate.24h24/43134.01FrietibtOrtlefifitin0a0le28013,8111$2eafiabef146f 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. X 15-cv-07433-LAP Ms. Maxwell's Reply In Support Of Iler Objections to tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue EFTA00074964 Ca_QatIgt24743tictoWneDbtOrfiefiVIMOXIle?BOWERKVaffizte12401 22 Introduction This Court asked the parties to brief three issues: "(a) the weight of presumption of public access that should be afforded to an item, (b) the identification and weight of any countervailing interests supporting continued sealing/redaction of the item, and (c) whether the countervailing interests rebut the presumption of public access to the item." DE 1044 at 1. Plaintiff and the Miami Herald's responses improperly afford the highest level of presumption to discovery dispute documents, deny that any co

40p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

9p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01308033

23p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 1 of 10

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 324 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2015 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:08-CV-80736-ICAM JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO JOIN UNDER RULE 21 AND MOTION TO AMEND UNDER RULE 15 This cause is before the Court on Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4's Corrected Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action ("Rule 21 Motion") (DE 280), and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Protective Motion Pursuant to Rule 15 to Amend Their Pleadings to Conform to Existing Evidence and to Add Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 as Petitioners ("Rule 15 Motion") (DE 311). Both motions are ripe for review. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that they should be denied. I. Background This is an action by two unnamed petitioners, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, seeking to prosecute a claim under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 377

10p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01660122

0p

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.