Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta01044896DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]>

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta01044896
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity

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.
From: "Jeffrey E." <[email protected]> To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Subject: Date: Sat, 27 May 2017 11:09:59 +0000 1 paid debt. apologized to family and friends. 2. girls came to house specifcall to do erotic massage. . most worked in the local massage parlors. . they brought their friends. . 3. the 14 year old girls statment to the police, was that she told the people at the house she was 18, she told epstein that she was 18, becuase " othewise she would not be let in again " . . 4 the sentence was 30 months, 18 in jail everyone in palm beach only serves 13 , no specail treament. and 12 close house arrest , with electronic montiroing. 5. no sex trafficking, local girls, local strippers, and their friends. . 6 no intemet recruiting, telling the local strippers that they could be their friends to my house. . 7 k the gilrs parents boyfreidsn or best freinds drove them to the house. 8, no sex slave, she admits not telling the truth about her age. she admits she was trying to sell a book so that the youner age the better. she has claimed sex with steven hawking, mrving minsky , world leaders on a small jet with secret service and diplomatic service watching the abuse, . her coorbarteing witness said it was all a CIA govt plolt. . she sold her story, engoucraged by sharon churcher to exaggerate. the prince andrew version. 7. In contrast to receivnga sweetheart deal the govt forced epstine to agree to pay a list of girls that would remain unnmamed , until after he was in jail, he would have to agree to pay each one a mim of 50k or pay for lawyers to represent the girls if they chose to sue him. they did and he did.. . 8 he was forced to plead to a pimping statute, that requiress underflorida law that the pimp TAKE money from the girls. . 9 they threatend a 53 page indicment that Alexander Acosta testifired was only a roadmap of what they might be able to do.. it included portryaing his secretarys calls to girls , often retumin the girls calls as using the means of interstae commerce. to attempt to coerce underage sex.. there was no discussion of age or sex on any phone. ever, . , the testimonye of the girls each and every one were never , tested probed. examined, crossexamined , probed for their relibility ,credibility or accuraccy. , under the terms of his plea. he was required to withdraw a motion to dismss alleging that he never even heard the plaintiffs name , otherwise he would be indicted. The FBI told one of the two girls that if they testified against me they would receive a min of 50k. . the fbi, . the state grand jury that was called to hear the details of the case. the only " jusrists that did so , came back with a charge of solitcaiotn of prostituion, a penalty that required no jail or fine , but a mandatory defrred pros.. the fbi wanted sex registration, two years. please note The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation®gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved EFTA01044896

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 09-34791-RBR

39p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Behind

3p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Alfredo Rodriguez’s stolen “golden nugget” – a bound book linking Jeffrey Epstein to dozens of world leaders and billionaires

The passage describes a former Epstein employee, Alfredo Rodriguez, who allegedly stole a bound book containing the names, addresses and phone numbers of high‑profile individuals (e.g., Henry Kissinge Rodriguez claims the book lists names, addresses and phone numbers of dozens of influential individu He tried to sell the book to an undercover FBI agent for $50,000, indicating awareness of its valu

88p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject: SDNY News Clips Tuesday, July 9, 2019

From: Cc: Bcc Subject: SDNY News Clips Tuesday, July 9, 2019 Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 21:12:37 +0000 Importance: Normal Attachments: 2019_7-9.pdf SDNY News Clips Tuesday, July 9, 2019 EFTA00076625 Contents Public Corruption Epstein Complex Frauds lure Terrorism & Narcotics Wise Honest Matters of Interest Trump Can't Block Twitter Followers US Appeals Court Rules Judicial Review of Claims of Government Misconduct in Parallel Investigations Barr Says Legal Path to Census Citizenship Question Exists but He Gives No Details Public Corruption Epstein Who Protected Jeffrey Epstein? New York Times By The Editorial Board 7/8/19 On Monday, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York unsealed a 14-page indictment against Jeffrey Epstein, charging the wealthy financier with operating and conspiring to operate a sex trafficking ring of girls out of his luxe homes on Manhattan's Upper East Side and in Palm Beach, Fla., "among other locations."

32p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-ev-80736-Civ-ICAM JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2 I UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER COME NOW Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to file this response in opposition to Epstein's Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order (DE 247). Epstein's motion is a thinly-disguised attempt to relitigate issues already covered by the court's earlier ruling eleven months ago (DE 188), which allowed the victims to file correspondence relating to Epstein's non-prosecution agreement in the public court file. Rather than reverse its previous ruling, this Court should reaffirm it — and allow the important issues presented by this case to be litigated in the light of day. BACKGROUND Because of Epstein's penchant for relitigating issues that have already been decided, it

20p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01689427

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.