Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta01249822DOJ Data Set 9Other

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta01249822
Pages
6
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.
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos a Lehrman, P.L. August 20, 2014 Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 RE: Jane Does I and 2 v. United States Case No.: 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson Dear Mr. Ferrer: As you know, we have been in litigation for more than six years on a case under the Crime Victims' Rights Act — a case that involves decisions that were all made before you took office and that gave Jeffrey Epstein an expansive non-prosecution agreement. Several years ago you were nice enough to meet with us and one of our clients to discuss the case, which we 'really , appreciated. More recently we contacted the line attorneys working on the case to see if we could reach some stipulated facts on various issues surrounding the case. It is in that spirit of trying to avoid unnecessary battles that we wanted to alert you to a motion we arc preparing to file to see whether this could be a stipulated motion. Our CVRA case is brought on behalf of two sexual assault victims - Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. We would like to add a third victim to the case - Jane Doc #3. Her true name is although we would seek to keep her identity confidential during the proceedings. We contacted your office about prosecuting the crimes Jeffrey Epstein committed against her a couple years ago when we realized that she was not includes in the NPA; however, we were told that despite not knowing about this particular victim when the agreement with Epstein was reached, the NPA was drafted so broadly as to preclude criminal charges for the crimes committed against her. Adding her to the case will not expand the issues in the case. Nor will it result in any new discovery or additional delay. 425 North Andrews Avenue 414 . ' ctorida 33301 954.524.2820 OfiCe. :154524.2822 fax 3501.452-001 Page I of 6 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00O95421 EFTA01249822 Wifredo A. Ferrer August 20, 2014 Page 2 Jane Doe #3 was sexually abused numerous times by Jeffrey Epstein. She is keenly interested in having our CVRA case fairly resolved. We also note that, under the CVRA, Justice Department prosecutors are obligated to use their "best efforts" to help protect crime victims' rights. As such, we ask for your stipulation to this amendment. A copy of our soon-to-be-filed motion is attached. We wanted to show you what it looked like in hopes that you might be able to support it. We would, of course, be glad to consider making any changes to the motion that would help gamer your support. Thanks in advance for considering this request. Very truly yours, FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Bradley J. Edwards BJE::mwk Enclosure Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 • Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Toll Free: 800.400.1098 • Office: 954.524.2820 • Fax: 954.524.2822 3501.452-001 Page 2 o(6 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00O95422 EFTA01249823 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES / JANE DOE #3'S MOTION TO JOIN CVRA ACTION COME NOW Jane Doc #3, by and through undersigned counsel, to move this Court to join this action. Because Jane Doe #3's rights have been violated in the same way as the two other victims, and because the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) contains no statute of limitations, she should be allowed to join this action. As the Court is aware, more than six years ago Jane Doe #1 filed the present action against the United States, alleging a violation of her rights under the CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. She alleged that Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused her and that the United States had entered into a secret non-prosecution agreement regarding those crimes in violation of her rights. At the first court hearing on the case, the Court allowed Jane Doe #2 to also join the action. Both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 specifically argued that the government had failed to protect their CVRA rights (inter alia) to confer, to reasonable notice, and to be treated with fairness. In response, the Government argued that the CVRA rights did not apply to Jane Doc #1 and Jane Doe #2 because no federal charges had ever been filed against Jeffrey Epstein. 3501.452-001 Page 3 of 6 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00095423 EFTA01249824 Last June, the Court rejected the United States' position. The Court concluded that the CVRA extended rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 even though charges were never filed. The Court explained that because the NPA barred prosecution of crimes committed against them by Epstein, they had "standing" to assert violations of the CVRA rights. DE 189. The Court deferred ruling on whether the two victims would be entitled to relief, pending development of a fuller evidentiary record. Jane Doe #31 was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein more than twenty tima Thereafter when the United States entered into its non- prosecution agreement with Epstein, the United States had identified more than 40 victims by name and knew that many more existed. Jane Doe #3 was unknown to the United States, yet the United States entered into an agreement with Epstein — the NPA — which purports to preclude prosecution against Epstein in the Southern District of Florida, even for serious sexual offenses against Jane Doe #3 that are not barred by the Statute of Limitations. Jane Doe #3 was never even contacted by the United States, yet the United States contracted away her rights. Jane Doe #3 now moves to join the action filed by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. She believes that her rights were violated in the same fashion as the other victims. Adding her to this case will not prejudice the United States. Jane Doe #3 does not seek any additional discovery beyond that previously sought by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. Accordingly, the United States will not be prejudiced or burdened by adding her to this case. Indeed, adding her to this case may simplify certain issues, as it appears that the United States I Because she was sexually assaulted as a minor, Jane Doe #3 proceeds in this motion by way of a pseudonym. 2 3501.452-001 Page 4 of 6 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00095424 EFTA01249825 made no effort whatsoever to inform her about the non-prosecution agreement and cannot possibly argue otherwise, in contrast to certain limited steps that the United States may argue to have taken with regard to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. The CVRA does not contain any statute of limitations for filing an action to enforce rights under the statute. Accordingly, her motion should be granted. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doc #2 support the motion. The United States [insert position xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxl. CONCLUSION Jane Doe #3 should be allowed to join this action. A proposed order allowing her to join is attached to this pleading. DATED: August 20.2014 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 and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 3 3501.452-001 Page 5 of 6 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00095425 EFTA01249826 Attorneys for Jane Doe #3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing document was served on August 20, 2014, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 1 Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Jay P. Leikowitz Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeep Epstein /s/ Bradley J. Edward4 4 3501.452-001 Page 6 of 6 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA 00095426 EFTA01249827

Technical Artifacts (5)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

FaxFax: 954.524.2822
Phone524.2822
Phone800.400.1098
Phone954.524.2820
Phone954.524.2822

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70 EXHIBIT A PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS EFTA00208682 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 70 PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS Key to Objections (linking to Victims' Motion to Compel Production of Docments that Are Not Prig ileged Objection General Objections -- Inadequate Privilege Log Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim Waiver of Confidentiality Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privilege Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered Factual Materials Not Covered Documents Not Prepared in Anticipation of CVRA Litigation Attorney Client Objections - Ordinary Governmental Communications Not Covered Attorney-Client Relationship Not Established Deliberative Process Objections - Privilege Not Properly Invoked Final Decision Exempted from Privilege Qualified Privilege Ove

70p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/2672011 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES, Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52), Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50), and Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79).1 All motions are fully briefed and ripe for review, and the Court has heard oral arguments on all motions. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the parties' arguments and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental brie

14p
Court UnsealedSep 9, 2019

Epstein Depositions

10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 16. 17. l8. 19. Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards, et Case No.: 50 2009 CA Attachments to Statement of Undisputed Facts Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein taken March 17, 2010 Deposition of Jane Doe taken March 11, 2010 (Pages 379, 380, 527, 564?67, 568) Deposition of LM. taken September 24, 2009 (Pages 73, 74, 164, 141, 605, 416) Deposition ofE.W. taken May 6, 2010 (1 15, 1.16, 255, 205, 215?216) Deposition of Jane Doe #4 (32-34, 136) Deposition of Jeffrey Eps

839p
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 Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court directed the proposed intervenors to file additional briefing on their argument that plea negotiations are privileged and not subject to discovery or use as evidence in these proceedings. Proposed intervenors submit the following memorandum of law, which is identical to Parts I and II of the memorandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective order and his opposition to the motions of the plaintiffs for production, use,

23p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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 INITIAL DISCLOSURES Respondent United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, makes its Initial Disclosures, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A), and state: Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)fil: 1. R. Alexander Acosta Dean, School of Law Florida International University Rafael Diaz-Balart Hall 11200 S.W. 8'h Street Miami, Florida 33199 (305) 348-1118 Dean Acosta was the United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida, during the time when the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein was opened in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the non-prosecution agreement was negotiated. 2. was the First Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office, during the time when the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein was opened, and the non-prosecution agreement was negot

10p

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.