Jane Doe plaintiffs allege secret non‑prosecution agreement between U.S. Government and Jeffrey Epstein
The passage hints at a concealed government‑Epstein agreement (an NPA) that could be a significant investigative lead, but provides no concrete details—no dates, officials, or transaction data—making Four Jane Doe plaintiffs claim the government executed a secret non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) with The alleged NPA was allegedly concealed from victims and is the basis of the lawsuit. The plaintif
Summary
The passage hints at a concealed government‑Epstein agreement (an NPA) that could be a significant investigative lead, but provides no concrete details—no dates, officials, or transaction data—making Four Jane Doe plaintiffs claim the government executed a secret non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) with The alleged NPA was allegedly concealed from victims and is the basis of the lawsuit. The plaintif
Persons Referenced (3)
“...at 9) or affidavits submitted to support the relevancy of discovery requests* (see * The non-party Jane Does clearly understand how to submit affidavits. (See DEs 291-1, 310-1). HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014854”
Jane Doe No. 4“...Jane Doe 4’s claims would be “duplicative”); DE 298 at 1 n.1 (“As promised . . . Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 do not seek to expand the number of pleadings filed in this case. If allowed to join this action, t...”
Jeffrey Epstein“...and Jane Doe 4 “challenge the same secret agreement—1.e., the NPA that the Government executed with Epstein and then concealed from the victims. This is made clear by the proposed amendment itself, in which...”
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Related Documents (6)
EXHIBIT L
EXHIBIT L EFTA00097406 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-KAM 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 I and Jane Doe 2's Protective Motion Pursuant to Rule 15 to Amend Their Pleadings to Conform to Existing Evidence and to Add Jane Doc 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
EFTA Document EFTA01660024
(USAFLS)
(USAFLS) From: Roy Black < Sent: Wednesda , Februa 11, 2015 8:50 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Your phone call Great. Speak to you then. Original Message From: (USAFLS) Imailt Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:49 AM To: Roy Black Subject: Re: Your phone call Hi Roy. Thanks for your message. Dexter wants to participate in the call so it is helpful to have a roadmap of the discussion points. We will call your office at 2:00. If there is a better number to call, just shoot me an email. Talk to you soon. Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 On Feb 10, 2015, at 7:35 PM, "Roy Black" < mailto: wrote: Marie I was not calling you about the correspondence so don't worry about that. I called you to discuss the plaintiff's replies filed as dockets 310 and 311. We think there are serious misstatements by them in these pleadings. So I just wanted to let you know what our suggested responses are.
EFTA01308033
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
Jane Doe litigation references alleged secret government agreement with Epstein
The passage mentions a purported secret agreement between the government and Jeffrey Epstein, but provides no concrete details, dates, or names of officials. It is largely procedural language about jo Jane Doe plaintiffs allege a secret government agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. The claim is used to support a Rule 15 motion to add additional Jane Does to the case. No specific officials, date
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.