Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-17611House OversightOther

Petitioners claim U.S. government failed to consult victims before non‑prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein

The filing alleges that the federal government negotiated a non‑prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein without informing the victims, suggesting possible misconduct by high‑level officials. It pro Petitioners invoke the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771). Allegation that the U.S. government negotiated a non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstei Claim that victims were not c

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #014847
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The filing alleges that the federal government negotiated a non‑prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein without informing the victims, suggesting possible misconduct by high‑level officials. It pro Petitioners invoke the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771). Allegation that the U.S. government negotiated a non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstei Claim that victims were not c

Tags

jeffrey-epsteinvictim-rights-violationgovernment-misconductcrime-victims-rights-actfederal-litigationnonprosecution-agreementlegal-exposuremoderate-importancehouse-oversightvictim-rights

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 aé807E5-d0A07 4 oR nilketinteniteréd-49 FES@ DSGCket104/7dg615 ofPidge 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.:08-CV-80736-KAM JANE DOE | 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 | and Jane Doe 2, seeking to prosecute a claim under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. (DE 1). Generally, they allege that the respondent Government violated their rights under the CVRA by failing to consult with them before negotiating a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, who subjected them to various sexual crimes while they were minors. (Id.). Petitioners initiated this action in July 2008. (Id.).

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01660111

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 013-80736-Civ-Marra/Nlatthewman JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. DECLARATION OF IN SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. I also am admitted to practice in all courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida, the District of Minnesota, and the Northern District of California. My bar admission status in California and Minnesota is currently inactive. I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein. 2. I am the Assistant United States Attorne

5p
Court UnsealedJun 16, 2023

Deutsche Bank Epstein victim questionnaire

EXHIBIT A-1 Case 1:22-cv-10018-JSR Document 90-2 Filed 06/16/23 Page 1 of 12 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case No. 1:22-CV-10018 (JSR) NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL VICTIMS OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S SEX TRAFFICKING VENTURE DURING THE TIME PERIOD AUGUST 19, 2013 TO AUGUST 10, 2019 (THE “CLASS PERIOD”). IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR A SETTLEMENT PAYMENT, YOU (OR CLASS COUNSEL ON YOUR BEHALF) MUST TIMELY SUBMIT A TIER ONE FORM BY ___________, 20

12p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 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 #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown

EFTA02335898

51p

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.