Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-26802House OversightFinancial Record

Federal prosecutors allegedly pressured Jeffrey Epstein to pay large sums to dubious “victims” and appointed a civil attorney with personal ties to...

The passage suggests possible prosecutorial misconduct and a conflict of interest in the handling of alleged Epstein victims, providing specific dollar amounts, legal statutes, and personal connection Prosecutors demanded Epstein pay at least $150,000 per alleged victim, many of whom were later ident The U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) proposed paying fees for a civil attorney they selected for the

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #019229
Pages
1
Persons
2
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage suggests possible prosecutorial misconduct and a conflict of interest in the handling of alleged Epstein victims, providing specific dollar amounts, legal statutes, and personal connection Prosecutors demanded Epstein pay at least $150,000 per alleged victim, many of whom were later ident The U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) proposed paying fees for a civil attorney they selected for the

Tags

jeffrey-epsteinprosecutorial-misconductfinancial-flowconflict-of-interestus-attorneys-officecivil-litigationvictim-compensation-abusevictim-compensationlegal-exposuremoderate-importancehouse-oversight

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.
Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 6 e Federal prosecutors made the unprecedented demand that Mr. Epstein pay a minimum of $150,000 per person to an unnamed list of women.they referred to as minors and whom they insisted required representation by a guardian ad litem. Mr. Epstein’s counsel later established that all but one of these individuals were actually adults, not minors. Even then, though demanding payment to the women, the USAO eventually asserted that it could not vouch for the veracity of any of the claims that these women might make. e Federal prosecutors made the highly unusual demand that Mr. Epstein pay the fees of a civil attorney chosen by the prosecutors to represent these alleged “victims” should they choose to bring any civil litigation against him. They also proposed sending a notice to the alleged “victims,” stating, in an underlined sentence, that should they choose their own attorney, Mr. Epstein would not be required to pay their fees. The prosecutors further demanded that Mr. Epstein waive his right to challenge any of the allegations made by these “victims.” e The Assistant U.S. Attorney involved in this matter recommended for the civil attorney, a highly lucrative position, an individual that we later discovered was closely and personally connected to the Assistant U.S. Attorney’s own boyfriend. e Federal prosecutors represented to Mr. Epstein’s counsel that they had identified ‘(and later rechecked and re-identified) several alleged “victims” of federal crimes that qualified for payment under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, a civil remedy designed to provide financial benefits to victims. Only through state discovery provisions did we later learn that many of the women on the rechecked “victim list” could not possibly qualify under § 2255. The reason is that they, themselves, testified that they did not suffer any type of harm whatsoever, a prerequisite for the civil recovery under § 2255. Moreover, these women stated that they did not, now or in the past, consider themselves to be victims. e During the last few months, Mr. Herman, First Assistant Sloman’s former law partner, has filed several civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein on behalf of the alleged “victims.” It is our understanding that each of Mr. Herman’s clients are on the

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Letter from Epstein's lawyers to Deputy Attorney General requesting DOJ review of Miami U.S. Attorney's push for federal prosecution

The passage reveals an attempt by high‑profile lawyers (Kenneth Starr, former independent counsel) to intervene in a federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, citing political connections to former Pres Lawyers Kenneth Starr and Joe Whitley petitioned Deputy AG Mark Filip to review the Miami U.S. Attor The letter claims the Miami office set an arbitrary June 2 deadline to force compliance with a mod

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

54748 Srat Sy...41554N

54748 Srat Sy...41554N To ME AAA EFTA00175949 Q001 08/02/08 MON 14:58 FAX 305 530 8440 EXECUTIVE OFFICE U.S. Department of Justice United Stoics Attorney Southern District of Florida UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 99 NE 4TH STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132-2111 Jeffrey H. Sloman First Assistant U.S. Attorney 305 961 9299 Cyndee Campos Staff Assistant 305 961 9461 305 530-6444 fax FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: June 2, 2008 TO: Marie Villafana FAX NUMBER: (561) 820 8777 SUBJECT: Epstein NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 9 Message/Comments: This facsimile contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this facsimile, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or coping of this facsimile is strictly prohibited. If you have received

13p
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 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 2

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto. The documents referenced in the Privilege Log are being delivered today to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex pane in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: I I I I a EFTA00209306 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIF

16p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Letter from private counsel urging DOJ Deputy AG to review federal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, citing alleged DOJ interference and ties to form...

The passage reveals a coordinated effort by high‑profile lawyers to solicit an independent DOJ review of a federal case against Jeffrey Epstein, explicitly referencing the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Mi Letter dated May 27, 2008 sent to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip requesting DOJ review of Epstei References a May 19, 2008 email from Jay Lefkowitz to U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta and First Assistan

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08•cv-80736•KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 1 of 3

Case 9:08•cv-80736•KAM Document 190 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2013 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE NI and JANE DOE #2, petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, respondent. FILED by D.C. JUN 1 8 2013 STEVEN M LARIMORE CLERK U S DIST. CT S 0 of FLA - W PB OMNIBUS ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the court on various motions. Upon consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: I. The petitioners' protective motion seeking recognition of the availability of various remedies attaching to the CVRA violations alleged in this proceeding [DE 128] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew the request for any particular form of relief or remedy in connection with the court's fmal disposition of petitioners' CVRA petition on the merits. 2. The intervenors' motion to strike the petitioners' supplemental authority regarding privilege claims [DE 177] is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. The petitioners' sealed motion for the co

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.