Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-009104 Exhibit 5 EFTA00192978 JEFFREY EPSTEIN Timeline-Summary 2/20/2007--Meeting (US: nd Junior Ortiz, DEF: Lilly Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt). 6/26/2007--Meeting (US: itimilirrernr, Junior Ortiz, , DEF: Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Sanchez). • Defense argument--Travel has to be for "the" sole purpose of engaging in sexual activity not "a" purpose. • Defense became aware of the Government's strategy to charge Epstein with Enticement in addition to the Traveling charges. 7/26/2007--Meeting (US: Metelmieekommiemmigeememinkconference call), Valerie Parlave, Junior Ortiz, • US Attorney's Office presented a State two-year incarceration plea agreement. 7/31/2007--Meeting (US: • • .• • • - DEF: Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Sanchez). • Defense stance was jail time was not an option. 8/31/2007--Meeting (US: I .1 • Case briefing to DOJ representative. 9/7/2007--Meeting (US: Alexander Acosta, W
Summary
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-009104 Exhibit 5 EFTA00192978 JEFFREY EPSTEIN Timeline-Summary 2/20/2007--Meeting (US: nd Junior Ortiz, DEF: Lilly Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt). 6/26/2007--Meeting (US: itimilirrernr, Junior Ortiz, , DEF: Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Sanchez). • Defense argument--Travel has to be for "the" sole purpose of engaging in sexual activity not "a" purpose. • Defense became aware of the Government's strategy to charge Epstein with Enticement in addition to the Traveling charges. 7/26/2007--Meeting (US: Metelmieekommiemmigeememinkconference call), Valerie Parlave, Junior Ortiz, • US Attorney's Office presented a State two-year incarceration plea agreement. 7/31/2007--Meeting (US: • • .• • • - DEF: Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Sanchez). • Defense stance was jail time was not an option. 8/31/2007--Meeting (US: I .1 • Case briefing to DOJ representative. 9/7/2007--Meeting (US: Alexander Acosta, W
Persons Referenced (6)
“...y Lefkowitz, Lilly Sanchez). 9/12/2007 Meeting (US: impimmmak raistiter DEF: Jay Lefkowitz, Gerald Lefcourt and Jack Goldberger, STATE OF FLORIDA: Barry Krisher and Lann...”
Roy Black“...6/26/2007--Meeting (US: itimilirrernr, Junior Ortiz, , DEF: Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Sanchez). • Defense argument--Travel has to be for "the" sole purpose of engagin...”
Jeffrey Epstein“...Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-009104 Exhibit 5 EFTA00192978 JEFFREY EPSTEIN Timeline-Summary 2/20/2007--Meeting (US: nd Junior Ortiz, DEF: Lilly Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt). 6/26/2007--Meetin...”
Kenneth Starr“...07--Meeting (US: Alexander Acosta, WIPMMIWENOPAPEPOOMPONOW John McMillan, DEF: Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, Lilly Sanchez). 9/12/2007 Meeting (US: impimmmak raistiter DEF: Jay Lefkowitz, Gerald L...”
Alexander Acosta“...ng (US: I .1 • Case briefing to DOJ representative. 9/7/2007--Meeting (US: Alexander Acosta, WIPMMIWENOPAPEPOOMPONOW John McMillan, DEF: Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, Lilly Sanchez). 9/12/2007...”
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Related Documents (6)
NY Post seeks to unseal sealed appellate briefs in Jeffrey Epstein appeal, exposing DA and prosecutor conduct
The filing reveals a concrete dispute over sealed court documents that could shed light on why the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and Florida prosecutors allegedly gave Jeffrey Epstein preferent NY Post filed a motion (Dec 21, 2018) to unseal appellate briefs in Epstein’s SORA appeal, requestin Manhattan DA’s office (Danny Frost, Karen Friedman‑Agnifilo) initially opposed unsealing, citing C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs I UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs I UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48
Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA
t i Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-009104 EFTA00229718 JEFFREY EPSTEIN Timeline-Summary 2/20/2007--Meeting (US: , DEF: Lilly Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt). 6/26/2007--Meeting (US: Jeff Sloman, and , DEF: Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Sanchez). • Defense argument--Travel has to be for "the" sole purpose of engaging in sexual activity not "a" purpose. • Defense became aware of the Government's strategy to charge Epstein with Enticement in addition to the Traveling charges. 7/26/2007--Meeting (US: Jeff Sloman, call), and ). • US Attorney's Office presented a State two-year incarceration plea agreement. 7/31/2007--Meeting (US: Jeff Sloman, and DEF: Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt and Lilly Sanchez). • Defense stance was jail time was not an option. 8/31/2007--Meeting (US: All and Mit • Case briefing to DOJ representative. 9/7/2007--Meeting (US: Alexander Acosta, , Jeff Sloman, DEF: Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, Lilly Sanchez). 9/12
isiMoi keels to Starr
isiMoi keels to Starr EFTA00176157 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Kenneth W. Starr, Esq Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Starr: 99 N.E. 4Srne1 Miami. FL 33132 (303)961-9100. Telephone (303) 530.6444 Facsimile I write in response to your November 28'h letter, in which you raise concerns regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement between this Office and your client, Mr. Epstein. I take these concerns seriously. As your letter focused on the Section 2255 portion of the Agreement, my response will focus primarily on that issue as well. I do wish to make some more general observations, however. Section 2255 provides that "[ajny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of [enumerated sections of Title 18) and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation . . . may sue in
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
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.