Skip to main content
Skip to content
From: "Subject: In Re Jane Doe - Hearing on July 11, 2008 at 10:15 a.m.
Case File
efta-efta00215534DOJ Data Set 9Other

Subject: RE: Jane Doe Hearing

From: To: Subject: RE: Jane Doe Hearing Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:19:52 +0000 Importance: Normal I left early on Friday since I had to take care of some matters before t weekend. If you want me to participate in a conference with Mr. Goldberger, I will be happy to do so. From Sen • ' :04 PM To: Sub : : ane oeHearing HiM I really think you should be on this call with Jack Goldberger, if you feel a response is required. Assistant .S. Attorney From Sent: Frida Jul 11 2008 2:33 PM To: Cc: Subject: Jane Doe Hearing Colleagues, • Acosta Alex USAFLS); his The hearing this morning lasted 45 minutes. Judge Marra first heard argument from Brad Edwards, who harangued the government for permitting Epstein to get off with a light sentence in state court. He argued that the victims were entitled to be consulted before this agreement was reached, and the court should set the agreement aside. Edwards again argued that the rights in section 3771(a) accrue prior to the filin

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00215534
Pages
2
Persons
2
Integrity

Summary

From: To: Subject: RE: Jane Doe Hearing Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:19:52 +0000 Importance: Normal I left early on Friday since I had to take care of some matters before t weekend. If you want me to participate in a conference with Mr. Goldberger, I will be happy to do so. From Sen • ' :04 PM To: Sub : : ane oeHearing HiM I really think you should be on this call with Jack Goldberger, if you feel a response is required. Assistant .S. Attorney From Sent: Frida Jul 11 2008 2:33 PM To: Cc: Subject: Jane Doe Hearing Colleagues, • Acosta Alex USAFLS); his The hearing this morning lasted 45 minutes. Judge Marra first heard argument from Brad Edwards, who harangued the government for permitting Epstein to get off with a light sentence in state court. He argued that the victims were entitled to be consulted before this agreement was reached, and the court should set the agreement aside. Edwards again argued that the rights in section 3771(a) accrue prior to the filin

Persons Referenced (2)

Jack Goldberger

“...: Sub : : ane oeHearing HiM I really think you should be on this call with Jack Goldberger, if you feel a response is required. Assistant .S. Attorney From Sent: Frida Jul 11 2008 2:33 PM To:...”

Bradley Edwards

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
View on efta.gov
Browse DOJ EFTA Releases (OCR)EFTA 00215534

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.
From: To: Subject: RE: Jane Doe Hearing Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:19:52 +0000 Importance: Normal I left early on Friday since I had to take care of some matters before t weekend. If you want me to participate in a conference with Mr. Goldberger, I will be happy to do so. From Sen • ' :04 PM To: Sub : : ane oeHearing HiM I really think you should be on this call with Jack Goldberger, if you feel a response is required. Assistant .S. Attorney From Sent: Frida Jul 11 2008 2:33 PM To: Cc: Subject: Jane Doe Hearing Colleagues, • Acosta Alex USAFLS); his The hearing this morning lasted 45 minutes. Judge Marra first heard argument from Brad Edwards, who harangued the government for permitting Epstein to get off with a light sentence in state court. He argued that the victims were entitled to be consulted before this agreement was reached, and the court should set the agreement aside. Edwards again argued that the rights in section 3771(a) accrue prior to the filing of any charges. In my portion of the argument, I advised the court of the status of Epstein's state case: (1) he entered pleas of guilty to two state charges on June 30, 2008; (2) he was sentenced to 18 months' incarceration and 1 year of community control; and (3) he was serving his sentence of incarceration. The court queried me on the Dean case and the government's position on when the rights in section 3371(a) applied. I distinguished Dean and argued that rights under 3771(a) does not accrue until a charge is filing in district court. I noted that the A/G's guidelines are applied with common sense, such that a victim claiming they were being threatened by a perpetrator would not be turned away since an indictment had not been returned. I also argued that 18 U.S.C. 3771 did not grant authority to the court to set aside the agreement in the instant case, since it was not a plea agreement filed with court, which it had the discretion to accept or reject. The court had questions regarding the completion of the agreement in September 2007, but the plea was not entered until June 30, 2008. I advised the court that Epstein's attorneys sought higher review of the agreement within the DOJ. EFTA00215534 As to the motion to seal the government's response, the court asked if that was necessary any more, since a public hearing had been held and much of what was filed had been discussed. I argued that the government had two bases for sealing: (1) protection of the privacy of the minor victims; and (2) confidentiality of negotiations with Epstein's attorneys and the confidentiality clause in the Agreement. Edwards waived any protection for his clients, two of whom were present in court As to the confidentiality, the court found that the discussions regarding the potential impeachment of the victims because of the availability of relief under 18 U.S.C. 2255 had already been discussed at the hearing. I argued that the exact clause in the agreement pertaining to section 2255 had been cited in the notification letters to which were filed, and the government had agreed to notify Epstein before making any disclosure. The court stated that the disclosure was being done pursuant to its order, not by the government's action. I told the court the government wanted to register its objection. The court ordered the government's response, declaration, and the attachments, unsealed. Also, Edwards filed a reply, which is also a public record document. The court noted that, since Epstein had entered his plea and was sentenced, this was no longer an emergency. Both parties agreed. The court wanted to know if any evidentiary hearing need to be held. Since there is a dispute over what the FBI agents told. in September 2007, I asked the court to permit the parties to speak to determine if there are any factual disputes which require a hearing. The court agreed. There was a reporter from the Sun Sentinel present in the audience. EFTA00215535

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 013-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for a finding from this Court that the victims' rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, have been violated by the U.S. Attorney's Office, and to request a hearing on the appropriate remedies for these violations. The victims have proffered a series of facts to the Government, which they have failed to contest. Proceeding on the basis of these facts,' it is clear that the U.S. Attorney's Office has repeatedly violated the victims' protected CVRA rights, including their right to confer with prosecutors generally about the case and specifically abou

41p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Alfredo Rodriguez’s stolen “golden nugget” – a bound book linking Jeffrey Epstein to dozens of world leaders and billionaires

The passage describes a former Epstein employee, Alfredo Rodriguez, who allegedly stole a bound book containing the names, addresses and phone numbers of high‑profile individuals (e.g., Henry Kissinge Rodriguez claims the book lists names, addresses and phone numbers of dozens of influential individu He tried to sell the book to an undercover FBI agent for $50,000, indicating awareness of its valu

88p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-MarratIVIatthewman JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING THIRD 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 Third Supplemental Privilege Log. The index has been marked with Bates Numbers P-014924 thru P-015267. The documents referenced in the Third Supplemental Privilege Log will be delivered tomorrow to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex parte in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/A. Marie Villafafia A. MARIE VILLAFAFIA Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 40

446p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01326054

26p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

13p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

To: "'Jack Goldberger'

From: To: "'Jack Goldberger' Cc: " Bcc: ■ (USAFLS)" </O=USA/OUrFLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN > Subject: Notice of Disclosure Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:55:14 +0000 Importance: Normal Dear Mr. Goldberger: Today, and I appeared before Judge Marra in connection with a suit filed band asserting that their rights as victims were breached by our failure to consult with them before entering into the Non- rosecution Agreement. In response to their petition, I filed a Declaration under seal that included the victim notification letters provided to their attorney, Brad Edwards. At today's hearing, and over our objection, Judge Marra denied our motion to seal and unsealed the declaration. Accordingly, one piece of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, specifically the paragraph that is quoted in the victim notification letters, has been disclosed. Assistant U.S. Attorney EFTA00215639

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

DonateMore ways to support →
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.