Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00235113DOJ Data Set 9Other

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF I. 1, do hereby declare that I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein, and that I was the AUSA assigned to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 2. This Declaration is meant to supplement the information provided in the Declaration that was filed on July 9, 2008, and to correct some statements in that Declaration based upon events that occurred after the tiling of the July 9 Declaration. 3. As explained in the July 9 Declaration and in Court presentations related to this matter, the resolution of the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein included a series of documents: ( I ) a September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Part I"); (2) an October 2007 Addendum ("Part 2"); and (3) a letter da

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00235113
Pages
4
Persons
4
Integrity

Summary

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF I. 1, do hereby declare that I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein, and that I was the AUSA assigned to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 2. This Declaration is meant to supplement the information provided in the Declaration that was filed on July 9, 2008, and to correct some statements in that Declaration based upon events that occurred after the tiling of the July 9 Declaration. 3. As explained in the July 9 Declaration and in Court presentations related to this matter, the resolution of the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein included a series of documents: ( I ) a September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Part I"); (2) an October 2007 Addendum ("Part 2"); and (3) a letter da

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009

Ask AI About This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF I. 1, do hereby declare that I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein, and that I was the AUSA assigned to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 2. This Declaration is meant to supplement the information provided in the Declaration that was filed on July 9, 2008, and to correct some statements in that Declaration based upon events that occurred after the tiling of the July 9 Declaration. 3. As explained in the July 9 Declaration and in Court presentations related to this matter, the resolution of the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein included a series of documents: ( I ) a September 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Part I"); (2) an October 2007 Addendum ("Part 2"); and (3) a letter dated December 19, 2007, from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez, counsel to Jeffrey Epstein ("Part 3"). EFTA00235113 4. On July 9, 2008, your Affiant sent a victim notification letter to Jane Doe # I, which contained pertinent language from "Pan 3" of the Agreement (Ex. 6 to the July 9 Decl.). 5. Prior to preparing and sending that letter, your Affiant sent a draft of the letter to counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. On July 9, 2008, Mr. Epstein's attorney wrote to your Affiant objecting to pans of the draft, but accepting the part of the draft letter that contained the language from "Part 3" of the Agreement. Based upon that communication, your Affiant sent the victim notification letter to Jane Doe #1 and attached it to your Affiant's July 9, 2008 Declaration. 6. Although copies of all of the victim notification letters, including the one addressed to Jane Doe #1, were provided to Mr. Epstein's attorney, and despite the fact that counsel for Mr. Epstein filed a copy of your Affiant's July 9, 2008 Declaration in some of the civil suits filed against Mr. Epstein, none of Mr. Epstein's attorneys ever informed your Affiant that they considered the language in the letters and the Declaration to be inaccurate. 7. In August 2008, in anticipation that the Court might order the United States to make the Agreement available to the victims, the United States sought to confirm that counsel for Mr. Epstein had filed the complete Agreement under seal with the State Court at the time of the entry of his guilty plea to the State charges, to insure that an exact copy of that Agreement would be provided in this case, should the Court order its production. -2- EFTA00235114 8. On August 14, 2008, Mr. Epstein's counsel communicated to your Affiant that Mr. Epstein did not consider the modification contained in "Part 3" to be operative. This was confirmed on August 18, 2008. 9. Following that date, your Milani prepared a corrected victim notification letter and worked with Mr. Epstein's counsel to resolve certain issues related to the implementation of the Agreement comprised only of "Parts I and 2." Those issues were resolved on September 2, 2008, and on September 3, 2008, your Affiant sent the corrected victim notification letter to Jane Doe #1 via her attorney, Brad Edwards, Esq. 10. As explained in the July 9, 2008 Declaration, at the time that the Agreement was negotiated, Jane Doe #2 was represented by an attorney paid for by Mr. Epstein, and, accordingly, all contact with Jane Doe #2 was made through that attorney. 11. At the time that all portions of the Agreement were signed, Jane Doe #2 was openly hostile to the prosecution of Mr. Epstein and had provided a statement denying that she was a victim. Thus, she was not included in the list of victims provided to Mr. Epstein's counsel and did not receive either of the victim notification letters. She is, however, represented by Attorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who received both the initial and corrected victim notification letters that were sent to Jane Doe #1. 12. In accordance with the Court's instructions at the status conference of August 14, 2008 and the terms of the Protective Order entered by the Court on August 21, 2008, -3- EFTA00235115 beginning on September 2, 2008, 1 sent corrected Victim Notifications to all victims whom I knew to be represented by counsel. In those letters, I advised counsel of the Court's Protective Order and the procedure for obtaining a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Since that time, I have provided the Non-Prosecution Agreement to several attorneys, who represent twelve identified victims, and have received Protective Orders counter-signed by those attorneys and their clients. Two attorneys for other victims have not requested the opportunity to review the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Victims whom I believe are unrepresented have also received corrected Victim Notification letters that advise them of the existence of the Protective Order. No one has expressed to me any concerns regarding their access to the Non-Prosecution Agreement. 13. I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed thisZbi Ul day of December, 2008. -4- EFTA00235116

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 09-34791-RBR

39p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT, REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IF FACTS ARE CONTESTED, AND REQUEST FOR HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES COMES 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 their rights as crime victims under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) have been repeatedly violated by the U.S. Attorney's Office, to request an evidentiary hearing to establish those violations if the U.S. Attorney's Office contests the underlying facts, and to request a brief schedule and a hearing on the appropriate remedies for these violations. As recounted in more detail below, the victims have recently-obtained correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and defendant Jeffre

29p
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S INITIAL DISCLOSURES Respondent United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, makes its Initial Disclosures, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A), and state: Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)fil: 1. R. Alexander Acosta Dean, School of Law Florida International University Rafael Diaz-Balart Hall 11200 S.W. 8'h Street Miami, Florida 33199 (305) 348-1118 Dean Acosta was the United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida, during the time when the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein was opened in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the non-prosecution agreement was negotiated. 2. was the First Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office, during the time when the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein was opened, and the non-prosecution agreement was negot

10p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-ev-80736-Civ-ICAM JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2 I UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER COME NOW Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to file this response in opposition to Epstein's Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order (DE 247). Epstein's motion is a thinly-disguised attempt to relitigate issues already covered by the court's earlier ruling eleven months ago (DE 188), which allowed the victims to file correspondence relating to Epstein's non-prosecution agreement in the public court file. Rather than reverse its previous ruling, this Court should reaffirm it — and allow the important issues presented by this case to be litigated in the light of day. BACKGROUND Because of Epstein's penchant for relitigating issues that have already been decided, it

20p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E. 4 Street Miami, FL 33132 305.961.9290 November 2, 2010 Via E-Mail Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney Office of the United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 NE slIt' Street Miami, Florida 33132 Privileged Commication Re: Litigation Hold re: Jane Does #1 and #21 United States, Case No.: 08-80736-CIV- MARRA/Johnson AND Jeffrey Epstein As a follow-up to your recent meeting concerning the above-referenced case, I write this letter in my capacity as the Electronic Discovery Coordinator within the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFLA). I write to advise you of the USAO-SDFLA's legal obligation to preserve documents and data relevant to the lawsuit and to enlist your assistance in this regard. The USAO-SDFLA is required by law to take all reasonable steps to preserve all documents and data relating t

4p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ 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.