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
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
Persons Referenced (4)
“...d 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 copi...”
Jane Doe #2“...n 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 ...”
Jeffrey EpsteinTags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Related Documents (6)
Case 09-34791-RBR
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
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
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
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
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
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.