EFTA00189735.pdf

Newsletter rentet I jagjo ClipsIte ash • I km: • Ka l LizaLim &hum Sam fa r iela AS 0,0"PIPTIV FVPM. • Sit.aczy • Ionia • EtaWilms:: • so:gc • Data grAl FAtne Nem MA:we Your hymn: ,t vn Affic(ikodu \drm Es • Mali Kg W rnctAd @yYO0line SuluttlIvi Sri% a.:0. 00r Fki) biLifitgaa coder Bret Ind coder Photo Itgemm Remit the Nci.nroom Ann,vIncemtnt %Anna Cira ;Massifs Automotive c iAdverthe Religion IArchives E-mail this page Print this page bloat popular Two alleged victims of Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse have filed court papers seeking to unseal an agreement under which federal prosecutors agreed not to pursue federal charges against Epstein. The deferred prosecution agreement, reached between the U.S. Attorneys Office and Epstein's lawyers before he pleaded guilty to state felony charges, is under seal in Epstein's state criminal case. Epstein, 55 is serving 18 months in jail in the state case. He pleaded guilty June 30 to two felony counts: soliciting prostitution and procuring a person under 18 for prostitution. Advertisement Advertisement Under the agreement, federal prosecutors agreed to defer any prosecution on federal charges until 90 days after Epstein completes all requirements of his sentence. If he abides by all court EFTA00189735 conditions and restrictions, the federal case would be dropped. Aside from the criminal case, there are nine federal and six state lawsuits pending against the Manhattan money manager. All contain similar allegations: Epstein, through his employees and assistants, brought minor girls to his Palm Beach home at 358 El Brillo Way for erotic massages and sometimes sex. Representing victims Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2, Hollywood attorney Brad Edwards asked the court to unseal the agreement so he can effectively represent his clients. He said he wants to be able to confer with other victims, their attorneys and the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys on strategy. "The victims can find no legitimate basis for the document to be sealed," Edwards wrote. In his response filed Wednesday, Assistant U.S. Attorney sought to keep the agreement sealed. "The non-prosecution agreement has never been filed under seal in federal court," and "the government accuratel described the provisions of the agreement at the time the responses were filed with the court," wrote. On Aug. 14, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the non-prosecution agreement should be unsealed for Edwards and any of the victims who want to see it. But the ruling bars Edwards and anyone else who sees the document from disclosing the terms to anyone. Edwards also asked the agreement be unsealed because "the government has inaccurately described the agreement." Edwards referred to an earlier filing by Assistant U.S. Attorney stating that the agreement contains a provision to protect the victims and that the victims were told of that language in October 2007. "Having now reviewed the non-prosecution agreement, the government's response to the victims' motion and the accompanying sworn declaration are simply untrue," Edwards wrote. "... The government should be required to correct its previously filed pleadings to accurately recount the non-prosecution agreement that it reached with Epstein." In the government's response,. wrote that, since the document is under seal in state court, the motion to unseal it in federal court is irrelevant. "The parties who negotiated the agreement, the United States Anorney1Oflice and Jeffrey Epstein, determined that the agreement should remain confidential," wrote. He also dismissed the claim that Edwards needs to unseal the agreement in order to confer with other victims and their attorneys, because Marra's ruling "provides for a very simple procedure to allow other victims and their lawyers to see the agreement." contends Edwards' assertion that the government inaccurately described the agreement is merit less. lie explained that there's been an ongoing dispute between Epstein's attorneys and the government about what comprises the agreement. The government believes there are three parts to the agreement executed in September 2007, October 2007 and December 2007; while Epstein's lawyers contend the agreement only consists of parts one and two. Victim notification letters and earlier court filings contain language from part three,. wrote. Because Epstein's lawyers believe the agreement consists only of parts one and two, those were the portions disclosed to Edwards, said in his court filing. "The fact that an erroneous disclosure was inadvertently made to one petitioner after Epstein had already entered his guilty plea ... does not create an injury where one did not exist before," wrote. By using this service you accept the terms of our YjnEthAggsailaa. Copyright 2007 Palm Beach Daily News. All rights reserved. The Palm Beach Daily News Ethagy-EnliCy I About this sire I Write to its EFTA00189736 giCox Newspapers, Inc. EFTA00189737