EFTA00189735

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