The Wicked World of Jeffrey Epstein’s Sex Trafficking Case and the New Court Ruling

Posted by Ami Tiel | Feb 22, 2019 | ADN News, https://americandigitalnews.com/index.php/2019/02/22/the-wicked-world-of-jeffrey-epsteins-sex-trafficking-case-and-the-new-court-ruling/

JEFFREY EPSTEIN SEX TRAFFICKING CASE AND NEW COURT RULING THAT THE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS VIOLATED THE VICTIMS’ CVRA PRIVILEGES (Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004).(NOTE: This court matter dates all the way back to 2006 and today’s ruling relates to a prosecutorial agreement that was reached with Epstein and his legal counsel, usurping the victims’ CVRA.)
EXCERPTS FROM MIAMI HERALD: U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE KENNETH A. MARRA — ruled Thursday, February 21, 2019, that federal prosecutors — among them, U.S. prosecutor Alexander Acosta (now U.S. Labor Secretary) — broke federal law when they signed a plea agreement with a wealthy, politically connected sex trafficker and concealed it from more than 30 of his underage victims.>> U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra, in a 33-page opinion, said that the evidence he reviewed showed that Jeffrey Epstein had been operating an international sex operation in which he and others recruited underage girls — not only in Florida — but from overseas, in violation of federal law.>> “Epstein used paid employees to find and bring minor girls to him.,’’ wrote Marra, who is based in Palm Beach County. “Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minors not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others.’’>> Instead of prosecuting Epstein under federal sex trafficking laws, Acosta, then the U.S. attorney in Miami, helped negotiate a non-prosecution agreement that gave Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity from federal prosecution. Epstein, who lived in a Palm Beach mansion, was allowed to quietly plead guilty in state court to two prostitution charges and served just 13 months in the county jail. His accomplices, some of whom have never been identified, were never charged. ________________________________________________________________________________
BREITBART — A U.S. District judge on Thursday ruled that federal prosecutors illegally signed a plea agreement with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and hid it from his more than two dozen underage victims.>> Judge: Plea Deal in Jeffrey Epstein Sex Trafficking Case Was Illegal>> https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/21/judge-alex-acosta-broke-law-jeff-epstein-sex-case ________________________________________________________________________________
MIAMI HERALD — THREE PART INVESTIGATIVE SERIES, PLUS AN INTERACTIVE LINK (OF WHO IS WHO), A TIMELINE, AND HOW THE MIAMI HERALD JOURNALISTS INVESTIGATED JEFFREY EPSTEIN (AND THE PROSECUTORS):

PART ONE — How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime, BY Julie K. Brown, Nov. 28, 2018 LINK (To the Miami Herald journalist — this case was done during Obama’s administration NOT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION as indicated.)
PART TWO — Cops worked to put serial sex abuser in prison. Prosecutors worked to cut him a break, BY Julie K. Brown, Nov. 28, 2018 LINK
PART THREE — Even from jail, sex abuser manipulated the system. His victims were kept in the dark, BY Julie K. Brown, Nov. 28, 2018 LINK
INTERACTIVE LINK — Sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein was surrounded by powerful people. Here’s a sampling LINK
TIMELINE — For years, Jeffrey Epstein abused teen girls, police say. A timeline of his case LINK
HOW MIAMI HERALD JOURNALISTS INVESTIGATED JEFFREY EPSTEIN, How Miami Herald journalists investigated Jeffrey Epstein LINK

THE MIAMI HERALD TEAM: Investigative Reporter: Julie K. Brown — Investigations Editor: Casey Frank — Visual Journalist: Emily Michot — Interaction Designer: Aaron Albright — Video production: Marta Oliver Craviotto, Emily Michot, Julie K. Brown — Copy Editor: Mary Behne — Social Media Editors: Adrian Ruhi, Noel Gonzalez –Drone Footage: Pedro Portal — Director of Design: Jessica Gilbert — Senior Manager of Design: Eddie Alvarez
CONCLUSION — US DISTRICT JUDGE ISSUES A FEBRUARY 21, 2019 RULING — Federal prosecutors broke law in Jeffrey Epstein case, judge rules, By Julie K. BrownFebruary 21, 2019, 02:51 PM LINK https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article226577419.html?fbclid=IwAR0MYMIto2sGzJAcoo0tvTgrqzcAbepeUYP_5ui1QvXC3ImmqQfVik-gb4s _________________________________________________________________________________________
DUCK DUCK GO SEARCH — JEFFREY EPSTEIN sex trafficking LINK _________________________________________________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 21, 2019 – U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE KENNETH A. MARRA OPINION AND ORDER:
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (KAM = Judge Kenneth A. Marra), Document 435, Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019, (33 pages, pdf file) — 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, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER — This cause is before the Court upon Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 361); the United States’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE408); Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Motion to Compel Answers (DE 348) and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Motion for Finding Waiver of Work Product and Similar Protections by Government and for Production of Documents (DE 414). The Motions are fully briefed and ripe for review. The Court has carefully considered the Motions and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
I. Background – The facts, as culled from affidavits, exhibits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and reasonably inferred, for the purpose of these motions, are as follows:From between about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls, including Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (hereinafter, “Petitioners”), at his mansion in Palm Beach, Florida, and elsewhere in the United States and overseas. (Government Resp. to Petitioner’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (hereinafter, “DE 407″ at ¶ 1.) >>> LINK
_____________________________________________________________________________________

COURT RULING — AN EXCERPT – PAGE 8: Among other provisions, the NPA expanded immunity to any “potential co-conspirator” of Epstein’s: “In consideration of Epstein’s agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to SARAH KELLEN, ADRIANA ROSS, LESLEY GROFF, or NADIA MARCINKOVA (names in CAPS for emphasis).” (DE 407 at ¶ 40.) The NPA also provided that: “The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure.” (DE 407 at ¶ 41.) From the time the FBI began investigating Epstein until September 24, 2007—when the NPA was concluded—the Office never conferred with the victims about a NPA or told the victims that such an agreement was under consideration. (Marie Villafaña Decl. ¶ 7, DE 361-64; DE 407 at ¶ 43.) Many, if not all, other similarly-situated victims received standard CVRA victim notification letters substantively identical to those sent to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. (DE 407 at ¶ 44.) The Office did not consult or confer with any of the victims about the NPA before it was signed. (DE 407 at ¶¶ 45-46.)Epstein’s counsel was aware that the Office was deliberately keeping the NPA secret from the victims and, indeed, had sought assurances to that effect. (DE 407 at ¶ 48.) ________________________________________________________________________________ JUDGE KENNETH A. MARRA — COURT CONCLUSION (Pages 32-33):
The Government correctly notes that the CVRA provides that “[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3771(d)(6). The Court is not ruling In fact, the Office considered Jane Doe 2 a victim as early as August of 2006 when it sent her a CVRA letter that the decision not to prosecute was improper. The Court is simply ruling that, under the facts of this case, there was a violation of the victims rights under the CVRA.:
IV. Conclusion Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1) Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 361) is GRANTED to the extent that Petitioners’ right to conferral under the CVRA was violated.
2) The United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 408) is DENIED.
3) Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Motion to Compel Answers (DE 348) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4) Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2’s Motion for Finding Waiver of Work Product and Similar Protections by Government and for Production of Documents (DE 414) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
5) The parties should confer and inform the Court within 15 days of the date of entry of this Order how they wish to proceed on determining the issue of what remedy, if any, should be applied in view of the violation.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 21 day of February, 2019.
KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge ___________________________________________________________________________________
NOTE – COURT REFERENCES:(y) NPA = Non-Prosecution Agreement(y) Decl. = Declaration by a plaintiff, defendant, and/or victim in a court matter.(y) ¶ = court symbol for paragraph(y) ¶¶ = court symbol for 2 or more paragraphs(Y) CVRA = Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004(Y) Without Prejudice = Law phrase. Without abandonment of claim, right, privilege and without implied admission of liability. __________________________________________________________________________________
Research compiled and gathered by Ann Rose Laurence, Erika N. Berry, and Cheryl A. Lawrence-Frank