Epstein Secrets

RGER: All right. And, also, I don't think the Court -- I think the Court needs to deal with this immediately, expeditiously. This is a matter that the supreme court has placed incredible scrutiny over. And the Rule that we art traveling under -- we're not only traveling under a Rule of Judicial Administration t

the investigation, AUSAInauld the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist had contact with C.W. ¶ 4. Earlier in the investigation, T.M. was represented by James Eisenberg, E:sq. Consequently, all contact with T.M. was made through Mr. Eisenberg. In mid-2007, Epstein's attorneys approached the U.S. Attorney's Office in

ith C.W. ¶ 4. Earlier in the investigation, T.M. was represented by James Eisenberg, E:sq. Consequently, all contact with T.M. was made through Mr. Eisenberg. In mid-2007, Epstein's attorneys approached the U.S. Attorney's Office in an effort to resolve the federal investigation. a,j 5. At that time, Mr.

itted to the practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court, and several other federal courts. 3. I graduated from Princeton University in 1984 with a B.S.E. in civil engineering cum laude. I graduated fro

the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The nerne you should enter is Eisenberg. EFTA00229990 %029 Paw 3 of 3 r, /tar 07/09/2006 15:15 FAX 8618059846 UMW WPB COEWIRII case 9;08-cy: 80736-KAM ailment 48-7 Entered on FLSD

4Ag.j1 Ppapgpf 3 • U.S. Department of Justice Federal, &Urea of Investigation FBI - West Palm Beach • January10.200B James Bsonberg RIES Dear James Eisenberg. You have requested to fateNe nottfiCetione for Tahe This case is currenify under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your

itted to the practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court, and several other federal courts. 3. I graduated from Princeton University in 1984 with a B.S.E. in civil engineering can laude. I graduated fro

FBI - West Palm Beach State 500 505 South Flintier Drive West Par Beach. FL. 33901 Phone' (501) 833-7517 Fax: (581) 833•7970 .lanualy 10, 2008 James Eisenberg Ons Cieaaake Carter Ste 7C4 Australian South West Pam Beach FL 32901 Re aleallillr Dear James Eisenberg. You have requested to MONS notification

ss the VNS Internet sate, you war be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is Eisenberg 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000744 EFTA00230568 07/09/2006 15:15 FAX 8618059846 LIMO IFB COMM %029 case 9;08-cy: 80736-KAM _Moment 48-7 Entered on FLSD

to a community in many ways still healing from the April 15, 2013, attack." The AP adds, "Federal prosecutors will likely appeal Friday's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. But if the decision stands, prosecutors will face the difficult decision of asking victims to recount their trauma at another trial - where jurors

ic health effort." The Wall Street Journal (8/4, West, Subscription Publication, 7.57M), The Hill (8/4, Wilson, 2.98M), and Politico New York (8/4, Eisenberg) also cover the story. NYTimes Urges Cuomo, De Blasio To Work Together. The New York Times (8/4, 18.61M) editorializes that de Blasio and New York

Spanish speaker) filed a lawsuit, as a class representative, to enjoin the English-only policy as discriminatory. t Id. at 279, 121 S. Ct. at [515. The P u Supreme Court held Ms. Sandoval did not have a private right of action to enforce the agency's regulations that forbid Alabama from using policies with discrimi

stigative and prosecutorial arm of the executive branch of government." (quotation marks omitted)). Further, as we explained in ?a United States v. Eisenberg, "[u]ntil an indictment is returned and a case presented to the United States District Court, the responsibility for the functioning of the grand

for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663, 668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication v. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language of [Rule 26(b)(3)] protects materials prepared for ay litigation o

rvice of the subpoena, Ms.= retained the services of James Eisenberg, Esq. to represent her. Jeffrey Epstein paid for that representation. 3. Mr. Eisenberg communicated to me orally and in writing that Ms. would assert her Fifth Amendment privilege if she were forced to appear before the grand jury, an

empt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(c)(1) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania'. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, "[tjhe ability to

the investigation if the facts arc known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained

empt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cXI) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, Itthe ability to

the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained

tempt to engraft a right of access to government information to section 3771(cXI) should be rejected. In Pennsylvania'. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that the Confrontation Clause grants a criminal defendant a trial right to cross- examine a witness. It hastened to add, Itthe ability to

the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained in

lack Jacket): A Critique on the Lack of Prosecution of Hunting "Accidents," 56.S.C. L. Rev. 135, 166-73 (2004). © See id.; Duane, supra note 48. 5! Eisenberg, supra note 45, at 893-96 (discussing data from prosecutor interviews). In the contexts Eisenberg describes, prosecutors typically forgo hate-crime o

e citizens with "honest services" 1°? 160 - wrongdoing for which the public harm is sometimes hard to identify. [#894] By some accounts, including the U.S. Supreme Court's on occasion, 1°! this enforcement agenda has been overly aggressive. '°? But Congress has generally encouraged far-reaching federal enforcement, not

People Priority Goal"). 46 See Lichtblau, supra note 141. 47 See Paul G. Cassell & James R. Marsh, Full Restitution for Child Pornography Victims: The Supreme Court's Paroline Decision and the Need for a Congressional Response, /3 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 1, 7 (2015). 48 See U.S. Dep't of Justice, supra note 145, at I