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

were provided to the victim by both the FBI Victim-Witness Specialist and AUSA a¶ 3. Petitioner's counsel, Brad Edwards, Esq., currently represents C.W., T.M., and S.R. The U.S. Attorney's Office victim notification letter to C.W. was provided by the 1:131. and the letter to T.M. was hand-delivered

, and to S.R. on May 30, 2008. Villafafla Decl., ¶ 3. Throughout 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. Eisenber

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

r victims [including C.W.J were contacted and these provisions were discussed' (emphasis added). Similarly at page 5, the declaration states: "After C.W. had been notified of the terms of the agreement " (emphasis added). I write to inquire whether, in view of the fact that the provision noted above

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

r victims [including C.W.] were contacted and these provisions were discussed' (emphasis added). Similarly at page 5, the declaration states: "After C.W. had been notified of the terms of the agreement " (emphasis added). I write to inquire whether, in view of the fact that the provision noted above