Epstein Secrets

tion from Jane Doe No. 2. Ex. B; Ex. S,11 6-12. On April 24, 2007, Jane Doe No. 2 was interviewed by FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards and AUSA Marie in the presence of her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq. Ex. C; Ex. R, 5; Ex. S, ¶ 12. Jane Doe No. 2 described her meetings with Ep

hat the Government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, because it did not violate the CVRA rights of either petitioner. EFTA00211718 II. JANE DOE NO. 2 CANNOT INVOKE THE CVRA BECAUSE SHE OPENLY OPPOSED AND WAS HOSTILE TO THE PROSECUTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN Petitioners have not distinguished the

ation from Jane Doe No. 2. Ex. B; Ex. S, 6-12. On April 24, 2007, Jane Doe No. 2 was interviewed by FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards and AUSA Marie Villafafia, in the presence of her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq. Ex. C; Ex. R, I 5; Ex. S, q 12. Jane Doe No. 2 described her meeti

iolate the CVRA rights of either petitioner. EFTA00799825 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 408 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2017 Page 2 of 32 II. JANE DOE NO. 2 CANNOT INVOKE THE CVRA BECAUSE SHE OPENLY OPPOSED AND WAS HOSTILE TO THE PROSECUTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN Petitioners have not distinguished the

nity to conduct "limited" discovery, petitioners want more, in the form of depositions of (I) FBI Special Agent E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall; (2) FBI S/A Jason Richards; (3) Jeffrey Sloman, who formerly served as both United States Attorney and First Assistant U.S. Attorney; (4) Matt Menchel, who formerly served as

on FLSD Docket 02/01/2016 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR DEPOSITIONS OF GOVERNMENT WITNESS

tion from Jane Doe No. 2. Ex. B; Ex. S,11[6-12. On April 24, 2007, Jane Doe No. 2 was interviewed by FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards and AUSA Marie Villafafia, in the presence of her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq. Ex. C; Ex. R, 15; Ex. S, ¶ 12. Jane Doe No. 2 described her meetin

late the CVRA rights of either petitioner. EFTA00591462 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 401-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 3 of 33 II. JANE DOE NO. 2 CANNOT INVOKE THE CVRA BECAUSE SHE OPENLY OPPOSED AND WAS HOSTILE TO THE PROSECUTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN Petitioners have not distinguished the

uti (601 Electronically signed by Jeana Ricciuti (601 bdcd11376-c729-432d4c10.b19844661291 EFTA00298358 Page 568 1 recall his name. 2 Q. Does Jason Richards ring a bell? 3 A. Jason came in after the fact, but there was 4 someone else in there. Jason wasn't present in that 5 meeting. 6 Q. And this

. 1 2 3 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 uNDED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP FLORIDA CASE NO.10-80309 JANE DOE NO. 103. Plaintiff, VOLUME IV OF IV JRPFREY CPSIEIN, Defendant. DEPOSITION OF DEIECTIVE JOSEPH RECAREY Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:03 - 5:23 pm.