Epstein Secrets

ott .1 Link Scott J. Link FBN 602991 Primary: Secondary: Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola Searcy, Denny, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach FL 33409 ter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Nichole J. S

thstein. 3. D dan Jtas been housed at the Federal Detention Center, Miami, since December efendant has been pulled out of his cell many times by Bureau of Prisons staff since h arceration to receive service of lawsuits at all hours. 5. To the best of Defendant's knowledge and belief, he does not recall bein

SRI) Housing Unit. Special 9 SOUTH SHU (SHU) - Summary Text Completed. Fire ands sawrity chedr all secure. 81172019925 AM Day TF19040 Re and Searcy Check W17/2010927 AM NYM SHU Housing Unit Special 9 SOUTH SHU (SHU) • Summery Text Common Area•. LAUNDRY ROOM. Search areas with no contraband

63 Body Alarm Cr** - Summary Teo: Radio Number: 611. User ID: W14688 Page 3344:4195 EFTA00054780 Date: 08/19/2019 Time: 10:27 Ma 'federal Bureau of Prisons TRUINTEL Log Entries By Event Date Sensitive But Unclassified Entered Date Alpha Code Level Location Level 2 Location Level 3 Location Event O

sentencing; and [*931] (C) must append a copy of the court's determinations under this rule to any copy of the presentence report made available to the Bureau of Prisons. 394 The Advisory Committee recommended no changes to these rules. > Discussion: The CVRA entitles victims to be heard on disputed Federal Sentenc

ainst individuals who have not been convicted of a crime." Jn re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis added); accord Searcy v. Skinner, No. 6:06-1418-GRA-WMC, 2006 WL 1677177, at 2 (D.S.C. June 16, 2006). Like the constitutional amendment it was patterned on, the CVRA exte

rts concluded that a victim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections.'°! Yet none of these cases—United States v. Turner,'°? Searcy v. Paletz,'® or Searcy v. Skinner'°*—provide strong support for OLC’s position. Turner is a particularly poor fit. Although OLC’s memorandum characte

ate a “mechanism to bring an action against Defendant directly.”!” In Paletz, that same inmate brought a similar pro se claim against another inmate, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney General.!'° In a parallel, unpublished decision, the district court dismissed the suit, noting that the CVRA is desig

that a victim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections. !°! Yet none of these cases - United States v. 10 104 Turner, !9? Searcy v. Paletz, !°3 or Searcy v. Skinner - provide strong support for OLC's position. Turner is a particularly 9 See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c). % Td. § 10607(

e a "mechanism to bring an action against Defendant directly." 1°? In Paletz, that same inmate brought a similar pro se claim against another inmate, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney General. !!° In a parallel, unpublished decision, the district court dismissed the suit, noting that the CVRA is desi