Epstein Secrets

nd, in our opinion, showed I lack of understanding of sex offenders generally and I lack of knowledge of this case. Gerald Lefcourt has represented Martha Stewart — the last thing he would do is bring his client in to face I possible "perjury trap." In the middle of this period, which started in November 2006

his case. Gerald Lefcourt has represented Martha Stewart — the last thing he would do is bring his client

her in touch with his attorney, Jack Goldberger; and Goldberger had his friend, Jim Eisenberg, serve as Individual #28's lawyer while Epstein paid Eisenberg's fees. Individual #28 later told Brad Edwards that someone (Epstein, Goldberger, or Eisenberg) told her that "the government" planned to take away

his case. Gerald Lefcourt has represented Martha Stewart — the last thing he would do is bring his client

nd, in our opinion, showed a lack of understanding of sex offenders generally and a lack of knowledge of this case. Gerald Lefcourt has represented Martha Stewart — the last thing he would do is bring his client in to face a possible "perjury trap." In the middle of this period, which started in November 2006

Menchel with attached letter containing counter- proposal for plea to two years of 'supenised custody.' 9 8/24/2006- 10/24/2006 Entails betweenJim Eisenberg and Marie Villafana regarding #28 10 10/30/2006- 10/31-2006 Emails between Marie Vitt:liana and Guy Lewis regarding Lewis respresentation of Eps

N VANGIESON,ANN GIBSON,SUSAN STEWARD,CAMPBELL GURRENTZ,MARTIN A SIRIGOTI

G PALM BEACH LLC KEITEL,FREDERICK J EISENBERG,KENNETH MCCARTHY,JOSEPH W PHIPPS ES

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (motions to vacate or correct sentences); 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus proceedings are initiated as a new lawsuit); see also In re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir. 2008) ("The mandamus proceeding before us is a free standing cause of action, brought by persons claiming to be CVR

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