Epstein Secrets

the substance of the call. The Government has not identified any records that suggest AUSA- I ever communicated via email with Pottinger, Edwards, Skinner, or any other attorney at Boies Schiller regarding this matter after May 3, 2016. The USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwe

nited States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 1993) 253 United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2010) 123 xx EFTA00099961 United States v. Rubin, 609 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1979) 61 United States v. Rubinson, 543 F.2d 951 (2d Cir. 1976) 8I United States v. Ruiz, 702 F. Supp. 1066 (S.D.N.Y. 19

g the substance of the call. The Government has not identified any records that suggest AUSA-1 ever communicated via email with Pottinger, Edwards, Skinner, or any other attorney at Boies Schiller regarding this matter after May 3, 2016. The USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwe

United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 1993) 253 United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2010) 123 xx EFTA00077626 United States v. Rubin, 609 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1979) 61 United States v. Rubinson, 543 F.2d 951 (2d Cir. 1976) 81 United States v. Ruiz, 702 F. Supp. 1066 (S.D.N.Y. 19

g the substance of the call. The Government has not identified any records that suggest AUSA-1 ever communicated via email with Pottinger, Edwards, Skinner, or any other attorney at Boies Schiller regarding this matter after May 3, 2016. The USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwe

United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 1993) 253 United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2010) 123 xx EFTA00039441 United States v. Rubin, 609 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1979) 61 United States v. Rubinson, 543 F.2d 951 (2d Cir. 1976) 81 United States v. Ruiz, 702 F. Supp. 1066 (S.D.N.Y. 19

the February 2016 meeting. The Government is producing all identified emails to defense counsel today. 63 EFTA00095155 with Pottinger, Edwards, Skinner, or any other attorney at Boies Schiller regarding this matter after May 3, 2016. The USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwe

2d Cir. 1990) 167 United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 1993) 166 United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2010) 87 United States v. Rubin, 609 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1979) 42 United States v. Rubinson, 543 F.2d 951 (2d Cir. 1976) 55 United States v. Ruiz, 702 F. Supp. 1066 (S.D.N.Y. 19

omberg (09/17, Miller, Strohm), The Daily Beast (09/17, Fiallo), EFTA01660803 Forbes (09/17, Durkee), Fox News (09/17, Deppisch), HuffPost (09/17, Skinner), The Independent (09/17, Woodward), The Hill (09/17, Fields), MSNBC (09/17, Salam), Newsweek (09/17, Gooding, Whisnant), New York Post (09/17, Nels

nations. Additional reporting on the story was provided by ABC News (09/17, Hensley, Barr), Associated Press (09/17, Tucker, Richer), Axlos (09/17, Rubin) (2), Bloomberg (09/17, Miller, Strohm), The Daily Beast (09/17, Fiallo), EFTA01660803 Forbes (09/17, Durkee), Fox News (09/17, Deppisch), HuffPos

g the substance of the call. The Government has not identified any records that suggest AUSA-1 ever communicated via email with Pottinger, Edwards, Skinner, or any other attorney at Boies Schiller regarding this matter after May 3, 2016. The USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwe

nited States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 1993) 253 United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2010) 123 xx EFTA00103019 United States v. Rubin, 609 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1979) 61 United States v. Rubinson, 543 F.2d 951 (2d Cir. 1976) 81 United States v. Ruiz, 702 F. Supp. 1066 (S.D.N.Y. 19

district court decisions, which provides further support for the conclusion that the CVRA applies before charges have been filed. In United States v. Rubin,” victims of a federal securities fraud argued that they had CVRA rights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific

as a basis for identifying a “crime victim’ as defined in the CVRA, the class of victims with statutory rights may well be broader.””'°’ Paletz and Skinner similarly provide scant support for the Department’s position. In Skinner, a prison inmate attempted to bring a pro se civil suit against another inm

isions, which provides further 79 victims of a support for the conclusion that the CVRA applies before charges have been filed. In United States v. Rubin, federal securities fraud argued that they had CVRA rights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific crimes affec

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(c)(3)(A). % Td. § 10607(c)(1)(A).