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

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

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

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

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

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

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

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

th Cong. 128-29 (2003) (statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy), see also Steven J. Twist & Daniel Seiden, The P

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

itutional Amendment to Protect Crime Victims, S.J. Res. 1: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 128-29 (2003) (statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy); see also Steven J. Twist & Daniel Seiden, The Proposed Victims' Rights Amendment. A Brief Point/Counterpoint, 5 Phoenix L. Rev. 341, 356, 378 (2012

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).