Epstein Secrets

(DEI at 1-2.) On the same day, the government was ordered by the Court to respond. (DE3). Two days later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non- prosecution agr

F.3d at 1081 (quoting Chaney, 470 U.S. at 831). That type of inquiry is exactly the one requested by Jane Does #1 and #2 — did the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida violate the CVRA. Here, Petitioners' request should be examined with even greater caution than the average agency decision because it in

irm that that his communications with Plaintiff regarding "media issues" were primarily for the purpose of providing legal advice. According to the Response "Ms. received legal advice from Mr. Pottinger regarding how to handle media inquiries in such a way as to not jeopardize her position in ongoing li

CIV. 1540 MN, 2013 WL 139560, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2013) and United States v. Bouchard Transp., No. 08-CV-4490 NGG ALC, 2010 WL 1529248, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2010). Ms. Maxwell agrees, which is precisely why she has not logged post-litigation privileged communications. Ms. Maxwell never stated,

(DEI at 1-2.) On the same day, the government was ordered by the Court to respond. (DE3). Two days later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non- prosecution agr

F.3d at 1081 (quoting Chaney, 470 U.S. at 831). That type of inquiry is exactly the one requested by Jane Does #1 and #2 — did the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida violate the CVRA. Here, Petitioners' request should be examined with even greater caution than the average agency decision because it in

constitutes an impermissible constructive amendment and variance to the Indictment. Finally, what is clear from the government's proffer in their Response, the anticipated testimony o will serve as an improper constructive 13 EFTA00090739 amendment to, and an impermissible variance of, the Indictm

2005) 40 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phanns., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) passim Dougherty v. County of Sttffolk,No. CV 13-6493 (AKT), 2018 WL 1902336 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2018) 41 Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) 30 Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N

On July 7, 2008, the Court directed the Government to file a response to the Petition by July 9, 2008, at 5:00 p.m. The Government has prepared its Response, which is attached as Exhibit A, and the Declaration of Assistant United States Attorney A. Marie Villafana, as well as correspondence with several

da 33020. Re: Jeffrey Epstein/Claaba: NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIM Dear Mr. Edwards: By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your client, QS Vat On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstei