5
Shared Docs
5
Same-Page
5 / 5
Mentions
state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v
l investigation or that the state plea would resolve the federal crimes. Edwards claims he was not told his clients could address the state court. (Edwards Decl. If 117-18, DE 416-1.) In contrast, the line prosecutor claims she told Edwards that his clients could address the state court. Decl. ¶ 38, DE 403-
state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v
l investigation or that the state plea would resolve the federal crimes. Edwards claims he was not told his clients could address the state court. (Edwards Decl. ¶¶17-18, DE 416-1.) In contrast, the line prosecutor claims she told Edwards that his clients could address the state court. (Villafaiia Decl. ¶ 38
state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v
l investigation or that the state plea would resolve the federal crimes. Edwards claims he was not told his clients could address the state court. (Edwards Decl. ¶¶17-18, DE 416-1.) In contrast, the line prosecutor claims she told Edwards that his clients could address the state court. (Villafaiia Decl. ¶ 38
state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v
l investigation or that the state plea would resolve the federal crimes. Edwards claims he was not told his clients could address the state court. (Edwards Decl. ¶¶17-18, DE 416-1.) In contrast, the line prosecutor claims she told Edwards that his clients could address the state court. (' Decl. ¶ 38, DE 403
state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v
l investigation or that the state plea would resolve the federal crimes. Edwards claims he was not told his clients could address the state court. (Edwards Decl. ¶¶17-18, DE 416-1.) In contrast, the line prosecutor claims she told Edwards that his clients could address the state cou ecl. ¶ 38, DE 403-19.)
Entities connected to both Ingrassia and Edwards Decl

United States
LOCATION
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
Bradley Edwards
PERSON
Kenneth Marra
PERSON
Anderson
PERSON
Jay Lefkowitz
PERSON
Alexander Acosta
PERSON
Kenna
PERSON
Jon Kyl
PERSONthe Southern District
LOCATION
Barry Diller
PERSONHerman
PERSON
Moussaoui
PERSON
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATIONChambers
PERSON
Martha Stewart
PERSONWalker
PERSON
Starbucks
ORGANIZATION
Barry Krischer
PERSONFBI
ORGANIZATION