Epstein Secrets

er for the alleged victims and the Department of Justice, including but not limited to communications with the United States Attorney's Offices for the Northern District of Georgia, Southern District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York. EFTA00016140 --- PAGE BREAK --- August 1, 2019 Page 6 Steptoe MOON & JO

that attorney proffers are equally subject to Brady obligations as witness proffers. States V. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 544 F.3d 149, 157, 165 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizing that "[a]n attorney proffer apprises the government of what the client would be able to provide by way of testimony" and finding

"during a conversation with an agent or a witness is no less discoverable than if that same information were contained in an email." Id. Similarly, the Second Circuit has recognized that attorney proffers are equally subject to Brady obligations as witness proffers. States V. Triumph Capital Group, Inc., 544 F.3d

• Government's Response to Petitioners' Submission on Proposed Remedies The United States of America, by Byung J. Pak, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and Jill E. Steinberg and Nathan P. Kitchens, Special Attorneys for the Southern District of Florida, files this response to Petitioners' proposed

vestigation, and otherwise to prevent interference with an investigation." In re Dep't of Investigation of the City of New York, 856 F.2d 481, 482 (2nd Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). Disclosure to third parties of the interview reports of the young women sexually abused by Epstein could cause their ide

Florida. That agreement expressly referred to that federal district. It didn't purport to bind any other office or district. It is well-settled in the Second Circuit that a plea agreement in one U.S. Attorney's office does not bind another unless otherwise stated. That is even if, based on case law, the agreeme

hink you expect to hear anything from the government, for example? MR. WEINBERG: In the Southern District case, the CVRA case, maybe two weeks ago the Northern District of Georgia prosecutors, who are proxy for the Southern District of Florida, filed the submission before District Judge Marrah in the CVRA case totally suppor

ts that the Court should not consider the present bail motion because appeal of denial of the Second Bail Motion, not yet briefed, is pending before the Second Circuit. (Dkt. 165 at 2-3). It is ironic that the government takes this position given that it created this problem by opposing Ms. Maxwell's request for an

summarily reject the proposed monitorship. William S. Duffey, Jr., a retired federal district court judge and the former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, has agreed to undertake appointment by the Court as asset monitor. Judge Duffey has extensive experience evaluating and monitoring funds held in a