Epstein Secrets

sponsors to the Attorney General, regarding the DOJ's interpretation of the CVRA. D.E. 416 at 20-21. Petitioners contend that, "[i]t was because of the Justice Department's 6 EFTA00800013 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 427 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2017 Page 7 of 32 failure to follow the law — that is, its failu

s enforced, in accord with the terms of the statute, as enacted by Congress. In § 377/ (c)(1), Congress directed that, "[o]fficers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best effor

MARY JUDGMENT Respondent United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Reply to Petitioners' Response to Government's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and states: I. JANE DOE 2 CLEARLY EXPRESSED HER DESIRE NOT TO BE TREATED AS A VICTIM OF EPSTEIN During the Government's investigation into Jeff

sponsors to the Attorney General, regarding the DOJ's interpretation of the CVRA. D.E. 416 at 20-21. Petitioners contend that, "[i]t was because of the Justice Department's 6 EFTA00799981 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 425-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2017 Page 8 of 33 failure to follow the law — that is, its fai

s enforced, in accord with the terms of the statute, as enacted by Congress. In § 377I (c)(1), Congress directed that, "[o]fficers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best effor

MARY JUDGMENT Respondent United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Reply to Petitioners' Response to Government's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and states: I. JANE DOE 2 CLEARLY EXPRESSED HER DESIRE NOT TO BE TREATED AS A VICTIM OF EPSTEIN During the Government's investigation into Jeff

so contained my direct dial telephone number, the direct dial telephone number of the case agent, Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, and the telephone number for the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. (Id.). Both Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 also received letters from the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist, which were sent o

ocket 06/02/2017 Page 25 of 176 Exhibit 1 EFTA00799629 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 26 of 176 U.S. Department of Justice United Slates Attorney Southern District of FlOrida DELIVERY BY BAND James L. Bamberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste104 West Palm Beach, FL 33

n. Exhibits designated by a letter are attached to the Government's Response and Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 2 EFTA00799607 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 4 of 176 individuals who had been identified as p

d period, in and around January 2008, there can be no dispute that Epstein's attorneys aggressively sought review of the NPA at higher levels within the Department of Justice, seeking relief from the obligations Epstein had undertaken in that agreement. First, he raised challenges to the United States Attorney's exercise

ATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 2, 2017, the foregoing Response and Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on counsel on the attached service list using CM/ECF. is/Dexter . Lee 31 EFTA00211748 SERVICE

d period, in and around January 2008, there can be no dispute that Epstein's attorneys aggressively sought review of the NPA at higher levels within the Department of Justice, seeking relief from the obligations Epstein had undertaken in that agreement. First, he raised challenges to the United States Attorney's exercise

ATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 6, 2017, the foregoing Response and Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on counsel on the attached service list using CM/ECF. Is/Dexter A. Lee Dexter A. Lee Assistant U

d period, in and around January 2008, there can be no dispute that Epstein's attorneys aggressively sought review of the NPA at higher levels within the Department of Justice, seeking relief from the obligations Epstein had undertaken in that agreement. First, he raised challenges to the United States Attorney's exercise

ATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 2, 2017, the foregoing Response and Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on counsel on the attached service list using CM/ECF. Is/Dexter A. Lee Dexter A. Lee Assistant U

' In October 2020, the parties reached an agreement to resolve plaintiff's challenge to the adequacy of BOP's search for records, pursuant to which the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") returned to BOP electronic copies of records BOP had provided to OIG in connection with the investigation into the

aived any challenge to this application of Exemption 7(F) in its cross-motion for summary judgment. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("P. MOL"), at 6 n.2, ECF No. 27. Second, some of the Returned Records contain informa

' In October 2020, the parties reached an agreement to resolve plaintiff's challenge to the adequacy of BOP's search for records, pursuant to which the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") returned to BOP electronic copies of records BOP had provided to OIG in connection with the investigation into the

aived any challenge to this application of Exemption 7(F) in its cross-motion for summary judgment. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("P. MOL"), at 6 n.2, ECF No. 27. Second, some of the Returned Records contain informa

' In October 2020, the parties reached an agreement to resolve plaintiff's challenge to the adequacy of BOP's search for records, pursuant to which the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") returned to BOP electronic copies of records BOP had provided to OIG in connection with the investigation into the

aived any challenge to this application of Exemption 7(F) in its cross-motion for summary judgment. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("P. MOL"), at 6 n.2, ECF No. 27. Second, some of the Returned Records contain informa