Epstein Secrets

s pretrial motions but deferred ruling on a suppression motion related to materials obtained via a subpoena to a law firm. Maxwell's bail appeal to the Second Circuit was recently denied as well. EFTA00102149 • • 4 EFTA00102150 • • 5 EFTA00102151 • EFTA00102152 7 EFTA00102153

d is working on a second discovery production of electronic materials in the coming month. The team is also working with the USAO-SDFL, OPR and the West Palm Beach Police Department among other sources to obtain and review materials relevant to the prior investi ation. Additionally, the team is in the proc

The district court approved the Settlement Agreement over the objection of the victims and the victims filed the petitions for mandamus. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with the victims: To the extent that the Government recognizes that victims would have difficulty in effecting any recoveries from the Ri

nd 2007, defendant Jeffrey Epstein (a billionaire with significant political connections) sexually abused more than 30 minor girls at his mansion in West Palm 2 The Court should accept all these facts as true for reasons the victims explain in their contemporaneously-filed Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Mo

s pretrial motions but deferred ruling on a suppression motion related to materials obtained via a subpoena to a law firm. Maxwell's bail appeal to the Second Circuit was recently denied as well. EFTA00090103 EFTA00090104 EFTA00090105 EFTA00090106 EFTA00090107

d is working on a second discovery production of electronic materials in the coming month. The team is also working with the USAO-SDFL, OPR and the West Palm Beach Police Department among other sources to obtain and review materials relevant to the prior investi ation. Additionally, the team is in the proc

ould effectively insulate discoverable acts merely because they were enacted in the presence of an attorney.") (emphasis added). Just a month ago, the Second Circuit addressed this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. -19- EF

Quash. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: 111111t_ Florida Bar No. 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm 1 Telephone; Facsimile: EFTA00179095 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August30, 2007, the foregoing document was served via Fe

t 1313. Hoffenberg suggests that United States v. Leonard, 50 F.3d 1152, 1158 (2d Cir.I995), suggests a high- er standard of proof. In Leonard, the Second Circuit instructed that "the district court should consider any evidence with a significant degree of probative value, and should rest its finding on evid

ing its Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access before the Honorable Jeffrey Colbath, Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 N. Dixie Hwy., Room 11F, West Palm Beach on June 10, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. Time reserved: 10 Minutes THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL Anna K