Epstein Secrets

Colchico, Consor and Associates, 561-682-0905 (ir) (Entered: 08/12/2011) 08/19/2011 90 NOTICE by United States of America o artment of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel Opinion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)( (Entered: 08/19/2011) 08/22/2011 91 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Briefing b

tiff's MOTION Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe & MOTION Motion to Supplement Authorities re 50 Plaintiff's MOTION Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Of

11446 MOTION Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe & MOTION Motion to Supplement Authorities re 50 Plaintiff's MOTION Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's O

.ne1 (617)227.3760 FAX (617)318453d NIGHT EMERGENCY: (617)90144:2 April 23, 2015 Via Email and U.S. Mail John Zucker Assistant Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel 77 W 66TH St, Room 1628 New York, NY 10023 Re: Good Morning America and Night Line interview with Jane Doe 3 (VR) Dear Mr. Zucker: I represent J

llegations and that she has a financial motive in making these allegations. The Duke of York and the Royal Palace have likewise unequivocally denied Jane Doe's similar allegations against the Duke. Surely, these unequivocal statements of denial of respected members of society are entitled to some deference

requires that a crime victim be harmed by an offense that "is charged in Federal district court." (DE 403-15:1-2). The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") confirmed this view in 2010, noting that "the CVRA is best read as providing that the rights identified in section 3771(a) are guaranteed f

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. I JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenor. I INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO

TMENT’S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA’S DEFINITION OF “CRIME VICTIM” AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION ................ 192 A. April 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel “Preliminary Review” ............................192 B. 2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance ..............193 IV.

.C. Section 3771, Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Another victim subsequently joined the litigation as “Jane Doe 2.” iii Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s work release program, and the Sheriff approved his a