Epstein Secrets

onsibility of any further criminal investigation or potential prosecution of Epstein relating to his alleged sexual activities with minor females in the Southern District of Florida, and that responsibility for any future prosecutorial action arising out of Epstein's alleged criminal activity in this district has now

d the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(0 and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which will and will not be recognized; instead, they l

r Motion for a Protective Order and ordering disclosuret plaintiffs of the intervenor attorneys' written communications with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida made with the specific purpose of obtaining a favorable resolution of the criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein through attorney-to-atto

the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which 00 1e will and will not be recognized; instead,

r Motion for a Protective Order and ordering disclosuret plaintiffs of the intervenor attorneys' written communications with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida made with the specific purpose of obtaining a favorable resolution of the criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein through attorney-to-atto

the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which 00 1e will and will not be recognized; instead,

Motion for a Protective Order and ordering disclosure to plaintiffs of the intervenor attorneys' written communications with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida made with the specific purpose of obtaining a favorable resolution of the criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein through attorney-to-atto

the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which will and will not be recognized; instead, they l

Motion for a Protective Order and ordering disclosure to plaintiffs of the intervenor attorneys' written communications with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida made with the specific purpose of obtaining a favorable resolution of the criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein through attorney-to-atto

the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fit to recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Neither the Rules of Evidence nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, have ever dealt with specifying the privileges which will and will not be recognized)???]; instead, t

e: Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey E. Esptein. -2- EFTA00231600 March 20, 2011 To whom it may concern: I served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 2005 through 2009. Over the past weeks, I have read much regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. Some appears true, some appears distorted.

ANSCRIPTION EFTA00231639 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM 1 2 3 Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page25of51 25 way that is proper under the Rules of Evidence and your rulings. The NPA has no limitation on his contesting damages above the minimum statutory amount. 4 The only thing that he has done is in

e: Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey E. Esptein. -2- EFTA00232720 March 20, 2011 To whom it may concern: I served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 2005 through 2009. Over the past weeks, I have read much regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. Some appears true, some appears distorted.

E TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00232759 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 25 of 51 25 1 way that is proper under the Rules of Evidence and your 2 rulings. The NPA has no limitation on his contesting damages 3 above the minimum statutory amount. 4 The only thing that he has done i

s Orders Unsealing the NPA.1° Nor did the trial court's rejection of Petitioner's comity argument depart from the essential requirements of law. In the Southern District of Florida, one of the minor victims of Epstein filed a Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Acts (A-I)." The victim also asked the fe

statutory minimums, of course, he can contest that in any TOTALACCESSCOUMOU4NEDNORKREAMMETRANSOUrrION EFTA00233704 25 1 way that is proper under the Rules of Evidence and your 2 rulings. The NPA has no limitation on his contesting damages 3 above the minimum statutory amount. 4 The only thing that he has done i

007 Re: Grand Jury Testimony of IMIIM Dear Ms. This letter confirms the understanding between yourself and the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of Florida. You have represented that you will truthfully answer questions of the federal government in its investigation of the procurement of pro

ket 06/24/2009 Page 25 of 51 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way that is proper under the Rules of Evidence and your rulings. The NPA has no limitation on his contesting damages above the minimum statutory amount. The only thing that he has done is in hi

Robert Senior, Esq. Black. Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf. P.A. EFTA00180301 March 20, 2011 To whom it may concern: I served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 2005 through 2009. Over the past weeks, I have read much regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein. Some appears true, some appears distorted.

E TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00180328 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 180 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2009 Page 25 of 51 25 1 way that is proper under the Rules of Evidence and your 2 rulings. The NPA has no limitation on his contesting damages 3 above the minimum statutory amount. 4 The only thing that he has done i