Epstein Secrets

actions is drippin with irony. We respectfully cull your attention to the transcript of the interview with and guide you -- as the duly confirmed Executive Branch official charged wit making Judgments consistent with our constitutional order — to the telling fact that Ms. Miler did not in any manner view herse

partner in the former firm of Herman, Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for S50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each lawsuit is entitled "Jane Doc # vs. Jeffrey Epstein," despite the fact that each of the plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of Feder

n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." The Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case. United States Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974). "It follows,

s Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, then no additional investigation was required to determine if there was a good faith basis supporting the claim. Yet Jane Doe#4 waited over two years before asserting her claim. B. The CVRA Claims of Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4 Are Barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) If petition

n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." The Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974). "It follows

FBI she had a young family she did not want to risk, and asked the FBI not to bother her again. Within one or two weeks after the FBI's phone call, Jane Doe #3 received a call from Epstein's attorney, and then one week later, from Epstein himself. Exhibit C at 17. This indicates Jane Doe #3 had knowledge

ial actions is dri in th irony. We respectfully call your attention to the transcript of the interview with and guide you — as the duly confirmed Executive Branch official charged wi malting judgments consistent with our constitutional order — to the telling fact that Ms. Miler did not in any manner view herse

ttorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who received both the initial and corrected victim notification letters that were sent to Jane Doe #1. 12. In accordance with the Court's instructions at the status conference of August 14, 2008 and the terms of the Protective Order entered by t

torial actions is dri in irony. We respectfully call your attention to the transcript of the interview with .nd guide you — as the duly confirmed Executive Branch official charged wi malting judgments consistent with our constitutional order — to the telling fact that Ms. did not in any manner view herself as

ttorney Edwards who was informed of these developments and who received both the initial and corrected victim notification letters that were sent to Jane Doe #1. 12. In accordance with the Court's instructions at the status conference of August 14, 2008 and the terms of the Protective Order entered by t