Epstein Secrets

.,' Jane Doe No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office unless she was granted immunity. Ex. A, Sept. 21, 2006 Ltr. from Eisenberg to AUSA Villafafia; Ex. S, 6-12. Thus, she was unwilling to provide any information regarding her encounters with Epstein unless she was assured he

ners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office unless she was granted immunity. Ex. A, Sept. 21, 2006 Ltr.

Q. 6 "A judicial admission is a formal concession in the pleadings or stipulations by a party or counsel that is binding on the party making them." Martinez v. Bally's Louisiana. Inc. 244 F.3d 474, 476-77 (5th Cir. 2001). 23 EFTA00799847 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 408 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/0

q.,' Jane Doe No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office unless she was granted immunity. Ex. A, Sept. 21, 2006 Is. from Eisenberg to AUSA Villafafia; Ex. S, ¶16-12. Thus, she was unwilling to provide any information regarding her encounters with Epstein unless she was assured h

ners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office unless she was granted immunity. Ex. A, Sept. 21, 2006 Is. f

Q. 6 "A judicial admission is a formal concession in the pleadings or stipulations by a party or counsel that is binding on the party making them." Martinez v. Bally's Louisiana. Inc. 244 F.3d 474, 476-77 (5th Cir. 2001). 23 EFTA00591484 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 401-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06

stigative and prosecutorial arm of the executive branch of government." (quotation marks omitted)). Further, as we explained in ?a United States v. Eisenberg, "[u]ntil an indictment is returned and a case presented to the United States District Court, the responsibility for the functioning of the grand

nal problems, the other should prevail—whether or not those constitutional problems pertain to the particular litigant before the Court." °Clad< v. Martinez. 543 U.S. 371. 380-81. 125 S. Ct. 716. 724. 160 L.Ed.2d 734 (2005). It is thus no answer to say that the separation of powers problems might not ap

Menchel with attached letter containing counter- proposal for plea to two years of 'supenised custody.' 9 8/24/2006- 10/24/2006 Entails betweenJim Eisenberg and Marie Villafana regarding #28 10 10/30/2006- 10/31-2006 Emails between Marie Vitt:liana and Guy Lewis regarding Lewis respresentation of Eps

e Dalton School (return date 9/29/09) 9/26/2006 Acosta, Mulvihill, Sloman, Noto, Waters, L°urie' Stefin, Atkinson, Garcia, Brown, Boscovich, Martinez Villafaila Memo regarding changes to Child Explotation Statutes in Tide 18 16 10/19/2006 Subpoena to Individual #28 (return date 10/27/06) 10/2