Epstein Secrets

her in touch with his attorney, Jack Goldberger; and Goldberger had his friend, Jim Eisenberg, serve as Individual #28's lawyer while Epstein paid Eisenberg's fees. Individual #28 later told Brad Edwards that someone (Epstein, Goldberger, or Eisenberg) told her that "the government" planned to take away

the a plication of the law to different defendants and defense attorneys has resulted in I call for the resignation of the who dared to challenge the Executive Office's conclusions. I find that very disheartening. However, my first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims

rvice of the subpoena, Ms.= retained the services of James Eisenberg, Esq. to represent her. Jeffrey Epstein paid for that representation. 3. Mr. Eisenberg communicated to me orally and in writing that Ms. would assert her Fifth Amendment privilege if she were forced to appear before the grand jury, an

for the Southern District of Florida and the Executive Office of United States Attorneys. (DE 212-1 at 22-23); see Table at P-013248-13278). One of the Executive Office's functions is to "[p]rovide general legal interpretations, opinions, and advice to United States Attorneys in areas of recusals." Offices of the Uni

contacted Jim Eisenberg, counsel for Individual # 28, who is Jane Doe #2 in the Jane Doe I United States suit. As noted on the attached chart, Mr. Eisenberg was paid for by Mr. Epstein. I told Mr. Eisenberg that I was preparing victim notification letters and needed to know if he was still representing

application of the law to different defendants and defense attorneys has resulted in a call for the resignation of the AUSA who dared to challenge the Executive Office's conclusions. I find that very disheartening. However, my first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims