Epstein Secrets

t with. mai Decl., ¶ 4. Earlier in the investigation. was represented by James Eisenberg, E:sq. Consequently, all contact with. was made through Mr. Eisenberg. In mid-2007, Epstein's attorneys approached the U.S. Attorney's Office in an effort to resolve the federal investigation. al 5. At that time, Mr.

nvestigation, AUSAIIIIII and the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist had contact with. mai Decl., ¶ 4. Earlier in the investigation. was represented by James Eisenberg, E:sq. Consequently, all contact with. was made through Mr. Eisenberg. In mid-2007, Epstein's attorneys approached the U.S. Attorney's Office in an

expand or create an exemption to Florida's public records law. Wait I. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1979); Times Publishing Co. I. City of St. Petersburg, 558 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Principles of federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause may, in limited circumstances, a

would have had, if Mr. Epstein 'The undersigned does not know when Mr. Edwards began representing T.M. or whether T.M. ever formally terminated Mr. Eisenberg's representation. -3- EFTA00233853 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2009 Page 24 of 41 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM

y Edwards' other client, T.M., was represented by counsel and, accordingly, all contact with T.M. was made through that attorney. That attorney was James Eisenberg, and his fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, the target of the investigation.' 5. In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office

expand or create an exemption to Florida's public records law. Wait I. Florida Power & Light Co., 372 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1979); Times Publishing Co. I. City of St. Petersburg, 558 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Principles of federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause may, in limited circumstances, a

the investigation if the facts arc known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States v. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained

y, or property interest implicated in the CVRA, and courts arc hesitant to find that a substantive due process right has been created. See Collins I. City of Harker Heights. Texas, 503 U.S. 115, 5 EFTA00177151 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 6 of 9 125 (19