Epstein Secrets

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.

.,' 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 ; Ex. S, ¶¶ 6-12. Thus, she was unwilling to provide any information regarding her encounters with Epstein unless she was assured her state

s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. See Exs. G, K, L. Indeed, from late 2007 to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys attempted to convince senior attorney at CEOS that Ep

guy and he didn't do nothing wrong, nothing. Id. at 58. 16. Several months after the videotaped interview of April 24, 2007, AUSA asked attorney Eisenberg whether she could contact Jane Doe No. 2 directly and was told that any contact with Jane Doe No. 2 had to occur via Mr. Eisenberg. Ex. S, ¶ 14. 17

awsuits against Jeffrey Epstein. 13. During the course of the federal criminal investigation of Epstein, Jane Doe No. 2 was represented by attorney James Eisenberg, Esq., whose services were paid for by Epstein. Ex. S, ¶ 7. 14. Through her attorney, Jane Doe No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S.

's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ 6 EFTA00211712 in Washington, D.C. Exs. G, K, L. From late 2007 to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys attempted to convince senior attorney at CEOS t

rviewed by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office unless she was granted immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6001 et seq. Ex. A, Oct. 24, 2006 e-mail from Eisenberg to AUSI1 Ex. S,11 6-12. Jane Doe No. 2 was unwilling to provide any information regarding her encounters with Epstein unless she was assured her s

During the course of the federal criminal investigation Epstein, Jane Doe No. 2 was represented by attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq., whose services were paid for by Epstein. Ex. S, 9 7. Through her attorney, Jane Doe No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S. Att

ein challenged the United States Attorney's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion at the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. Ex. G. From January to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys submitted lengthy documents to CEOS attempting to convince senior attorney

wsuits against Jeffrey Epstein. 13. During the course of the federal criminal investigation of Epstein, Jane Doe No. 2 was represented by attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq., whose services were paid for by Epstein. Ex. S, I 7. 14. Through her attorney, Jane Doe No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S.

guy and he didn't do nothing wrong, nothing. Id. at 58. 16. Several months after the videotaped interview of April 24, 2007, AUSA asked attorney Eisenberg whether she could contact Jane Doe No. 2 directly and was told that any contact with Jane Doe No. 2 had to occur via Mr. Eisenberg. Ex. S, ¶ 14. 17

's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. Exs. G, K, L. From late 2007 to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys attempted 6 EFTA00211765 to convince senior attorney at CEOS t

didn't do nothing wrong, nothing. Id. at 58. 16. Several months after the videotaped interview of April 24, 2007, AUSA Villafafia asked attorney Eisenberg whether she could contact Jane Doe No. 2 directly and was told that any contact with Jane Doe No. 2 had to occur via Mr. Eisenberg. Ex. S, 114. 17.

awsuits against Jeffrey Epstein. 13. During the course of the federal criminal investigation of Epstein, Jane Doe No. 2 was represented by attorney James Eisenberg, Esq., whose services were paid for by Epstein. Ex. S, 1 7. 14. Through her attorney, Jane Doe No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S.

's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ 6 EFTA00799600 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 402 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 7 of 10 in Washington, D.C. Exs. G, K, L. From late 20

.,' 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.

s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. See Exs. G, K, L. Indeed, from late 2007 to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys attempted to convince senior attorney at CEOS that Ep

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

s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. See Exs. G, K, L. Indeed, from late 2007 to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys attempted to convince senior attorney at CEOS that Ep