Epstein Secrets

rime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners felt that they were "being threatened or harassed, then please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or [AUSA Villafaiia]. (See DE14, Exs. 1 and 2.) It is further undisputed that Jane Doe #1 actually took advantage of the offer of protection when E

ane Doe #1] and August 2006 [Jane Doe #2] wherein they were advised of this right and given the phone numbers of AUSA Villafafia, FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall, and the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners felt that they were "being threa

non- prosecution agreement with him. Unlike a plea agreement, non-prosecution agreements are not subject to judicial pre-approval. United States v. Dorsett, 2009 WL 2386070 at *4 (D.Neb. Jul. 23, 2009)("Non-prosecution agreements are similar to plea agreements, except adherence to a non-prosecution agr

rime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners felt that they were "being threatened or harassed, then please contact Special Agent Kuyrkendall or [AUSA Villafaiial. (See DE14, Exs. I and 2.) It is further undisputed that Jane Doe ttl actually took advantage of the offer of protection when

ane Doe #1) and August 2006 [Jane Doe #2) wherein they were advised of this right and given the phone numbers of AUSA Villafafia, FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall, and the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners felt that they were "being threa

a non- prosecution agreement with him. Unlike a plea agreement, non-prosecution agreements are not subject to judicial pre-approval. United States' Dorsett, 2009 WL 2386070 at •4 (D.Neb. Jul. 23, 2009)("Non-prosecution agreements are similar to plea agreements, except adherence to a non-prosecution agr

those victims who have never reached out and asked to confer. Neither Jane Doe 1 nor Jane Doe 2 ever contacted AUSA Villafafia or FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall regarding the case, despite being provided their phone numbers and addresses. D.E. 403-19,915. Since the Court's statutory interpretation of the te

ed on FLSD Docket 10/10/2017 Page 8 of 32 of the prosecutor alone while a plea agreement is subject to the approval of the court." United States v. Dorsett, 2009 WL 2386070 at *4 (D. Neb. Jul. 23, 2009), citing United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8th Cir. 1977). Congress's

those victims who have never reached out and asked to confer. Neither Jane Doe 1 nor Jane Doe 2 ever contacted AUSA Villafafia or FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall regarding the case, despite being provided their phone numbers and addresses. D.E. 403-19,915. Since the Court's statutory interpretation of the te

ed on FLSD Docket 10/06/2017 Page 9 of 33 of the prosecutor alone while a plea agreement is subject to the approval of the court." United States v. Dorsett, 2009 WL 2386070 at *4 (D. Neb. Jul. 23, 2009), citing United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8th Cir. 1977). Congress's

to obtain information from Jane Doe No. 2. Ex. B; Ex. S, 6-12. On April 24, 2007, Jane Doe No. 2 was interviewed by FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards and AUSA Marie Villafafia, in the presence of her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq. Ex. C; Ex. R, I 5; Ex. S, q 12. Jane Doe No. 2

rosecution agreement is the responsibility of the prosecutor alone while a plea agreement is subject to the approval of the court." United States v. Dorsett, 2009 WL 2386070 at *4 (D. Neb. Jul. 23, 2009), citing United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8th Cir. 1977). Congress's

o obtain information from Jane Doe No. 2. Ex. B; Ex. S,11[6-12. On April 24, 2007, Jane Doe No. 2 was interviewed by FBI Special Agents E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards and AUSA Marie Villafafia, in the presence of her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq. Ex. C; Ex. R, 15; Ex. S, ¶ 12. Jane Doe No. 2 d

rosecution agreement is the responsibility of the prosecutor alone while a plea agreement is subject to the approval of the court." United States v. Dorsett, 2009 WL 2386070 at *4 (D. Neb. Jul. 23, 2009), citing United States v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. 551 F.2d 1106, 1112 (8th Cir. 1977). Congress's