Epstein Secrets

ANYS)" )is „cl F.,. el - - - Cc: "I Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 21:53:59 +0000 USANYS Yes, the Jane Doe is From: (USANYS) Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 17:52 To: (USANYS) (USANYS) ic ); , for sure — thanks and good point. •c > Cc: (USANYS) 1.S

ment of Investigation of the City of New York, 856 F.2d at 483; Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336, 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Kinoy v. Mitchell, 67 F.R.D. 1, 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) (discussing privilege for files compiled in connection with a criminal investigation). To the extent documents are

C c: I II It I/ II It Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 21:51:57 +0000 I take it we fully know that Jane Doe is I had a little pause on handing out the GJ subpoena, but since it's something previously disclosed to her, I can't see much of a problem disclos

ment of Investigation of the City of New York, 856 F.2d at 483; Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336, 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Kinoy v. Mitchell, 67 F.R.D. 1, 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) (discussing privilege for files compiled in connection with a criminal investigation). To the extent documents are

To: Kochevar, Steven (USANYS) 4 Cc: (USANYS) ) (USANYS) dc ); Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests 1 take it we fully know that Jane Doe is Maria Lacerda? I had a little pause on handing out the GJ subpoena, but since it's something previously disclosed to her, I can't see much of a

ment of Investigation of the City of New York, 856 F.2d at 483; Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336, 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Kinoy v. Mitchell, 67 F.R.D. 1, 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) (discussing privilege for files compiled in connection with a criminal investigation). To the extent documents are

PM To: Kochevar, Steven (USANYS) (USANYS) •ca; Cc: (USANYS) > Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests I take it we fully know that Jane Doe is Maria Lacerda? I had a little pause on handing out the GJ subpoena, but since it's something previously disclosed to her, I can't see much of a

ment of Investigation of the City of New York, 856 F.2d at 483; Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336, 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Kinoy v. Mitchell, 67 F.R.D. 1, 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) (discussing privilege for files compiled in connection with a criminal investigation). To the extent documents are

ated Touhy Requests I take it we fully know that Jane Doe isa? I had a little pause on handing out the GJ

ment of Investigation of the City of New York, 856 F.2d at 483; Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336, 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Kinoy v. Mitchell, 67 F.R.D. 1, 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) (discussing privilege for files compiled in connection with a criminal investigation). To the extent documents are

020 5:52 PM To: (USANYS) (USANYS) dc ); (USANYS) Cc: < M> < Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein-Related Touhy Requests I take it we fully know that Jane Doe is I had a little pause on handing out the GJ subpoena, but since it's something previously disclosed to her, I can't see much of a problem disclos

ment of Investigation of the City of New York, 856 F.2d at 483; Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc., 738 F.2d 1336, 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Kinoy v. Mitchell, 67 F.R.D. 1, 11 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) (discussing privilege for files compiled in connection with a criminal investigation). To the extent documents are