Epstein Secrets

Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFEE, WEISSING EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Paul G. Cassell Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe No.1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00209494 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 I. THIS COURT SHOULD IMMEDIATELY DISMISS EPSTEIN'S APPEAL IN LIGHT OF HIS CONCESSION THAT

respondence at issue was just "general discussions of leniency" or just "statements made in the hope" of avoiding indictment, he cannot contest the District Court's ruling. More troubling is the fact that Epstein has specifically represented to this Court that his position that the documents are "privileged and

"necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial." United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22, 37 (2d Cir. 2012) ("Robinson argued at trial that Jane Doe was his `girlfriend' and that he had no control over her prostitution activities. Evidence that Robinson was in the prostitution business and contro

Rule 16 or by any means other than the Jencks Act." (Id.). See In re U.S., 834 F.2d 283, 284-87 (2d Cir. 1987) (issuing a writ of mandamus reversing District Court's order directing the Government to "produce all oral statements made by the defendants and coconspirators that the 55 EFTA00088857 Government pla

"at least 20 more who didn't make this hearing today for a multitude of reasons"), at 29 c. Jane Doe 1 o Jane Doe 2 o Jane Doe 3 o Jane Doe 4 o Jane Doe 5 0 (via letter) (ending at 48) 5 Boies clients present 0 (62) Lisa Bloom clients, four victims, three statements read into the record o Jane Do

tim Impact Statements Importance: High The Petitioner in the Epstein CVRA case has filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit. One of their issues is the District Court's refusal to hold a hearing allowing the Epstein victims to "have their day in court." The Court's ruling is, in part, on the basis that a hearing hel