Epstein Secrets

wn Declaration, you stated that the NPA contained "an express confidentiality provision." In opposing the Motion to Unseal the NPA that was filed by Jane Doe, you stated that you had informed Judge Mama of the confidentiality provision during an earlier telephonic status conference occurring on August 14

between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe limited Stases, No. 9:08-ov-80736- KAM, that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in paragraph 6 of Document 14, your own Declaration, you stated tha

ad been reached with Epstein. Mr. Edwards first learned of this fact on or after July 9, 2008, when the Government filed its responsive pleading to Jane Doe's emergency petition. That pleading was the first public mention of the non-prosecution agreement and the first disclosure to Mr. Edwards and his cli

es of Bus awn In Thir Sate 7 4 74 Careen •T Another Sitio 7 7 2 Ineorpomied mud Norval Parer of Dome.. Is Aitc•ihst Scam 1 3 7 Caton or Stases oft 3 3 3 3 loremn Nalien 3 D 3 6 Fene Comity IRE OF SUIT • 'is U44Bo. - - - - - E CONTRACT TORTS FORECITUREIPENAL TY BAAARLIPIC

ages of a prepubescent fe- male known as Jane Doe. Images of this young girl had been found on several individuals' computers and were labeled with Jane Doe's actual name. NCMEC analysts used this information to locate the girl in Indianapolis, Indiana. Law enforcement officials interviewed Jane Doe. Sh

spx?sv—Full&prft=HTMLE&mt=FederalGov... 2/27/2008 EFTA00192029 Page 2 of 4 Slip Copy Slip Copy, 2007 WL 3273402 (W.D.Ky.) (Cite as: Slip Copy) Stases !Bass. 404 U.S. 336, 347, 92 S.Ct. 515, 522, 30 .Ed.2d 488 (1971)). *2 The rule of lenity is inapplicable to this case. Application of the rule is