Epstein Secrets

ch communications include: a. All communications between the government — including, but not limited to, attorneys and staff at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, the United States Attorney's Office for Southern District of New York, the Department of Justice, state prosecutor's offices, the FBI,

d oral communications and other documents concerning any meetings between the Attorneys and prosecutors and staff from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") concerning Jeffrey Epstein and/or Ghislaine Maxwell. a. This request includes all communications and documents related to any meetings th

evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We request all such evidence requested above and e

ch communications include: a. All communications between the government — including, but not limited to, attorneys and staff at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, the United States Attorney's Office for Southern District of New York, the Department of Justice, state prosecutor's offices, the FBI,

d oral communications and other documents concerning any meetings between the Attorneys and prosecutors and staff from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") concerning Jeffrey Epstein and/or Ghislaine Maxwell. a. This request includes all communications and documents related to any meetings th

evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We request all such evidence requested above and e

d oral communications and other documents concerning any meetings between the Attorneys and prosecutors and staff from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") concerning Jeffrey Epstein and/or Ghislaine Maxwell. a. This request includes all communications and documents related to any meetings th

ch communications include: a. All communications between the government — including, but not limited to, attorneys and staff at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, the United States Attorney's Office for Southern District of New York, the Department of Justice, state prosecutor's offices, the FBI,

evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We request all such evidence requested above and e

d oral communications and other documents concerning any meetings between the Attorneys and prosecutors and staff from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") concerning Jeffrey Epstein and/or Ghislaine Maxwell. a. This request includes all communications and documents related to any meetings th

ch communications include: a. All communications between the government — including, but not limited to, attorneys and staff at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, the United States Attorney's Office for Southern District of New York, the Department of Justice, state prosecutor's offices, the FBI,

evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We request all such evidence requested above and e

ch communications include: a. All communications between the government — including, but not limited to, attorneys and staff at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, the United States Attorney's Office for Southern District of New York, the Department of Justice, state prosecutor's offices, the FBI,

d oral communications and other documents concerning any meetings between the Attorneys and prosecutors and staff from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") concerning Jeffrey Epstein and/or Ghislaine Maxwell. a. This request includes all communications and documents related to any meetings th

evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We request all such evidence requested above and e

ch communications include: a. All communications between the government — including, but not limited to, attorneys and staff at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, the United States Attorney's Office for Southern District of New York, the Department of Justice, state prosecutor's offices, the FBI,

d oral communications and other documents concerning any meetings between the Attorneys and prosecutors and staff from the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") concerning Jeffrey Epstein and/or Ghislaine Maxwell. a. This request includes all communications and documents related to any meetings th

evidence, falls within Brady's definition of evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). We also make the following specific Brady requests: I. Exculpatory Evidence: We request all such evidence requested above and e

mergency Petition and Petitioners' Motion seeking a finding that the CVRA was violated. The only material fact is that the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida never filed federal °Whether or not the CVRA applies is the central question in dispute in this maser because no federal criminal case w

may be favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilty or punishment within the scope of Brady'. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States. Agars, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." See, eg., Standing Discovery Order, United States. Enriquex, No. 1:10-CR-20488- MGC (July 9, 2010) (doc. #115). These Standing