Epstein Secrets

ivity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was

e Doe 1 Decl. 16.) In contrast, Special Agent Kuyrkendall stated that the meeting with Jane Doe 1 was to advise her of the main terms of the NPA.2 (Kuykendall Decl. ¶ 8, DE 403-18.) After the meeting, Special Agent Kuyrkendall became concerned about what would happen if Epstein breached the NPA, and thought th

ivity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was

inue. (Jane Doe 1 Decl. ¶ 6.) In contrast, Special Agent stated that the meeting with Jane Doe 1 was to advise her of the main terms of the NPA.2 (Kuykendall Decl. ¶ 8, DE 403-18.) After the meeting, Special Agent became concerned about what would happen if Epstein breached the NPA, and thought that if the vi

ivity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their input was

that on August 7, 2007, Jane Doe 1 never asked to confer with anyone from the government about charging decisions or any resolution of the matter. (Kuykendall Decl. ¶ 7.) 12 EFTA00098425 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 435 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2019 Page 13 of 33 The United States has a statutory obl