Epstein Secrets

e victims were not properly notified about event during that investigation. 59. RFP No. 25 requests all initial productions that are required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is a protective request to ensure that, should it be determined that the Civil Rules apply, they then receive all materials to whic

on May 30, 2008 (Ex. 5). 4. Throughout the investigation, the Fill agents, the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist, and your A ffiant had contact with C.W. and S.R. Attorney Edwards' other client. T.M., was represented by counsel and, accordingly. all contact with T.M. was made through that attorney. T

ss Specialist. Attached hereto arc copies of the letters provided to Bradley Edwards' three clients, T.M.. C.W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. (Ex. I ). Your Affiant's letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by myself to T.M. at the time that she was interviewed (Ex. 2).

we are also writing to ask for your non-opposition to Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4's motion to intervene in the case. As you know, Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows intervention on two grounds: Mandatory intervention is allowed where a putative intervenor "claims an inter relating to the . . .

eems to assert that Petitioner was given some sort of notice about tF.e plea agreement about nine months ago. Gov't Response at 7 ("in October 2007, C.W. was not represented by counsel. . . . She was given telephonic notice of the agreement, as were three other to EFTA00210782 Case 9:08-cv-80736-K

itioners. PETITIONERS HAVE NO RIGHT TO DISCOVERY UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Petitioners argue they arc entitled to discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but they point to no particular rule, or case, which provides that such a discovery rights exists. Instead, petitioners seize upon the g

r victims [including C.W.J were contacted and these provisions were discussed' (emphasis added). Similarly at page 5, the declaration states: "After C.W. had been notified of the terms of the agreement " (emphasis added). I write to inquire whether, in view of the fact that the provision noted above

itioners. PETITIONERS HAVE NO RIGHT TO DISCOVERY UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Petitioners argue they arc entitled to discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but they point to no particular rule, or case, which provides that such a discovery rights exists. Instead, petitioners seize upon the g

r victims [including C.W.] were contacted and these provisions were discussed' (emphasis added). Similarly at page 5, the declaration states: "After C.W. had been notified of the terms of the agreement " (emphasis added). I write to inquire whether, in view of the fact that the provision noted above