Epstein Secrets

ent, none of Mr. Edwards' clients had expressed a desire to be consulted prior to the resolution of the federal investigation. Id. In October 2007, C.W. was not represented by counsel. a. y 8. She was given telephonic notice of the agreement, as were three other victims. Id. These four individuals we

ed to the victim by both the FBI Victim-Witness Specialist and AUSA Villafafa. ILI 3. Petitioner's counsel, Brad Edwards, Esq., currently represents C.W., T.M., and S.R. The U.S. Attorney's Office victim notification letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. and the letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by

e thing, the court's discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief. Dean 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies pre- charge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted

ent, none of Mr. Edwards' clients had expressed a desire to be consulted prior to the resolution of the federal investigation. Id. In October 2007, C.W. was not represented by counsel. Id.. $ 8. She was given telephonic notice of the agreement, as were three other victims. Id. These four individuals

were provided to the victim by both the FBI Victim-Witness Specialist and AUSA al 3. Petitioner's counsel, Brad Edwards, Esq., currently represents C.W., T.M., and S.R. The U.S. Attorney's Office victim notification letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. and the letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by

e thing, the court's discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief. Dean 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies pre- charge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted

on May 30, 2008 (Ex. 5). 4. Throughout the investigation, the FBI 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 are 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. 1). Your Affiant's letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by myself to T.M. at the time that she was interviewed (Ex. 2).?

e thing, the court's discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief. Dean 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies pre- charge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted