Epstein Secrets

d 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).? Both C.W. and T.M. also received letters from the FBI's Victim-

se the U.S. Attorney's modification limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. In light of T.M.'s prior statements to law enforcement, your Affiant could not in good faith include T.M. as a victim in an indictment and, accordingly, could not i

victim by both the FBI Victim-Witness Specialist and AUSA Villafafia. Id., 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 AUSA V

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

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 AUSA Villafaiia to her when she was interviewed in April 2007. FBI victim notification letters were mailed to C.W. and T.M. on

he 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 AUSA V

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

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 AUSA =) her when she was interviewed in April 2007. FBI victim notification letters were mailed to C.W. and T.M. on - 3 - E

ovided 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 AUSA =

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