Epstein Secrets

aring to run for governor of Arkansas. (Politico) 7. Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani said that the expanded investigation into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein could "implicate a lot of people." "I can't tell you who, but it's not going to end up with just Jeffrey Epstein," said the former New York mayor.

ortphone L. > From: "L. Datsiyitail Pfiraik To: Subject: Re: Staffmg >>> 08/1212019 21:45 >» So CNN is reporting that one of the officers on Epstein's unit was not a "full fledged" correctional officer....unbelievable Sem from my Watson. Satmung Galaxy smortphone message From: Date: 8/12/19907

on creating a Space Force to get a parental-leave policy that, if approved, would be the biggest victory for federal employees in nearly 30 years. Jeff Stein, Lisa Rein and Josh Dawsey report: "Some Democratic aides say the proposed federal benefits package would cost about $3 billion, though there is d

hat the expanded investigation into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein could "implicate a lot of people." "I ca

*POT Ile. IdINOWi. BOILISOO POCK* IMEIT21 MC& lir It Sown *id Clms NA* Amur lariciiii ID IMOMM10)M (1. Ns OW VILSNAll MAIL Eadislar team Felder 70.10 ID 'DBMS,* lit/PNINCO PO& IGO Iliten. i ago hi IS Ns NERO Tyra Non* Shwa fa* Skare Tip, NoOlsird Page 17743 EFTA00047254 Asa, D

l activity without physical force. These opinions may also assist a jury in assessing evidence that some alleged victims repeatedly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they suffered abuse. Dr. Rocchio's fourth opinion is similarly relevant to the charges that require proving inten

leged victims repeatedly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they suffered

some alleged victims repeatedly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they s

bout delayed disclosure are "are outside the ken of the 8 EFTA00040114 average person," and so appropriate for expert testimony. United States v. Felder, 993 F.3d 57, 72 (2d Cir. 2021). Nor would admission of these opinions cause unfair Rule 403 prejudice since they are relevant rebuttal to impeachm

l activity without physical force. These opinions may also assist a jury in assessing evidence that some alleged victims repeatedly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they suffered abuse. Dr. Rocchio's fourth opinion is similarly relevant to the charges that require proving inten

leged victims repeatedly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they suffered

some alleged victims repeatedly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they s

bout delayed disclosure are "are outside the ken of the 8 EFTA00094660 average person," and so appropriate for expert testimony. United States v. Felder, 993 F.3d 57, 72 (2d Cir. 2021). Nor would admission of these opinions cause unfair Rule 403 prejudice since they are relevant rebuttal to impeachm

l activity without physical force. These opinions may also assist a jury in assessing evidence that some alleged victims repeatedly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they suffered abuse. Dr. Rocchio's fourth opinion is similarly relevant to the charges that require proving inten

leged victims repeatedly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they suffered

some alleged victims repeatedly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they s

bout delayed disclosure are "are outside the ken of the 8 EFTA00094649 average person," and so appropriate for expert testimony. United States v. Felder, 993 F.3d 57, 72 (2d Cir. 2021). Nor would admission of these opinions cause unfair Rule 403 prejudice since they are relevant rebuttal to impeachm

l activity without physical force. These opinions may also assist a jury in assessing evidence that some alleged victims repeatedly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they suffered abuse. Dr. Rocchio's fourth opinion is similarly relevant to the charges that require proving inten

leged victims repeatedly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they suffered

some alleged victims repeatedly interacted with Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they s

ure are "are outside the ken of the 8 EFTA00016478 --- PAGE BREAK --- average person," and so appropriate for expert testimony. United States v. Felder, 993 F.3d 57, 72 (2d Cir. 2021). Nor would admission of these opinions cause unfair Rule 403 prejudice since they are relevant rebuttal to impeachm

GING RIGHTS ATTACH UNDER THE CVRA ............... 90 A. A Test for Determining When Rights Attach.......0...000ccceeee 9] B. Applying the Test to the Epstein Case ..........ccccccceccccceceeeneees 93 C. Current Department Policy on Pre-charging Rights.................... 94 D. State Law Extension of Pre-ch

ll phases of the criminal justice process.° Congress drafted the CVRA, for example, broadly to make crime victims participants in criminal cases. The Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case demonstrates the importance of victim participation even before charges are filed. A. A BRIEF HISTORY OF CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS The c

ral crime. This approach appears to already be the method that the Department is taking, as this document is used for multiple purposes.”); see also Felder v. McCotter, 765 F.2d 1245, 1248 (Sth Cir. 1985) (citing Texas law). 178 Alvarado, 440 F.3d at 200 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omi

for crime victims has arisen - specifically, the Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case before a federal court in Florida. In that case, girls victimized by Epstein have argued that they should have been consulted about a federal nonprosecution agreement; Department attorneys have responded that because prosecuto

Congress sought to end that suffering by making victims meaningful participants in criminal cases. 3° C. AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE PRE-CHARGING ISSUE: THE JEFFREY EPSTEIN CASE Grven the potentially expansive scope of victims' rights under both state provisions and the CVRA, a critical question arises about how to appl

h Amendment right to counsel, though the difference probably is explainable by the fact that this document is used for multiple purposes."); see also Felder v. McCotter, 765 F.2d 1245, 1248 (Sth Cir. 1985) (citing Texas law). 18 Alvarado, 440 F.3d at 200 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omit