Epstein Secrets

ant to obtain additional details on the scope of Mr. Epstein's alleged sexual abuse of children — when, where

s has a new admirer. Spencer Kuvin, a Florida lawyer who has (ought several cases for young women alleging sexual abuse by the disgraced billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, is delighted — and relieved — that newspapers are now examining Prince mew's relationship with the convicted paedophile. "lam glad the British pre

very keen to speak with Prince Andrew, given his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein." 2. "We want to obtain additional details on the scope of Mr. Epstein's alleged sexual abuse of children — when, where, how frequently and the extent to which it involved the transport of children inside and outside

with Prince Andrew, given his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein." 2. "We want to obtain additional deta

tement from the prince about what he may or may not have seen while attending parties with Epstein. Though the prince is likely to claim diplomatic Immunity, that step win not keep his name out of the court papers or the headlines: it will just keep his presence out of the courtroom. The same thing goe

om the kitchen of 358 El Brillo Way upstairs to Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's bedroom at 358 El Brillo Way. (113) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendantr FREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #14 to provide her telephone number. 22 EFTA00191745 (114) In or around the last half of 2004, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN instruc

nd the New York residence so that JEFFREY EPSTEIN could, in exchange for money, engage in lewd conduct with those minor females in order to satisfy JEFFREY EPSTEIN's prurient interests. 6 EFTA00191729 Manner and Means 29. The manner and means by which the Defendants and other participants sought to accompli

t 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida (hereinafter referred to as "358 El Brillo Way"). 5. DefendRJEFFREY EPSTEIN owned a property located at 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York (hereinafter referred to as "the New York residence"). 6. Defendant JEFFREY EPS

JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #3 to recruit additional females to come to 358 El Brillo Way. (29) On or about November 8, 2004, one of Defendant JEFFREY EIN's employees prepared a written telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from Jane Doe #3 t

a formal grant' E.g., United 7. As a part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 Congress added the current scheme for statutory grants of use Immunity. currently co- III 13 U.S.C. §§ 6001.4005. and repealed other Immunity statutes. Including trap transactional immunity provisions, that had been s

ms who are not parties to this litigation Box #1 P-000694 thru P-000781 File folder entitled "JE Corporations" containing attorney research on Epstein-owned corporations and prior litigation Work Product Contains information subject to investigative privilege Box #1 P-000782 thru P-000803 F

tion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas 6(e) Box #3 P-012089 Thru P-012129 United States' Response to Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Cross-Motion to Compel 6(e) Box #3 P-012130 "Him P-012150 Declaration of Joseph Recarey 6(

of 23 EFTA00191382 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 P-011923 Thru P-011966 Folder entitled "Responses to Arguments from JE Counsel" containing: ■ 7/13/2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to Andrew Lourie with handwritten attorney (Lourie) notes; ■ 6/25/2007 letter fro

-008535 6/25/2007 Letter from Gerald Lefcourt to Jeffrey Sloman and Andrew Lourie [pursuant to Court's O

still does not wish to testify in this case and has a Fifth Amendment basis for er position. She wishes not to accept the "proffer letter " cover of Immunity, which again is her right. I think it Is a waste of time to have her appear Friday to just take. the Fifth. I suggest that you huddle with your peo

S. 427, 87 S.Ct. 1 , 18 L. Ed.2d 865 (1967); Buchanan Rhodes. 885 U.S. 3, 87 S.Ct. 83, 17 .Ed.2d 9 (1966); Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed2d 794 (1962). Since in this case we affirm that refusal, we need not now decide whether or not there is juri

, Gary A. Hughes, J.D, Steven D. Najarian, J.D., Jeffrey A. Schafer, J.D., and Jeffrey J. Shampo, J.D. II

te prosecutor to consider the fact that Harvey had cooperated with both the U.S. Attorney and the Drug Enforcement Agency. Additionally. given use Immunity but that he did not know whether or not he was given transac- tional immunity. Finally, the prosecutor most intimately involved with the agree- men