Epstein Secrets

ensed money-transmitting business (18 U.S.C. § 1960), though Mr. Epstein never had such a business. See August 31, 2007 Letter from M. Villafana to Ross (reciting, in a target letter to one of Mr. Epstein's employees, that the investigation concerns "suspected violations of federal law, including bu

y as yet unnamed plaintiffs, and (3) the risk that the promise of uncontested damages may compromise so called "victim" testimony, all of which Mr. Whitley advised made it important that the NPA be reviewed at the highest levels of the Justice Department. See December 5, 2007 Memorandum of J. Whitley t

including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adrian Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova." It is only

39, 117 S. Ct. 417, 421, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) ("We have long held that the 'touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness."); / Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 432-33, 115 S. Ct. 1555, 1565, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (under the Due Process Clause and 11 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct

ach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. . (225) On or about September 29, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ROSS, alkla"Adriana Mucinska," and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion A

e Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with