Epstein Secrets

grand-jury's subpoenas remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.) (which would be entirely unnecessary if the investigation against Epstein were closed); • "a

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pm-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(bX1)(A), (C), and 16(bX2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). Th

grand-jury's subpoenas remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.) (which would be entirely unnecessary if the investigation against Epstein were closed); • "a

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pm-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(bX1)(A), (C), and 16(bX2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). Th

grand-jury's subpoenas remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.) (which would be entirely unnecessary if the investigation against Epstein were closed); • "a

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pm-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(bX1)(A), (C), and 16(bX2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). Th

vided to Bradley Edwards' three clients, T.M., C.W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C.W. was prov

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pre-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(b)(1)(A), (C), and 16(bX2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). T

grand-jury's subpoenas remain "outstanding" (Agreement, at 5); • the subpoenas are "held in abeyance" (id.): • the subpoenas are not "withdrawn" (W.); • the parties must "maintain their evidence" (id.) (which would be entirely unnecessary if the investigation against Epstein were closed); • "a

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pm-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(bX1)(A), (C), and 16(bX2); United States v. Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). Th

arded on January 10, 2008. Villafafia Decl., 1 3. On May 28, 2008, Its status as a victim was confirmed when she was interviewed by federal agents. W., The FBI Victim Witness specialist sent her a letter on May 30, 2008. W., When the agreement was signed in September 2007, S was openly hostile to

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pre-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(b)(1)(A), (C), and 16(b)(2); United States Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). Th

otion. See Beaulieu I Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of W. Fla., No. 3:07cv30/RV/BMT, 2007 WI, 2020161, * 2

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USA° would not be entitled to compel pm-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(bX1XA), J), and 16(bX2); United Stales Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege ). Thus,

vided to Bradley Edwards' three clients, T.M., C.W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C.W. was prov

ively by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the USAO would not be entitled to compel pre-trial production of any of this information. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(b)(1)(A), (C), and 16(b)(2); United States I Argomaniz, 925 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining act-of-production privilege). T