Epstein Secrets

y information for a number of victim/witnesses, Nadia Marcinkova, and Adriana Mucinska Work product 6

03545 Indictment preparation binder containing meta- analysis charts of telephone/flight/grand jury information for a number of victim/witnesses, Nadia Marcinkova, and Adriana Mucinska Work product 6(e) Contains information and documents subject to investigative privilege. Also contains information and d

ormation for a number of victim/witnesses, Nadia Marcinkova, and Adriana Mucinska Work product 6(e) Contai

o A. Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior, K. Atkinson, D. Lee re Agreement; 8/15/08 email from J. Lefkowitz to A. Marie Villafana, K. Atkinson, R. Black, M. Weinberg re Agreement; 8/14/08 emails from A. Marie Villafana to J. Lefkowitz, K. Atkinson, R. Black m interpretation of Agreement; email from J. Lefkowit

elephone/flight/grand jury information for Contains information and Anticipation of Litigation; Improper P-003545 a number of victim/witnesses, Nadia documents subject to Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Marcinkova, and Adriana Mucinska investigative privilege. Public Prosecutor, At

ipation of Litigation; Improper P-003545 a number of victim/witnesses, Nadia documents subject to Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Marcinkova, and Adriana Mucinska investigative privilege. Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Also contains information and documents subject to

A. Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior, K. Atkinson, D. Lee re Agreement; 8/15/08 email from J. Lefkowitz to A. Marie Villafana, K. Atkinson, IL Black, M. Weinberg re Agreement; 8/14/08 emails from A. Marie Villafafla to J. Lefkowitz, K. Atkinson, R. Black re interpretation of Agreement; email from J. Lefkow

rther reveal that A.H. viewed her interactions with Appellant (both sexual and non-sexual), as well as her sexual interactions with a female named "Nadia," as consensual and entirely self-interested: 36 EFTA00798156 • A.H. Tr. 15:1-21 (A.H. telling Recarey that Appellant would pay her to spend tim

m to register under SORA, despite not being a resident of New York, given his ownership of a secondary property in Manhattan.2 See A.53 (Letter of M. Weinberg to NYS Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, dated Aug. 16, 2010). Shortly thereafter, in response, Appellant's counsel submitted a letter to the Bo