Epstein Secrets

rida Office investigated and ultimately prosecuted an employee of Epstein's named Alfredo Rodriguez for obstruction of justice, see United States v. Alfredo Rodriguez,10 Cr. 80015 (KAM), and the Prosecution Team has received some files from that case. The Government does not intend to further seek out or review the inv

States v. Noel and Thomas, 19 Cr. 830 (AT). Separately, the FBI Florida Office investigated and ultimately prosecuted an employee of Epstein's named Alfredo Rodriguez for obstruction of justice, see United States v. Alfredo Rodriguez,10 Cr. 80015 (KAM), and the Prosecution Team has received some files from that ca

rosecuted an employee of Epstein's named Alfredo Rodriguez for obstruction of justice, see United States v.

here the two entities conducted a small number of joint interviews and engaged in limited sharing of information with each other); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (no joint investigation between Government and New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") where documents sought wer

rida Office investigated and ultimately prosecuted an employee of Epstein's named Alfredo Rodriguez for obstruction of justice, see United States v. Alfredo Rodriguez,10 Cr. 80015 (KAM), and the Prosecution Team has received some files from that case. The Government does not intend to further seek out or review the inv

States v. Noel and Thomas, 19 Cr. 830 (AT). Separately, the FBI Florida Office investigated and ultimately prosecuted an employee of Epstein's named Alfredo Rodriguez for obstruction of justice, see United States v. Alfredo Rodriguez,10 Cr. 80015 (KAM), and the Prosecution Team has received some files from that ca

rosecuted an employee of Epstein's named Alfredo Rodriguez for obstruction of justice, see United States v.

here the two entities conducted a small number of joint interviews and engaged in limited sharing of information with each other); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (no joint investigation between Government and New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") where documents sought wer

rida Office investigated and ultimately prosecuted an employee of Epstein's named Alfredo Rodriguez for obstruction of justice, see United States v. Alfredo Rodriguez,10 Cr. 80015 (KAM), and the Prosecution Team has received some files from that case. The Government does not intend to further seek out or review the inv

States v. Noel and Thomas, 19 Cr. 830 (AT). Separately, the FBI Florida Office investigated and ultimately prosecuted an employee of Epstein's named Alfredo Rodriguez for obstruction of justice, see United States v. Alfredo Rodriguez,10 Cr. 80015 (KAM), and the Prosecution Team has received some files from that ca

rosecuted an employee of Epstein's named Alfredo Rodriguez for obstruction of justice, see United States v.

here the two entities conducted a small number of joint interviews and engaged in limited sharing of information with each other); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (no joint investigation between Government and New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") where documents sought wer

rida Office investigated and ultimately prosecuted an employee of Epstein's named Alfredo Rodriguez for obstruction of justice, see United States v. Alfredo Rodriguez,10 Cr. 80015 (KAM), and the Prosecution Team has received some files from that case. The Government does not intend to further seek out or review the inv

States v. Noel and Thomas, 19 Cr. 830 (AT). Separately, the FBI Florida Office investigated and ultimately prosecuted an employee of Epstein's named Alfredo Rodriguez for obstruction of justice, see United States v. Alfredo Rodriguez,10 Cr. 80015 (KAM), and the Prosecution Team has received some files from that ca

rosecuted an employee of Epstein's named Alfredo Rodriguez for obstruction of justice, see United States v.

here the two entities conducted a small number of joint interviews and engaged in limited sharing of information with each other); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (no joint investigation between Government and New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") where documents sought wer

no additional information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise, so a bill of particulars is unwarranted...".); United States v. Rodriguez, No. 99 CR. 367 (DLC), 1999 WL 820558, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 1999) ("[T]he indictment, particularly when coupled with the discovery already prov

.N.Y. 2019) ("SEC"); United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) ("PCAOB"); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("NYSE"). The Government does not ask the Court to rule on its view of itself and clearly this argument

no additional information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise, so a bill of particulars is unwarranted...".); United States v. Rodriguez, No. 99 CR. 367 (DLC), 1999 WL 820558, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 1999) ("[T]he indictment, particularly when coupled with the discovery already prov

.N.Y. 2019) ("SEC"); United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) ("PCAOB"); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("NYSE"). The Government does not ask the Court to rule on its view of itself and clearly this argument

no additional information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise, so a bill of particulars is unwarranted...".); United States v. Rodriguez, No. 99 CR. 367 (DLC), 1999 WL 820558, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 1999) ("[T]he indictment, particularly when coupled with the discovery already prov

.N.Y. 2019) ("SEC"); United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) ("PCAOB"); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("NYSE"). The Government does not ask the Court to rule on its view of itself and clearly this argument

no additional information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise, so a bill of particulars is unwarranted...".); United States v. Rodriguez, No. 99 CR. 367 (DLC), 1999 WL 820558, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 1999) ("[T]he indictment, particularly when coupled with the discovery already prov

.N.Y. 2019) ("SEC"); United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) ("PCAOB"); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("NYSE"). The Government does not ask the Court to rule on its view of itself and clearly this argument

no additional information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise, so a bill of particulars is unwarranted...".); United States v. Rodriguez, No. 99 CR. 367 (DLC), 1999 WL 820558, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 1999) ("[T]he indictment, particularly when coupled with the discovery already prov

.N.Y. 2019) ("SEC"); United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) ("PCAOB"); United States v. Finnerty, 411 F. Supp. 2d 428, 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("NYSE"). The Government does not ask the Court to rule on its view of itself and clearly this argument