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.

o reviewing such evidence only where the Government conducts a "joint investigation" with that agency or branch of government. See United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at ■4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (no joint investigation between Government, Public Company Accounting Oversi

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.

o reviewing such evidence only where the Government conducts a "joint investigation" with that agency or branch of government. See United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at ■4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (no joint investigation between Government, Public Company Accounting Oversi

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.

o reviewing such evidence only where the Government conducts a "joint investigation" with that agency or branch of government. See United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at ■4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (no joint investigation between Government, Public Company Accounting Oversi

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.

o reviewing such evidence only where the Government conducts a "joint investigation" with that agency or branch of government. See United States v. Middendorf, No. 18 Cr. 36 (JPO), 2018 WL 3956494, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018) (no joint investigation between Government, Public Company Accounting Oversi

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

Oversight Board, or the New York Stock Exchange. See United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 241-43 (S.D.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. 20

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

Oversight Board, or the New York Stock Exchange. See United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 241-43 (S.D.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. 20

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

Oversight Board, or the New York Stock Exchange. See United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 241-43 (S.D.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. 20

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

Oversight Board, or the New York Stock Exchange. See United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 241-43 (S.D.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. 20

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

Oversight Board, or the New York Stock Exchange. See United States v. Collins, 409 F. Supp. 3d 228, 241-43 (S.D.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. 20