Epstein Secrets

sing the State Attorney's Office to arrest Epstein. Det. had prepared series of probable cause affidavits for the arrests of Jeffrey Epstein, and Haley Robson, charging I large number of state criminal violations. Chief had asked the Palm Beach County State Attorney, Barry to authorize the arrests and h

ts for the arrests of Jeffrey Epstein, and Haley Robson, charging I large number of state criminal viola

her in touch with his attorney, Jack Goldberger; and Goldberger had his friend, Jim Eisenberg, serve as Individual #28's lawyer while Epstein paid Eisenberg's fees. Individual #28 later told Brad Edwards that someone (Epstein, Goldberger, or Eisenberg) told her that "the government" planned to take away

6/06/2017 Page 26 of 32 unfairly prejudice the opposing party. Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering. Inc. 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013) citing Robinson v. Tyson Foods. Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2010). In their state court tort actions against Epstein, both petitioners invoked the provisi

.,' Jane Doe No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office unless she was granted immunity. Ex. A, Sept. 21, 2006 Ltr. from Eisenberg to AUSA Villafafia; Ex. S, 6-12. Thus, she was unwilling to provide any information regarding her encounters with Epstein unless she was assured he

ners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office unless she was granted immunity. Ex. A, Sept. 21, 2006 Ltr.

for the attached Requests for Authorization to Apply for a Compulsion Order seeking Immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sections 6001- 6003 for witnesses Haley Robson and Tatum Miller in connection with the ongoing investigation named "Operation Leap Year." II. BACKGROUND Operation Leap Year involves the invest

would arrange "sexual massages" for Epstein when he would travel to Palm Beach, and many of those "sexual massages" were performed by minor females. Robson and Miller both began their relationships with Epstein as "masseuses" when they were under the age of 18.1 After performing massages for a period o

n to any law enforcement officer about what happened between her and Epstein. Miller is represented by Jim Eisenberg, who is being paid by Epstein. Eisenberg has admitted to speaking regularly with Roy Black, who is Epstein's "behind the scenes" attorney, but Eisenberg insists that he is exercising indepe

/02/2017 Page 27 of 33 unfairly prejudice the opposing party. Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering. Inc. 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013) citing Robinson v. Tyson Foods. Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2010). In their state court tort actions against Epstein, both petitioners invoked the provisi

q.,' Jane Doe No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office unless she was granted immunity. Ex. A, Sept. 21, 2006 Is. from Eisenberg to AUSA Villafafia; Ex. S, ¶16-12. Thus, she was unwilling to provide any information regarding her encounters with Epstein unless she was assured h

ners during the investigation of Epstein are highly relevant in determining whether each petitioner can even invoke the CVRA. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq.,' Jane Doe No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office unless she was granted immunity. Ex. A, Sept. 21, 2006 Is. f

GENATT,STEPHEN A EMMETT,PAUL ROBINSON,EDWARD WRIGHT,ROSITA H MESSING,JOAN

G PALM BEACH LLC KEITEL,FREDERICK J EISENBERG,KENNETH MCCARTHY,JOSEPH W PHIPPS ES

States v. St. Amour, 886 F.3d 1009, 1013 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Fisher, 289 F.3d 1329, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2002)); see also ? Robinson g Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997) ("The plainness or ambiguity of WESTLAW @ 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim

stigative and prosecutorial arm of the executive branch of government." (quotation marks omitted)). Further, as we explained in ?a United States v. Eisenberg, "[u]ntil an indictment is returned and a case presented to the United States District Court, the responsibility for the functioning of the grand