Epstein Secrets

your thoughtful and independent review. And for your agreeing to provide that review, our defense team is very grateful. Respectfully Submitted. Kenneth W. Starr RFP MIA 000443 EFTA00208924 12/11/2007 11:37 FAX la 004/099 • • KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP near ru1tURA l'AtINLICAPrit J'y P I ellcowdz. P C I o

ry grateful. Respectfully Submitted. Kenneth W. Starr RFP MIA 000443 EFTA00208924 12/11/2007 11:37

ey are entitled. Despite this fact. Ms. proposed a Victims Notification letter to be sent to the alleged lialeral victims. Ms. IIMIM has gone even Wither. alleging that the "victims" may make written statements or testily against Mr. Epstein at the sentencing. We lind no basis in law or the Agreement

hold names like Prince Andrew, Donald Trump, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz, to lesser known individual

black book"— thought to be a diary of his houseguests or people in his social circle, ranging from household names like Prince Andrew, Donald Trump, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz, to lesser known individuals like film producers, fashion executives, magazine editors, and others. See, e.g., Nick Bryant, He

f good faith, this primarily is for determining the need for further fact-finding. See, e.g., Wood v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78, 85 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Wither v. NSA, 592 F.3d 60, 69, 73 (2d Cir. 2009) (presumption does not replace de novo review by courts). The Government contends that the withheld infor

hold names like Prince Andrew, Donald Trump, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz, to lesser known individual

black book"— thought to be a diary of his houseguests or people in his social circle, ranging from household names like Prince Andrew, Donald Trump, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz, to lesser known individuals like film producers, fashion executives, magazine editors, and others. See, e.g., Nick Bryant, He

f good faith, this primarily is for determining the need for further fact-finding. See, e.g., Wood v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78, 85 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Wither v. NSA, 592 F.3d 60, 69, 73 (2d Cir. 2009) (presumption does not replace de novo review by courts). The Government contends that the withheld infor