Epstein Secrets

ments regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at 9-15. 4 EFTA00211721 significant because, "[i]t is

ust be denied, and the Government is instead entitled to summary judgment on that claim. A. The CVRA Did Not Create a Right to Notice of Epstein's State Court Proceedings Although petitioners contend that they had a statutory right to notice of the June 30, 2008 state court proceeding in which Epstein pled guilty to

ents regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Leflcowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at 9-15. 4 EFTA00799828 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume

ust be denied, and the Government is instead entitled to summary judgment on that claim. A. The CVRA Did Not Create a Right to Notice of Epstein's State Court Proceedings Although petitioners contend that they had a statutory right to notice of the June 30, 2008 state court proceeding in which Epstein pled guilty to

ments regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at 9-15. 4 EFTA00591465 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume

ust be denied, and the Government is instead entitled to summary judgment on that claim. A. The CVRA Did Not Create a Right to Notice of Epstein's State Court Proceedings Although petitioners contend that they had a statutory right to notice of the June 30, 2008 state court proceeding in which Epstein pled guilty to