Epstein Secrets

ters were provided to her both from your Affiant and from the FBI's Victim-Witness Specialist. Attached hereto are copies of the letters provided to Bradley Edwards' three clients, T.M., C.W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. (Ex. 1). Your Affiant's letter to T.M. was hand-deliver

e initially refused to speak with investigators. S.R.'s status as a victim of a federal offense was confirmed when she was interviewed by 'Attorney Edwards filed his Motion on behalf of "Jane Doe," without identifying which of his clients is the purported victim. Accordingly, I will address facts relate

America Date Filed: 07/07/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant represented by Bradley James Edwards 2028 Harrison Street Suite 202 Hollywood, FL 33020 954-414-8033 Fax: 924-1530 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICE

fense was confirmed when she was interviewed by 'Attorney Edwards filed his Motion on behalf of "Jane Doe," without

e thing, the court's discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief. Dean 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies pre- charge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted

victim notification letters were provided to the victim by both the FBI Victim-Witness Specialist and AUSA Villafafa. ILI 3. Petitioner's counsel, Brad Edwards, Esq., currently represents C.W., T.M., and S.R. The U.S. Attorney's Office victim notification letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. and the let

rovide notification to victims in the short time that they had. 10, Although all known victims were not notified, AUSA Villafafia did call attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA Villafafia did this, even though she had no obligation to provide notice of a state cou

e thing, the court's discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief. Dean 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies pre- charge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted

identified, victim notification letters were provided to the victim by both the FBI Victim-Witness Specialist and AUSA al 3. Petitioner's counsel, Brad Edwards, Esq., currently represents C.W., T.M., and S.R. The U.S. Attorney's Office victim notification letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. and the let

mpted to provide notification to victims in the short time that they had. Id, Although all known victims were not notified, AUSA lid call attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the hearing. AUSA id this, even though she had no obligation to provide notice of a state court hearing.

e thing, the court's discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief. Dean 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies pre- charge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted