Epstein Secrets

had provided. The U.S. Attorney's Office called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the h

ter from United States Attorney Lefkowitz." U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 17 to Jay EFTA00207896 39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that Whis case is curr

gal counsel. In May 2008, the Office sent a similar letter stating "your case is currently investigation" to another victim (represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards). As late as the middle of June 2008 — more than eight months after the non-prosecution agreement had been signed -- the Assistant U.S. Attorney ha

nowledge of the statute and its . . . provisions, and has no expectation of finality in his sentence until the [review by writ] is concluded ...."' LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL Procedure § 26.7(b) (Nov. 2010) (quoting United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 146 (1980)). 39 EFTA00207918 reason, it makes se

om United States Attorney Acosta to Jay Lefkowitz." U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 17 EFTA00235767 39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that Whis case is curr

gal counsel. In May 2008, the Office sent a similar letter stating "your case is currently investigation" to another victim (represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards). As late as the middle of June 2008 — more than eight months after the non-prosecution agreement had been signed -- the Assistant U.S. Attorney ha

had provided. The U.S. Attorney's Office called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the h

nowledge of the statute and its . . . provisions, and has no expectation of finality in his sentence until the [review by writ] is concluded ...."' LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL Procedure § 26.7(b) (Nov. 2010) (quoting United States DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 146 (1980)). 39 EFTA00235789 reason, it makes sense

l had provided. The U.S. Attorney's Office called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the h

that, should CEOS reject Epstein's objections to the agreement, then U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "Whis case is cur

gal counsel. In May 2008, the Office sent a similar letter stating "your case is currently investigation" to another victim (represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards). As late as the middle of June 2008 — more than eight months after the non-prosecution agreement had been signed -- the Assistant U.S. Attorney ha

nowledge of the statute and its . . . provisions, and has no expectation of finality in his sentence until the [review by writ] is concluded ...."' LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL Procedure § 26.7(b) (Nov. 2010) (quoting United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 146 (1980)). 40 EFTA00079032 Case 9:08-cv-80736-

that, should CEOS reject Epstein's objections to the agreement, then U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "Mk case is curre

gal counsel. In May 2008, the Office sent a similar letter stating "your case is currently investigation" to another victim (represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards). As late as the middle of June 2008 — more than eight months after the non-prosecution agreement had been signed — the Assistant U.S. Attorney han

l had provided. The U.S. Attorney's Office called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the h

knowledge of the statute and its . provisions, and has no expectation of finality in his sentence until the [review by writ] is concluded .. .."' LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL Procedure § 26.7(b) (Nov. 2010) (quoting United States I. Dihancesco, 449 U.S. 117,146 (1980)). 40 EFTA00229956 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KA

that, should CEOS reject Epstein's objections to the agreement, then U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office, received a letter from the FBI advising her that "Mk case is curre

gal counsel. In May 2008, the Office sent a similar letter stating "your case is currently investigation" to another victim (represented by attorney Bradley J. Edwards). As late as the middle of June 2008 — more than eight months after the non-prosecution agreement had been signed — the Assistant U.S. Attorney han

l had provided. The U.S. Attorney's Office called attorney Edwards to provide notice to his clients regarding the h

knowledge of the statute and its . provisions, and has no expectation of finality in his sentence until the [review by writ] is concluded .. .."' LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL Procedure § 26.7(b) (Nov. 2010) (quoting United States Dihancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 146 (1980)). 40 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000710 EFTA0023053