Epstein Secrets

tion of Epstein's federal case, on July 3, 2008, attorney Edwards sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office comm

stitutional principle of separation of powers. Attorneys and Law Firms *1198 Paul Cassell, University of Utah College of Law, SALT LAKE CITY, UT, Bradley James Edwards, EdwardsPottinger, LLC, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL, for Petitioner. Richard Christian Komando, Bradley Garrison & Komando, ORANGE PARK, FL, for Amicus C

her. The U.S. Attorney's Office continued to conceal the existence of the NPA from all the victims for months to come. In mid- June *1233 of 2008, Bradley Edwards, the Fort Lauderdale, Florida attorney for several of Epstein's victims, contacted AUSA Villafana to inform her that he represented Jane Doe I and

for several of Epstein's victims, contacted AUSA Villafana to inform her that he represented Jane Doe I and, later, Jane Doe 2. AUSA Villafana and Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed against Epstein in the future. Edwards was led to believe that federal charges could stil

Interpretation of Legal Texts at 167 (2012) (quoting Sir Edward Coke, The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England. or a Commentary upon Littleton § 728, at 381a (1628; 14th ed. 1791), for the proposition that "[i]f any section [of a law] be intricate, obscure or doubtful, the proper mode of di

exual violence and objectification. In R. J. Herbele & V. Grace (Eds.), Theorizing sexual violence (pp. 14-30). New York. NY: Routledge. Diaz. A.. Edwards, S., Neal. W. P., Ludmer, P.. Sondike, S. B.. Kess- ler. C..... Nucci. A. T. (2004). Obtaining a history of sexual victimization from adolescent fem

nts and Disclosure Recipients Typef Method Key Findings Helpful responses Unhelpful responses Recommendations Lasing (2005) United States Littleton (2010) United States Long. Ullman. Long. Mason. and Starzynski (2007) United States Nana a al. (1996) Australia Muganyizi et al. (2009)

onstitutional basis for precluding trial of criminal case by injunction. Melvin L. Klafter, Leonard R. Harten- feld, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Edward,. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, Thomas W. James, Asst. U. S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., William W. Goodrich, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Joanne

h the rec- ognition that "[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy" for equitable relief. OShea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495, 94 &Ct. 669, 675, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974) (0Shea). Claims for equitable relief there- fore become moot when the challenged ac- ti