Epstein Secrets

ictims wondered where that "collected information" was among the thousands of pages, since none of the document descriptions even contains the word "Reinhart." In its response, the Government says that the "fallacy" in the victims' "reasoning is the assumption that the basis for the government's respons

ponse to the victims' motion. If the Government is taking the position that it does not have even a single document in its possession regarding the Reinhart issue, they should be required to state that forthrightly. The victims' would note that this would be remarkable, since the Reinhart issue was speci

tantive information that was "collected" during the OPR investigation. Where in the log is the information that was collected? The declaration from Robin C. Ashton, Counsel of OPR, only deepens the mysteries swirling around the Government's privilege log. For example, Ashton asserts "deliberative process" priv

ein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern Districdt of Florida. In RFP No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court,

he victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the Office: "I never learned any confide

ith regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft Letter, marked `Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo A. Ferrer, with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there any indication as to whether the lette

ein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern Districdt of Florida. In RFP No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court,

he victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the Office: "I never learned any confide

h regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft Leteri_ marked `Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo A. =, with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there any indication as to whether the letter wa

Reinhart in later representing Epstein-related entities. Because the Government's (inadequate) privilege log does not reveal which entries relate to Reinhart, it is not possible to point the Court to the specific documents that demonstrate this misconduct. These documents, however, are covered by the cri

Answers to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions (RFA's), fl 15-17.4 It further admitted that OPR collected information about Reinhart's possibly improper behavior. See Gov't's Answers to RFA's, ¶ 22(a). Yet them is no way to tell which documents (among the more than 13,000 pages o

ith regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft Letter, marked 'Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo A. Ferrer, with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there any indication as to whether the lette

ein, blocking his prosecution for federal crimes in the Southern Districdt of Florida. In RFP No. 16, the victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court,

he victims have sought documents showing that Reinhart learned confidential, non- public information about Epstein matter. The Court will recall that Reinhart has filed a sworn affidavit with this Court, in which he flatly declared that while he was a prosecutor in the Office: "I never learned any confide

with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft Letter marked `Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo A. = with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there any indication as to whether the letter was