Epstein Secrets

S2 SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 100

blunt the exculpatory significance of Accuser-4's omission; in fact, it underscores it. It is clear from the grand jury testimony of Special Agent Kuyrkendall that the FBI specifically asked Accuser-4 who scheduled her massage appointments 6 The government has provided only two quasi-Brady disclosures in t

toward the will of Congress . . . ." Hardison v. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal

d issues of fact on some aspects of this important meeting, it is interesting to see the limitations in the declaration. Here is what Special Agent Kuyrkendall states: In October 2007, my co-case agent and I met with Jane Doe #1 at a Publix grocery store in Palm Beach Gardens. We were meeting with Jane Doe

iolation of statutory provisions. It Hardison v. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2004); Nichols v

1232 language that demeans the harm they may have suffered." • "[W]e will not remove the language about contacting AUSA Villafana or Special Agent Kuyrkendall with questions or concerns. Again, federal law requires that victims have a 'reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in th

d 450 (1976). The prohibition against advisory opinions is "the oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability." I Flast a Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968) (internal quotation marks omitted). Today, it is "taken for granted" as "an uncontroversial

tim Notification Letter. She stated that the U.S. Attorney's Office would "not remove the language about contacting AUSA Villafafia or Special Agent Kuyrkendall with questions or concerns." Again, AUSA Villafafia wrote that "federal law requires that victims have the `reasonable right to confer with the att