Epstein Secrets

on to be resolved without charges being filed against Epstein. Several months after that videotaped interview, Attorney Eisenberg was asked whether AUSA Villafafia could contact Jane Doe No. 2 directly and was told that contact had to occur via Mr. Eisenberg. Ex. S. 1 14. In seeking summary judgment, Jane Doe

No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office unless she was granted immunity. Ex. A, Sept. 21, 2006 Ltr. from Eisenberg to AUSA Villafafia; Ex. S, 6-12. Thus, she was unwilling to provide any information regarding her encounters with Epstein unless she was assured her statements would

jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986) (internal citations omitted). 3 EFTA00799827 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docu

on to be resolved without charges being filed against Epstein. Several months after that videotaped interview, Attorney Eisenberg was asked whether AUSA Villafafia could contact Jane Doe No. 2 directly and was told that contact had to occur via Mr. Eisenberg. Ex. S,1 14. In seeking summary judgment, Jane Doe N

No. 2 refused to be interviewed by the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office unless she was granted immunity. Ex. A, Sept. 21, 2006 Is. from Eisenberg to AUSA Villafafia; Ex. S, ¶16-12. Thus, she was unwilling to provide any information regarding her encounters with Epstein unless she was assured her statements would

jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511 (1986) (internal citations omitted). 3 EFTA00591464 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docu

tters in approximately June 2007 [Jane Doe #1] and August 2006 [Jane Doe #2] wherein they were advised of this right and given the phone numbers of AUSA Villafafia, FBI Special Agent Kuyrkendall, and the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime. The letters specifically advised that if the Petitioners

disputes. Construing the CVRA in the way that 'See 18 U.S.C. § 113 (assault within territorial jurisdiction of the United States); United States v. Anderson, 528 F.2d 590, 591 (5th Cir. 1976) (in prosecution for assault with intent to commit murder within territorial jurisdiction of United States, distri

de—rlet—knew whethee-the-title-ef-ttte-deooment-was-diselesed-when4he-Agreemem-was-filed-under-sealr but 39. On July 3, 2008, Mr. Edwards sent to AUSA Villafafia a letter. See Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., at 15 (attachment 2). In the letter, Mr. Edwards indicated his client's desire that federal ch

e process because the litigants and the courts assume that the sole purpose of discovery is to assist trial preparation.") (quoting United States'. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441(11'h Cir. 1986; emphasis in original). See also Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441 ("Historically, discovery materials were not availa

The Section 2255 provision issue was first discussed at a July 31, 2007, meeting between FAU SA , Criminal Chief_, West Palm Beach Chief Lourie, AUSA Villafafia, and two FBI agents who met with Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly Ann Sanchez. On that date, the prosecutors presented a written, four-bullet-

apply not only to references to unindicted co-conspirators in indictments and factual proffers, but also to motion papers. See, e.g., United States. Anderson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1168 (D. Kan. 1999) ("After carefully reviewing the government's moving papers on the conflict of interest issue, the court c