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

s of subordinate employees in the DOJ were considered judicial admissions, a party's judicial admissions on questions of law have no legal effect.6 Dabertin v. HCR Manor Care, Inc., 68 F.Supp.2d 998, 1000 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Plainly, at the time the NPA was negotiated in 2007, the then-current version of

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

s of subordinate employees in the DOJ were considered judicial admissions, a party's judicial admissions on questions of law have no legal effect.6 Dabertin v. HCR Manor Care, Inc., 68 F.Supp.2d 998, 1000 (N.D. Ill. 1999). Plainly, at the time the NPA was negotiated in 2007, the then-current version of

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

bserved that, "[f]actual admissions can be binding as judicial admissions; admissions of legal conclusions cannot." Id.(citations omitted). See also Dabertin v. HCR Manor Care, Inc., 68 F.Supp.2d 998, 1000 (N.D. Ill. 1999)("It is well established that judicial admissions on questions of law have no legal