Epstein Secrets

stein, and how she could assert that claim. Despite her attempts to rationalize her actions in January 2009, 2 In their reply, petitioners refer to Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and contend that, "[t]hat firm had to work within the confines of that Government assignment and direction and therefore could not, and did

at this brief phone conversation was not a proper notification of her rights under the CVRA. D.E. 311 at 17-18. The Government never suggested that S/A Slater's phone conversation with Jane Doe No. 3, in January — February 2007, constituted compliance with notifying her of her rights under II Government Ex

ould have consulted with her attorney regarding the CVRA lawsuit mentioned in the September 3, 2008 letter.3 2 In their reply, petitioners refer to Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and contend that, "[t]hat firm had to work within the confines of that Government assignment and direction and therefore could not, and did

at this brief phone conversation was not a proper notification of her rights under the CVRA. D.E. 311 at 17-18. The Government never suggested that S/A Slater's phone conversation with Jane Doe No. 3, in January — February 2007, constituted compliance with notifying her of her rights under the CVRA. Agent S

and how she could assert that claim. Despite her attempts to rationalize her actions in January 2009, it is 2 In their reply, petitioners refer to Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and contend that, "[t]hat firm had to work within the confines of that Government assignment and direction and therefore could not, and did n

at this brief phone conversation was not a proper notification of her rights under the CVRA. D.E. 311 at 17-18. The Government never suggested that S/A Slater's phone conversation with Jane Doe No. 3, in January — February 2007, constituted compliance with notifying her of her rights under the CVRA. Agent S