Epstein Secrets

e. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates page number stamp). 4. The FBI soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein while they were min

ictims with a fair amount of skepticism, and noted that the government believed that the victims were trying to use the CVRA as a mechanism to "undo Rubin's guilty plea in exchange for a favorable settlement of their ongoing civil suit in California state court. Movants take vigorous exception to any

that the victims were attempting to use the CVRA to obtain discovery from the defendant. Id. at 416, 425. With respect to certain CVRA rights, the Rubin court noted the lack of a remedy: The CVRA also lists among the rights secured to a victim the right to "be treated with fairness and with respect

e. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates page number stamp). 4 EFTA00207883 4. The FBI soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein w

has been cited favorably in two recent District Court decisions, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States v. Rubin, 2008 WL 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under the CVRA. After citing Dean, the District Court agreed that th

e. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates page number stamp). 4. The FBI soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein while they were min

has been cited favorably in two recent District Court decisions, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States v. Rubin, 2008 WL 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under 29 EFTA00208402 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered

e. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates page number stamp). 4. The FBI soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein while they were min

n Dean has been cited in one very recent District Court decision, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States v. Rubin, 2008 WI. 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under the CVRA. After citing Dean, the District Court agreed that

e. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates page number stamp). 4 EFTA00235754 4. The FBI soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein w

has been cited favorably in two recent District Court decisions, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States.. Rubin, 2008 WL 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under the CVRA. After citing Dean, the District Court agreed that th

e. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates page number stamp). 4. The FBI soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein while they were min

has been cited favorably in two recent District Court decisions, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States v. Rubin, 2008 WL 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under 29 EFTA00079021 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered

e. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates page number stamp). 4. The FBI soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein while they were min

n has been cited favorably in two recent District Court decisions, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States" Rubin, 2008 WL 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under 29 EFTA00185037 c 91118-awari36-1KAM Illaammend get-413nte

he privilege logs that the Government has produced that OPR generated a great deal of correspondence (at least 46 pages) regarding this request. See Bates P- 013909 to P-013955. Of course, improper influences being brought to bear on the Epstein prosecution would support the victims' allegations that t

t 361-63 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 19 of 1/1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rubin where they discussed that very scenario stating there at least has to be criminal charges contemplate by the government before these rights kick i

e. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates page number stamp). 4. The F131 soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein while they were mi

has been cited favorably in two recent District Court decisions, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States v. Rubin, 2008 WL 2358591 (BD.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under 29 EFTA00229945 , , , , , , , • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM D

e. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhibit "A" to this filing (hereinafter cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced by Bates page number stamp). 4. The FBI soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were victims of sexual assaults by Epstein while they were min

has been cited favorably in two recent District Court decisions, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States I Rubin, 2008 WL 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under 29 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000699 EFTA00230523 , , , , , , ,