Epstein Secrets

". . .: .)'-aso request a hard-copy version. From: Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 7:42 PM To: Ruzumna, Daniel (x2034) Cc: Weiner, Daniel H. ; Norris, Tam ; Weinstein, Marc A. (x2847) < >; Lau, Sean (x2742) < > Subject: Re: Epstein Estate EFTA00156556 CAUTION: This email was sent by someone o

d into with the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands and in response to subpoenas issued in litigations pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Estate is not a party to the SDNY litigation. As part of the Estate's document production obligations, we are reviewing approximate

Sean ( Subject: RE: Epstein Estate Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 19:43:56 +0000 I m p or ta nce: Normal "Weinstein, Marc A." 'McDonnell, Hilary" >, "Norris, Tara (x )" <.=>, "Lau, Mr. Ruzumna, Thank you for reaching out regarding the potential discovery of CSAM. I have some questions and I'd like to

d into with the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands and in response to subpoenas issued in litigations pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Estate is not a party to the SDNY litigation. As part of the Estate's document production obligations, we are reviewing approximate

Wednesday, Apri , : To: Ruzumna, Daniel Cc: Weiner, Daniel H. Lau, Sea Subject: Re: Epstein Estate Weinstein, Marc A. McDonnell, Hilary ' Norris, Tara CAUTION: This email was sent by someone outside of the Firm. Yes that works for me. Special Agen EFTA00156582 FBI New York Field Office

d into with the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands and in response to subpoenas issued in litigations pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Estate is not a party to the SDNY litigation. As part of the Estate's document production obligations, we are reviewing approximate

nited States v. Shafer, 199 F.3d 826, 830-31 (6th Cir. 1999); United States v. Schaefer, 291 F.3d 932, 938-41 (7th Cir. 2002). Cf. United States v. Norris, 452 F.3d 1275, 1281 n.1 (1 I th Cir. 2006); United States v. Amedeo, 370 F.3d 1305, 1314 (11th Cir. 2004). In any event, the information was not wi

he argument of both the Government and Defendant at sentencing. The Court is at a total loss as to why the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, as well as the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the above-styled cause, found it appropriate to intentionally withhold the

d be criminal, but it did cite a number of other Circuit Courts that have held that relevant conduct under 1B1.3 must be criminal. United States v. Norris, 452 F.3d 1275, 1281 n. 1 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Schaefer, 291 F.3d 932, 939-40 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Dove, 247 F.3d

e argument of both the Government and Defendant at sentencing. The Court is at a total loss as to why the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, as well as the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the above-styled cause, found it appropriate to intentionally withhold the