HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010597.jpg

with which he did not want to be associated. Richardson was not called to testify nor was he ever subpoenaed to testify. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit “N” at 418. 76. Edwards learned of allegations that Epstein engaged in sexual abuse of minors on his private aircraft. See Jane Doe 102 Complaint, Exhibit “B.” Accordingly, Edwards pursued discovery to confirm these allegations. Fi Discovery of the pilot and flight logs was proper in the cases brought by Edwards against Epstein. Jane Doe filed a federal RICO claim against Epstein that was an active claim through much of the litigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein ran an expansive criminal enterprise that involved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the federal litigation, the legal team representing Edwards' clients intended to pursue an appeal of that dismissal. Moreover, all of the subjects mentioned in the RICO claim remained relevant to other aspects of Jane Doe’s claims against Epstein, including in particular her claim for punitive damages. See Edwards Affidavit, Exhibit “N” at 19. 78. Discovery of the pilot and flight logs was also proper in the cases brought by Edwards against Epstein because of the need to obtain evidence of a federal nexus. Edwards's client Jane Doe was proceeding to trial on a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 is a federal statute svhafel (unlike relevant state statutes) established a minimum level of recovery for victims of the violation of its provisions. Proceeding under the statute, however, required a “federal nexus” to the sexual assaults. Jane Doe had two grounds on which to argue that such a nexus existed to her abuse by Epstein: first, his use of telephone to arrange for girls to be abused; and, second, his travel on planes in interstate commerce. During the course of the litigation, 32 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010597