Epstein Secrets

atement reveals how inapposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal

erson ..."). § 2423(b) is not such a statute. Federal court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak l

nt the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). 26. The next day, AUSA advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that "one of his partners is married to an AUSA here," and explained that, because of that personal relationshi

n is actually living at the time of service. See Sharman v. Atlantic Mortgage and Investment Corp. 795 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2001). In the Sham opilion, the Supreme Court of Florida also confirmed that "statutes governing service of process are to be strictly construed and enforced." it at 954. 5. There are different s

friend of Marie Villafona's boyfriend? 16 A. Not at all. 17 Q. Does it refresh your memory that Villafona 18 tried to get Epstein to pay for Ocariz to represent you 19 in the federal case? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Do you know if Detective Recarey has spoken 22 with your father? 23 A. No. 24

ona is the lead federal 11 prosecutor that's on the federal part of this case. 12 Okay? 13 A. No. 14 Q. So does it refresh your memory that Ocariz 15 is the good friend of Marie Villafona's boyfriend? 16 A. Not at all. 17 Q. Does it refresh your memory that Villafona 18 tried to get Ep

atement reveals how inapposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal

present the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). 26. The next day, advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that "one of his partners is married to an AUSA here," and explained that, because of that personal relationshi

tatement reveals how inapposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court’s very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court’s interpretive methodology when it comes to federal c

the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). The next day, AUSA Villafana advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that “one of his partners is married to an AUSA here,” and explained that, because of that personal relationship