Epstein Secrets

e, as a matter of constitutional law, required to be even clearer and less subject to common law expansion than state statutes. As far back as 1812, the Supreme Court has held that there could be no common law crimes under federal law. See United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 43 (1812) ("[O]ur Courts no doubt pos

e. Although she has refused to disclose such evidence despite our repeated requests, we continued to proceed in good faith. We were then informed by Lana Belohlavek that solicitation of a minor is not a registerable offense, and we promptly made that known to Ms. Villafana. With the evidence at hand, it is clea

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

ot its perceived role. But, CEOS should recognize that at least one prosecutor in this case — the Chief of the SAO Sex Crimes Division has done so. Lana Belohlavek not only met with and interviewed these witnesses during the course of the 15-month state investigation prior to any federal involvement, but she a

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

not its perceived role. But, CEOS should recognize that at least one prosecutor in this case — the Chief of the SAO Sex Crimes Division has done so. Lana Belohlavek not only met with and interviewed these witnesses during the course of the 15-month state investigation prior to any federal involvement, but she aga