Epstein Secrets

ment has made it abundantly plain that, whatever the outcome this litigation, the agreement it made with Mr. Epstein will stand. Indeed, controlling Supreme Court case law prevents it from doing otherwise. Mr. Epstein harp fully performed his side of the bargain with the government, and when a bargain is based

ute but omits it in another . . . it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Keene Corp." United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993). Even when plea negotiations result in a guilty plea, not all statements made during those negotiations ar

ment has made it abundantly plain that, whatever the outcome this litigation, the agreement it made with Mr. Epstein will stand. Indeed, controlling Supreme Court case law prevents it from doing otherwise. Mr. Epstein harp fully performed his side of the bargain with the government, and when a bargain is based

ute but omits it in another . . . it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Keene Corp." United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993). Even when plea negotiations result in a guilty plea, not all statements made during those negotiations ar

ee - over the most important consideration, the strong public and private interests at stake. The Goodyear Tire analysis is far more consonant with the Supreme Court's teaching in Jaffee than is MTSG. In Baker v. Secretary, U.S. Dept of Transportation, 452 Fed. Appx. 934, 937 (11th Cir. 2012), this Court appeared

orp. v. United States, 509 U.S. 905 (1993) 22 Jasper v. State, 871 So.2d 729 (Miss. 2004) 43 *Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) passim Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) 27 *Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) 8, 12 Long v. Raymond Corp., 245 Fed. Appx. 912 (11th Cir.

t has made it abundantly plain that, whatever the outcome of this litigation, the agreement it made with Mr. Epstein will stand. indeed, controlling Supreme Court case law prevents it from doing otherwise. Mr. Epstein has fully performed his side of the bargain with the government, and when a bargain is based

ute but omits it in another . . . it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993). Even when plea negotiations result in a guilty plea, not all statements made during those negotiations

t has made it abundantly plain that, whatever the outcome of this litigation, the agreement it made with Mr. Epstein will stand. Indeed, controlling Supreme Court case law prevents it from doing otherwise. Mr. Epstein has fully performed his side of the bargain with the government, and when a bargain is based

ute but omits it in another . . . it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993). Even when plea negotiations result in a guilty plea, not all statements made during those negotiations