Epstein Secrets

est in maintaining their privacy: (6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; ' Your letter refaitinces U.S. v Boehm, No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) as a model for a restitution fund sealement I asked ow prosecutor to contact the AOSA in that ease. In that matter, t

ty to review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement Again, no one raised objections to the Section 2255 language. Since the signing of theAgreement, the defense team and our Office have addressed several Issues that have arisen under the Agreement. Although the exchanges were at times a bit liti

est in maintaining their privacy: (6) Experience litigating in federal court in the Southern District of Florida; ' Your letter refaitinces U.S. v Boehm, No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Ala 2004) as a model for a restitution fund sealement I asked ow prosecutor to contact the AOSA in that ease. In that matter, t

ity to review and rain objections to the terms of the Agreement Again, no one raised objections to the Section 2255 language. Since the signing of theAgreement, the defense team and our Office have addressed several Issues that have arisen under the Agreement. Although the exchanges were at times a bit liti

er handler! between It. apatdit and the victims' representatives, and that this Office should not act as intermediary. Finally, I would note that in Boehm is well, the victims' identities were net Initially disclosed. At the AUSA wrote In dint cam "This filing is made cx ante because Boehm in hit plea

s, defense counsel suggested several similar arrangements, including a Trust !bad. Again, our decision not to ante a fund flows from our belief that theAgreement sbouldprovicie the same Taken) the victims as they would have been entitled had we proceeded to trial. A restitution land or trust fund would place