Epstein Secrets

erogatives. The USAO-SDFL has been actively engaged in this litigation and has filed dozens of pleadings. Any issues regarding interference with the Executive branch have, no doubt, been properly advanced by that Office — and Epstein is simply an interloper who is not free to kibitz on constitutional issu

olely, to decide on the rights of individuals.'" Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 598 (2007) (Alito, J.) (citing Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)). Epstein does not have a "right" to separation of powers. Second, as discussed above in connection with the

erogatives. The USAO-SDFL has been actively engaged in this litigation and has filed dozens of pleadings. Any issues regarding interference with the Executive branch have, no doubt, been properly advanced by that Office — and Epstein is simply an interloper who is not free to kibitz on constitutional issu

olely, to decide on the rights of individuals.'" Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 598 (2007) (Alito, J.) (citing Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)). Epstein does not have a "right" to separation of powers. Second, as discussed above in connection with the

r in the Executive Branch not to indict ... has long been regarded as [within] the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' " (quoting U.S. Const., Art. II, § 3)). This Executive Bra

itable remedy"). Furthermore, it has long been an "indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (quoting 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *23). For that reason, "[w]here legal rights have been inv

resolution of this petition for a writ of mandamus would not change. Moreover, ow opinion about pre-charge *1272 rights would not be binding on the Executive in the same way that the opinions about pension requests were not binding in? I He/Aunts Case. B. We Construe Statutes by Reading the Whole Text,

90, 99 S.Ct. 1946. And "it is a general and indisputable rule[ ] that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy." I I Marbuty v. Madison, 5 U.S. (I Cranch) 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (quoting 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *23). I agree with the Majority, however, that the prese

-Violence v. Pierce, 786 F.2d 1199, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ("The power to decide when to investigate, and when to prosecute, lies at the core of the Executive's duty to see the faithful execution of the laws"); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985) ("[t]he decision of a prosecutor in the Executive B

against Mr. Epstein.3 III. THE CVRA ITSELF DOES NOT AUTHORIZE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES Citing a line of cases beginning with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Petitioners contend that the CVRA authorizes "the invalidation of an illegal non- prosecution agreement so that they can con