Epstein Secrets

ited States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence of the Executive with regard to charging decisions and concluding that "[n]othing in the [Speedy Trial Act's] terms or structure suggests any intention to subvert t

represented Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. (a) This placed both petitioners on notice that Epstein would be pleading guilty on June 30, 2008, in Palm Beach Circuit Court. I. THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONERS' § 3771(a)(2) RIGHT TO REASONABLE, ACCURATE, AND TIMELY NOTICE Supreme Court has repeatedly emphas

ited States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence of the Executive with regard to charging decisions and concluding that "[n]othing in the [Speedy Trial Act's] terms or structure suggests any intention to subvert t

presented Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. (Id.) This placed both petitioners on notice that Epstein would be pleading guilty on June 30, 2008, in Palm Beach Circuit Court. Petitioners' arguments and the record in this case simply do not establish that there was any violation of the petitioners' right to confer. See a

ited States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence of the Executive with regard to charging decisions and concluding that "[n]othing in the [Speedy Trial Act's] terms or structure suggests any intention to subvert t

epresented Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. (ti) This placed both petitioners on notice that Epstein would be pleading guilty on June 30, 2008, in Palm Beach Circuit Court. Petitioners' arguments and the record in this case simply do not establish that there was any violation of the petitioners' right to confer. See a

-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

wo Petitioners, represented by the same counsel as in the instant case, filed civil complaints for damages against Mr. Epstein in federal court and Palm Beach Circuit Court. See Doe v. Epstein, 13 EFTA00299033 Case No. 08-80893-Civ-KAM (S.D.Fla.) (DE 1); L.M. v. Epstein, Case No. 09-81092-Civ- KAM (S.D.Fla.) (DE 1);