Epstein Secrets

the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to IS U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives h

ot, of course, suggest that wealthy defendants should bear a special disadvantage. The facts supporting the Court's ruling of pretrial detention in Zarrab are easily distinguishable. The present case does not have national security implications, Mr. Epstein is a United States citizen (and does not poss

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to file suit pursuant to IS U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives his right to contest liability and also waives h

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

ot, of course, suggest that wealthy defendants should bear a special disadvantage. The facts supporting the Court's ruling of pretrial detention in Zarrab are easily distinguishable. The present case does not have national security implications, Mr. Epstein is a United States citizen (and does not poss

AUGUST TERM 2018 No. 19-1018-cr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. JEAN BOUSTANI, AKA JEAN BOUSTANY, Defendant-Appellant: On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ARGUED: MAY 14, 2019 DECIDED: AUGUST 1, 2019 • The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set fo

v. Banki, 369 F. App'x 152, 154 (2d Cir. 2010) (non- precedential summary order). " Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 714 (1961). 11 United States v. Zarrab, No. 15 CR 867, 2016 WL 3681423, at •13 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016) (Richard M. Berman, J.). 7 EFTA00024839 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 19-1018, Docum