Epstein Secrets

ng about the Justice Department’s im- plementation of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act--an act that I co-sponsored in 2004. These questions relate to an Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC’’?) Opinion made public on May 20, 2011 and more broadly to concerns I have heard from crime victims’ advocates that the Department has

mous rul- ings that crime victims were entitled to reg- ular appellate review. See In re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 562 (2d Cir. 2005); Kenna v. US. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Ca., 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006); In re Walsh, 229 Fed.Appx. 58, at 60 (8rd Cir. 2007). My next ques

ions to provide Epstein's victims with more information about what was happening. Epstein also refers to a 2010 opinion of the Justice Department's Office of Legal (OLC), which concluded that the CVRA did not extend rights until the filing of formal charges. Epstein Remedies Br. at 32. Of course, the OLC opini

exercise those rights meaningfully." DE 189 at 9 (citing U.S. v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *14 (S.D. Tex. 2008)); see also Kenna v. United 12 Jane Doe 1 and 2 continue to assert their position that, if partial rescission is not possible for some reason, then total rescission

ions to provide Epstein's victims with more information about what was happening. Epstein also refers to a 2010 opinion of the Justice Department's Office of Legal (OLC), which concluded that the CVRA did not extend rights until the filing of formal charges. Epstein Remedies Br. at 32. Of course, the OLC opini

exercise those rights meaningfully." DE 189 at 9 (citing U.S. v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *14 (S.D. Tex. 2008)); see also Kenna v. United 12 Jane Doe 1 and 2 continue to assert their position that, if partial rescission is not possible for some reason, then total rescission