Epstein Secrets

Motion at and cases cited therein. The single case cited by plaintiff, Northeastern Florida Chapter of of Gen. Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1990), did not involve privileged or confidential communications but instead the question whether the plaintiff had demons

ecutorial discretion to the government." Doe v. United States, F.Supp.2d , 2013 WL 3089046 at *5 (M. June 19, 2013). See, e.g., United States v. Thetford, F.Supp.2d 2013 WL 1309851 at * 1 M. March 29, 2013)(CVRA rights "do not extend to giving crime victims veto power over the prosecutor's discret

22 Email: bradepathtojustice coin LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jay C. Howell Jay Howell &Associates PA 644 Cesery Boulevard Suite 250 Jacksonville, FL 32211 Email: [email protected] PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul G. Cassell Email: PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented

hin the meaning of the CVRA. As such, they have standing to assert rights under the CVRA, as they have done in this case. See e.g. United States v. Thetford, F. Supp. 2d , 2013 WL 1309851 (ND. Ala. 2013). Presented with these claims, the court is obligated to decide whether, as crime victims, petition

15-17, and cases cited therein. The single case cited by plaintiff, Northeastern Florida Chapter of Ass'n of Gen. Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1990), did not involve privileged or confidential communications but instead the question whether the plaintiff had demons

rial discretion to the government." Doe v. United States, F.Supp.2d , 2013 WL 3089046 at *5 (S.D.Fla. June 19, 2013). See, e.g., United States v. Thetford, F.Supp.2d 2013 WL 1309851 at * 1 (N.D.Ala. March 29, 2013)(CVRA rights "do not extend to giving crime victims veto power over the prosecutor's d

1 U.S. 352, 355 (1983) (holding due process bars unduly vague offense definitions to reduce opportunities for selective enforcement); Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 (1972) (same). 26 See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 156 (1968) (regarding trial by jury as a "safeguard against the corrupt

hat there shall be no judicial review of the final decision of the Attorney General by a complainant." Id. § 3771(f)(2)(D); see also United States v. Thetford, 935 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1282 (ND. Ala. 2013) ("These rights, however, do not extend to giving crime victims veto power over the prosecutor's discretio