Epstein Secrets

d in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA001

f the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo

d in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA002

f the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo

d in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA0020977

f the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo

d in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA007

f the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo

d States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 21 United States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 17 United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) 13, 26, 29, 30 United States v. Florida West Intl Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 16, 17 Unit

squarely refutes the government's position. The co-conspirator immunity provision does not prohibit merely prosecutions by the USAO for the SDFL ("USAO-SDFL"), but by "the United States." This broad prohibition was intentional, as demonstrated by the express references elsewhere in the NPA to the United

d in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA007

f the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo

d in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA000

mber 24, 2007, after a year-long investigation, the Department of Justice, through the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), entered into the NPA with Mr. Epstein. The NPA immunized Mr. Epstein from five distinct potential federal charges that "may have been committed

d in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA000

mber 24, 2007, after a year-long investigation, the Department of Justice, through the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), entered into the NPA with Mr. Epstein. The NPA immunized Mr. Epstein from five distinct potential federal charges that "may have been committed

d States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 21 United States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 17 United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) 13, 26, 29, 30 United States v. Florida West Intl Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 16, 17 Unit

squarely refutes the government's position. The co-conspirator immunity provision does not prohibit merely prosecutions by the USAO for the SDFL ("USAO-SDFL"), but by "the United States." This broad prohibition was intentional, as demonstrated by the express references elsewhere in the NPA to the United

pp. 197 (D.S.C. 1984), of d, 749 F.2d 33 (4'h Cir. 1984) 6 United States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 3, 6 United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) 5, 6, 10, 17 United States v. Florida West Intl Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 3, 4, 6 Unite

ision in the NPA is intended to refer only to the USAO-SDFL, it does so explicitly. See Mem. at 8-9 (citing examples of NPA's explicit references to USAO-SDFL). While the government is correct that the use of the term "the United States" in a plea agreement, without snore, is insufficient under Annabi and