Epstein Secrets

mself of it by standing on the sidelines.9 As a result, Epstein has simply waived whatever due process right he might otherwise possess. See, e.g., Krieger v. Fadely 211 F.3d 134, 135 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (finding waiver of right to heard argument where litigant waited months to raise the issue, possibly f

remedies also provide a way to insure that those who were responsible for violating their rights are appropriately reviewed for possible sanction by the Justice Department. For example, as the Court knows, the Government has previously declined to investigate the victims' complaint that their rights were violated durin

mself of it by standing on the sidelines.9 As a result, Epstein has simply waived whatever due process right he might otherwise possess. See, e.g., Krieger, Fadely 211 F.3d 134, 135 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (finding waiver of right to heard argument where litigant waited months to raise the issue, possibly for

remedies also provide a way to insure that those who were responsible for violating their rights are appropriately reviewed for possible sanction by the Justice Department. For example, as the Court knows, the Government has previously declined to investigate the victims' complaint that their rights were violated durin

> See, e.g., id. at 17-19 (providing examples of the Justice Department's prosecution of state and local officials). 56 Td

seek review of prosecutors' decisions within the Department of Justice hierarchy, although it also explicitly bars judic

- victims - to prosecute alleged criminal wrongdoing. Redundant charging authority takes other forms as well. In large hierarchical agencies such as the U.S. Department of Justice, internal administrative review of front-line prosecutors’ charging or declination decisions by higher-ups creates a version of redundant enforcement

ive review somewhat comparable to those in E.U. member states. Federal law grants victims a right to seek review of prosecutors' decisions within the Department of Justice hierarchy, although it also explicitly bars judicial review of Justice Department decisions in this process. !!4 Although decision makers in an inter