Epstein Secrets

against Mr. Epstein.3 III. THE CVRA ITSELF DOES NOT AUTHORIZE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES Citing a line of cases beginning with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Petitioners contend that the CVRA authorizes "the invalidation of an illegal non- prosecution agreement so that they can con

is a disagreement between two contracting parties, courts cannot simply re-write agreements between them to change the terms. Cf. United States v. Fernandez, 960 F.2d 771, 773 (9'h Cir. 1991) (district court erred in rejecting one paragraph of the plea agreement rather than accepting or rejecting the en

ain language, the NPA has no application to prosecutors in other judicial districts, such as the Southern District of New York. See United States v. Fernandez, No. 17-CR- 167 (JMF), 2017 WL 6372783 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ("The Second Circuit has squarely held that "[w]hen the express terms of a plea agreeme

olely, to decide on the rights of individuals.'" Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 598 (2007) (Alito, J.) (citing Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)). Epstein does not have a "right" to separation of powers. Second, as discussed above in connection with the

ain language, the NPA has no application to prosecutors in other judicial districts, such as the Southern District of New York. See United States v. Fernandez, No. 17-CR- 167 (JMF), 2017 WL 6372783 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ("The Second Circuit has squarely held that "[w]hen the express terms of a plea agreeme

olely, to decide on the rights of individuals.'" Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 598 (2007) (Alito, J.) (citing Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)). Epstein does not have a "right" to separation of powers. Second, as discussed above in connection with the