Epstein Secrets

f victims’ “reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government.” At least in the posture of this case (and we do not speculate on the © John W. Gillis & Douglas E. Beloof, The Next Step for a Maturing Victim Rights Movement: Enforcing Crime Victim Rights in the Courts, 33 MCGEORGE L. REV. 689, 693 (

ate a “mechanism to bring an action against Defendant directly.”!” In Paletz, that same inmate brought a similar pro se claim against another inmate, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney General.!'° In a parallel, unpublished decision, the district court dismissed the suit, noting that the CVRA is desig

t covering the specific crimes affecting the victims. Citing Dean, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed that the rights ® John W. Gillis & Douglas E. Beloof, The Next Step for a Maturing Victim Rights Movement: Enforcing Crime Victim Rights in the Courts, 33 McGeorge L. Rev. 689, 693 (

e a "mechanism to bring an action against Defendant directly." 1°? In Paletz, that same inmate brought a similar pro se claim against another inmate, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney General. !!° In a parallel, unpublished decision, the district court dismissed the suit, noting that the CVRA is desi

the sentence imposed and the availability of the Bureau of Prisons notification program, which shall provide the dat

tion, Indigent in Civil Action, 52 A.L.R. 4th 1063 (1987 & Supp. 2004). 312 912 F. Supp. 1221 (D. Neb. 1995). w 3 Id. at 1229. w 4 See generally John W. Gillis & Douglas Beloof, The Next Step for a Maturing Victim Rights Movement: Enforcing Crime Victim Rights in the Courts, 33 McGeorge L. Rev. 689, 692 (200