Epstein Secrets

t `[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction."' Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 418 (quoting the CVRA). Simply stated, the CVRA "gives crime victims a voice but not a veto." United States v. Turner, 367 F. S

gestion in the statutory language that victims have a right independent of the government to prosecute a crime [or] set strategy." United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 417-18 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). "Quite to the contrary, the statute itself provides that `[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed

r v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981). 24 EFTA00799518 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 26 of 101

t `[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction."' Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 418 (quoting the CVRA). Simply stated, the CVRA "gives crime victims a voice but not a veto." United States v. Turner, 367 F. S

gestion in the statutory language that victims have a right independent of the government to prosecute a crime [or] set strategy." United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 417-18 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). "Quite to the contrary, the statute itself provides that `[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed

r v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981). 24 EFTA00795194 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 26 of 101

at In]othing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction."' Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 418 (quoting the CVRA). Simply stated, the CVRA "gives crime victims a voice but not a veto." United States v. Turner, 367 F. S

gestion in the statutory language that victims have a right independent of the government to prosecute a crime [or] set strategy." United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 417-18 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). "Quite to the contrary, the statute itself provides that In]othing in this chapter shall be construed

r v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981). 24 EFTA00081039 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/05/2013 Page 26 of 101

gestion in the statutory language that victims have a right independent of the government to prosecute a crime [or] set strategy." United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 417-18 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). "Quite to the contrary, the statute itself provides that `[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed

t `[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction."' Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 418 (quoting the CVRA). Simply stated, the CVRA "gives crime victims a voice but not a veto." United States v. Turner, 367 F. S

r v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981). 24 EFTA00208846 The remedy of "apology" is not cognizable, either within the meaning of the CVRA or as a

district court decisions, which provides further support for the conclusion that the CVRA applies before charges have been filed. In United States v. Rubin,” victims of a federal securities fraud argued that they had CVRA rights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific

in. The Fifth Circuit then remanded the matter to the district court to determine the appropriate remedy for the violation of the victims’ rights.° The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Dean has been cited favorably in four recent district court decisions, which provides further support for the conclusion that the CVRA ap

at '[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction.' Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 418 (quoting the CVRA). Simply stated, the CVRA "gives crime victims a voice but not a veto." United States" Turner, 367 F. Sup

I. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (1 1 th Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981). 24 EFTA00205647 The remedy of "apology" is not cognizable, either within the meaning of the CVRA or as a

n Dean has been cited in one very recent District Court decision, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States v. Rubin. 2008 WI. 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under the C'VRA. After citing Dean, the District Court agreed that

ey General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3171(d i(6). But the Government made the same argument in the Dean case — and lost. The Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court decision that enforcing the right to confer might impair 9 EFTA00215624 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 9 Entered o

n Dean has been cited in one very recent District Court decision, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States v. Rubin. 2008 WI. 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under the C'VRA. After citing Dean, the District Court agreed that

ey General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3171(d i(6). But the Government made the same argument in the Dean case — and lost. The Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court decision that enforcing the right to confer might impair 9 EFTA00235257 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 9 Entered o

e leading case to date to assess this question is the Fifth Circuit's decision in In re Dean. °° There, a wealthy corpo

isions, which provides further 79 victims of a support for the conclusion that the CVRA applies before charges have been filed. In United States v. Rubin, federal securities fraud argued that they had CVRA rights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific crimes affec