Epstein Secrets

60 United States v. Lopez, 356 F.3d 463 (2d Cir. 2004) 18, 19, 20 United States v. Rooney, 37 F.3d 847 (2d Cir. 1994) 17, 18 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 14, 16 United States v. Torres, 719 F.2d 549 (2d Cir. 1983) 25 United States v. Van Thournout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th C

st levied her accusations more than a decade ago. The Palm Beach FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") interviewed Accuser-4 in or around 2007 during their three- year investigation of Epstein's alleged sexual abuse (the "Florida Investigation"). And

a agreement explicitly stated that "the agreement binds only the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Mexico"); United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (plea agreement explicitly stated "[t]his agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the East

secutorial overreach. It is no mystery what happened here. The Palm Beach FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") conducted a thorough investigation of Jeffrey Epstein from 2006-2008 (the "Florida Investigation"), but decided not to prosecute him or his "pote

010) 22 United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551 (2d Cir. 1996) 12 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 20, 21, 23 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 22 United States v. Sattar, No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK), 2003 WL 22510398 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2003) 29 United States v. Van

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

010) 22 United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551 (2d Cir. 1996) 12 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 20, 21, 23 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 22 United States v. Sattar, No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK), 2003 WL 22510398 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2003) 29 United States v. Van

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

to the Illegal Concealment of the Non- Prosecution Agreement 10 2. Evidence Exists that the Epstein Defense Team Acted in Bad Faith. 18 3. The USAO-SDFL Was Not Authorized to Extend Epstein Immunity Without First Conferring with his Victims. 23 II. THE CVRA AUTHORIZES RESCISSION AS A REMEDY.

cutor is attempting to evade its own obligations under the plea agreement by transferring a prosecution to another office" (citing United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998)). The fact that the USAO-SDFL's agreement with Epstein applies only to the Southern District of Florida has been m

erences to the "Government" in this case should be generally understood to refer to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), which is currently being represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. 2 EFTA00022550 --- PAGE BREAK --- Ca

cutor is attempting to evade its own obligations under the plea agreement by transferring a prosecution to another office" (citing United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998)). The fact that the USAO-SDFL's agreement with Epstein applies only to the Southern District of Florida has been m