Epstein Secrets

ons. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment. 3 EFTA00020263 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

nfer intent to depart from this ordinary practice from an agreement's use of phrases like "the government" or "the United States." United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004). Those are common shorthand. A plea a

PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34 A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York United States Attorneys speak for the United States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part of a plea bargain, both contract principles and d

ons. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment. 3 EFTA00022093 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

nfer intent to depart from this ordinary practice from an agreement's use of phrases like "the government" or "the United States." United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004). Those are common shorthand. A plea a

PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34 A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York United States Attorneys speak for the United States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part of a plea bargain, both contract principles and d

lez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002); United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916, 923 (2d Cir. 1988). The Second Circuit has held that language

Adhering to this binding authority, this Court thus concluded (and continues to conclude) that the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. It thus provides Maxwell no defense in this case even if it would otherwise cover the conduct charged in the new counts in the S2 superseding indic

ierre-Louis, No. 16 CR 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018); United States v. Vickers, No. 13-CR-128-A, 2014 WL 1838255, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014); United States v. Sensi, No. 3:08-CR-253 (WWE), 2010 WL 2351484, at *3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010). The sex trafficking charges are theref

ons. The Court disagrees for two independent reasons. First, under controlling Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Second, it does not cover the offenses charged in the S1 superseding indictment. 3 EFTA00029542 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN

nfer intent to depart from this ordinary practice from an agreement's use of phrases like "the government" or "the United States." United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004). Those are common shorthand. A plea a

PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34 A. The non-prosecution agreement does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York United States Attorneys speak for the United States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part of a plea bargain, both contract principles and d

jurisdiction of his choosing (Le., the one to which he chose to flee). See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016); United States v. Kazeem, No. 15 Cr. 172, 2015 WL 4645357, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015); United States v. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12

ative appearance that the agreement contemplated barring districts other than the particular district entering into the agreement." United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994,

f 10 Honorable Henry Pitman United States Magistrate Judge July 8, 2019 Page 2 BACKGROUND A. Overview On July 2, 2019, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a sealed indictment (the "Indictment") charging the defendant with one count of sex trafficking of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 159

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

stricts, such as the Southern District of New York . . .."); DE 205-2 at 8-9 ("a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern District of New York ...) share jurisdiction and venue with the Southern District of Florida over potential federal criminal charges based on the alleged sexual ac

on alleged sexual acts that Epstein committed against [Jane Doe I and 2]. Such charges can still potentially be pursued in other districts, such as the Southern District of New York . . .."); DE 205-2 at 8-9 ("a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern District of New York ...) share juri

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

stricts, such as the Southern District of New York . . .."); DE 205-2 at 8-9 ("a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern District of New York ...) share jurisdiction and venue with the Southern District of Florida over potential federal criminal charges based on the alleged sexual ac

on alleged sexual acts that Epstein committed against [Jane Doe I and 2]. Such charges can still potentially be pursued in other districts, such as the Southern District of New York . . .."); DE 205-2 at 8-9 ("a number of districts outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern District of New York ...) share juri

jurisdiction of his choosing (Le., the one to which he chose to flee). See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016); United States v. Kazeem, No. 15 Cr. 172, 2015 WL 4645357, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015); United States v. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12

ative appearance that the agreement contemplated barring districts other than the particular district entering into the agreement." United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994,