Epstein Secrets

Q3Q117 CA/Ar"l)/L'E\l59PJ.1"\& BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. *27/2023 4:10:49 PM 573 (1980), including pre-trial criminal proceedings. Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796 (11th j Cir. 1983). Indeed, “the integrity of the judicial process, which public scrutiny is supposed to safeguard, is just

orney’s Office, Andrew Lourie, in a transmittal letter with the prosecution memo of Assistant U.S'. Attorney Ann Marie Villafana, told Criminal Chief Matthew Menchel: “The state intentionally torpedoed [the case] in thegrandjury so it was brought to us. ” Appendix at 3 (OPR Report, p. 26 (emphasis supplied)). i '

ciding when and whether to institute criminal proceedings . ..." United States v. Fokker Services B. Y., 818 F.3d 733, 741 (D.C.Cir. 2016), quoting Newman v United States, 382 F.2d 479, 480 (D.C.Cir. 1967). As the Supreme Court noted in Wayte, "[j]udicial supervision in this area, moreover, entails s

rs with outstanding reputations, including but not limited to: R. Alexander Acosta (U.S. Attorney), Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant U.S. Attorney), Matthew Menchel (Chief, Criminal Division), Andrew Lourie (Deputy Chief, Northern Region), and AUSA Anna Marie Villafana. Mr. Epstein retained counsel with experti

ds, a type of restitution; "[c]riminal forfeiture is . . . separate from restitution, which serves an entirely different purpose." United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir. 2011). Among other differences between restitution and forfeiture, only the criminal defendant is subject to restit

No Attorney-Client Relationship; Waiver; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Epstein, with e- mail from Menchel (July 5, 2007, 3:30 p.m.), Villafana to Menchel (July 4, 2007, 5:16 p.m.), and Sloman to Villafana (July 3, 2007, 1:47 p.m.), attached Suppl. Bo