Epstein Secrets

ted States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). This rebuttable presumption can be readily satisfied, United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG (DMR), 2011 WL 3421321, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011), and "[a]ny evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a catego

. Carrillo-Villa, 20-MJ-3073 (SLC) 8 United States v. Chandler, 19-CR-867 (PAC), 2020 WL 1528120 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) 8, 9 United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG(DMR), 2011 WL 3421321 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3,2011) 10, 18 United States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y.

States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006) 11 United States v. Deutsch, No. 18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020) 11, 18 United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Mass. 1990) 14 United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 198

ted States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). This rebuttable presumption can be readily satisfied, United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG (DMR), 2011 WL 3421321, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011), and "[a]ny evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a catego

. Carrillo-Villa, 20-MJ-3073 (SLC) 8 United States v. Chandler, 19-CR-867 (PAC), 2020 WL 1528120 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) 8, 9 United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG(DMR), 2011 WL 3421321 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3,2011) 10, 18 United States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y.

States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006) 11 United States v. Deutsch, No. 18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020) 11, 18 United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Mass. 1990) 14 United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 198

ted States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). This rebuttable presumption can be readily satisfied, United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG (DMR), 2011 WL 3421321, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011), and "[a]ny evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a catego

. Carrillo-Villa, 20-MJ-3073 (SLC) 8 United States v. Chandler, 19-CR-867 (PAC), 2020 WL 1528120 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) 8, 9 United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG(DMR), 2011 WL 3421321 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3,2011) 10, 18 United States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y.

States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006) 11 United States v. Deutsch, No. 18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020) 11, 18 United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Mass. 1990) 14 United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 198

ted States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). This rebuttable presumption can be readily satisfied, United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG (DMR), 2011 WL 3421321, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011), and "[a]ny evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a catego

. Carrillo-Villa, 20-MJ-3073 (SLC) 8 United States v. Chandler, 19-CR-867 (PAC), 2020 WL 1528120 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) 8, 9 United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG(DMR), 2011 WL 3421321 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3,2011) 10, 18 United States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y.

States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006) 11 United States v. Deutsch, No. 18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020) 11, 18 United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Mass. 1990) 14 United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 198

nited States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the statutory demand on defendants "is fairly easily met." United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756, 2011 WL 3421321, at *2 (ND. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011). To rebut the presumption, a defendant need only "show that the specific nature of

(S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Schlegel, No. 06-CR-550, 2008 WL 11338900, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2008), modification denied, 2008 WL 11339654 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008). See United States v. Esposito, 749 F. App'x 20 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Sablmani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007). 10 EFTA00076

ht pursuant to the CVRA is the setting aside of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). Bu

ted States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). This rebuttable presumption can be readily satisfied, United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG (DMR), 2011 WL 3421321, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011), and "[a]ny evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a catego

. Carrillo-Villa, 20-MJ-3073 (SLC) 8 United States v. Chandler, 19-CR-867 (PAC), 2020 WL 1528120 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) 8, 9 United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG(DMR), 2011 WL 3421321 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3,2011) 10, 18 United States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y.

States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006) 11 United States v. Deutsch, No. 18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020) 11, 18 United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Mass. 1990) 14 United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 198

nited States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the statutory demand on defendants "is fairly easily met." United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756, 2011 WL 3421321, at *2 (ND. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011). To rebut the presumption, a defendant need only "show that the specific nature of

ht pursuant to the CVRA is the setting aside of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). Bu

(S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Schlegel, No. 06-CR-550, 2008 WL 11338900, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2008), modification denied, 2008 WL 11339654 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008). See United States v. Esposito, 749 F. App'x 20 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Sablmani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007). 10 EFTA00095

ted States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). This rebuttable presumption can be readily satisfied, United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG (DMR), 2011 WL 3421321, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011), and "[a]ny evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a catego

. Carrillo-Villa, 20-MJ-3073 (SLC) 8 United States v. Chandler, I9-CR-867 (PAC), 2020 WL 1528120 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) 8, 9 United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG(DMR), 2011 WL 3421321 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011) 10, 18 United States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y.

to flee. See United Stares v. Zinger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at •1 8 EFTA00093087 C6sesel.213-Thilg240401Mt Db~t9tad420Ei1O3 tth M10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . lim

ted States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). This rebuttable presumption can be readily satisfied, United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG (DMR), 2011 WL 3421321, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011), and "[a]ny evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a catego

. Carrillo-Villa, 20-MJ-3073 (SLC) 8 United States v. Chandler, 19-CR-867 (PAC), 2020 WL 1528120 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) 8, 9 United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756 MAG(DMR), 2011 WL 3421321 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3,2011) 10, 18 United States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y.

States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006) 11 United States v. Deutsch, No. 18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020) 11, 18 United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Mass. 1990) 14 United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 198

nited States v. Mardi., 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the statutory demand on defendants "is fairly easily met." United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756, 2011 WL 3421321, at *2 (ND. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011). To rebut the presumption, a defendant need only "show that the specific nature of

(S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Schlegel, No. 06-CR-550, 2008 WL 11338900, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2008), modification denied, 2008 WL 11339654 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008). See United States v. Esposito, 749 F. App'x 20 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Sablznani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007). 10 EFTA0005