Epstein Secrets

n/why-thanew-child-rapaca b_10619944.html). Huffingron PAT: /The 45 Cleary, Tom (Jima 22. 2016). 'Donald Trump Again Accused of Rape in New Federal Lawson' amplTheavy comthays2016106rilonakStrumprape-sesual- assault.federal.lavnairt-doeurnents-thanas.meaghewatiorney-lawyer-kana Johnson-ethicin.). 46 G

in open. Ml A December 30, 2014, federal civil suit was filed in Florida against the United States for violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act by the Department of Justice's 8g:iceman to Epstein's limited 2008 plea: the suit also accuses Alan l)ashowitz of sexually abusing a minor provided by Epstein.'" (See Two Jana Doe

achportcomlocalnewatontent/local_newateeper/200/03/ on March 8. 2008. 36. Lewis, Paul: Ball. lames (January 3, 2015) "Prince Andrew rained in U.S. Lawson ova underage sex claims' Itiapsilwww Meguardian comkk- newst2015.(jam32fmince-ratw-eartied-ustawsutwenderagewevallegariom) Guardian. 37. Rush, Geor

in open.l" A December 30, 2014, federal civil suit was filed in Florida against the United States for violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act by the Department of Justice's agreement to Epstein's limited 2008 plea: the suit also accuses Alan I5ashowitz of sexually abusing a minor provided by Epstein.'" (See Two Jane Doe

Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) 5 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978) 79 xvi EFTA00099957 United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 60, 78 3

0: Exhibit 11: Exhibit 12: Notes from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York June 14, 2007 Email November 2020 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Notes from February 11, 2021 Call Notes from February 29, 2016 Meeting November 30, 2018 Email December 6

Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) 5 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978) 79 xvi EFTA00077622 United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Leo Sure Chief 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 60, 78 33

t 1: Notes from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York Exhibit 2: June 14, 2007 Email Exhibit 3: November 2020 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Exhibit 4: Notes from February 11, 2021 Call Exhibit 5: Notes from February 29, 2016 Meeting Exhibit 6:

Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) 5 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978) 79 xvi EFTA00039437 United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Leo Sure Chief 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 60, 78 33

t 1: Notes from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York Exhibit 2: June 14, 2007 Email Exhibit 3: November 2020 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Exhibit 4: Notes from February 11, 2021 Call Exhibit 5: Notes from February 29, 2016 Meeting Exhibit 6:

, 114 United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) 4, 6 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978) 53 United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982) 42, 53 United States v. Leo Sure Chief 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) 26, 29, 34 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 89

DFL has explained, the NPA did not bind other districts, and could not. That is because the USAO-SDFL lacked the authority to do so under applicable Department of Justice guidelines: Significantly, under the governing provision of the United States Attorney's Manual, the USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to unila

Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) 5 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978) 79 xvi EFTA00103015 United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Leo Sure Chief 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) 60, 78 33

t 1: Notes from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York Exhibit 2: June 14, 2007 Email Exhibit 3: November 2020 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Exhibit 4: Notes from February 11, 2021 Call Exhibit 5: Notes from February 29, 2016 Meeting Exhibit 6:

> See, e.g., id. at 17-19 (providing examples of the Justice Department's prosecution of state and local officials). 56 Td

seek review of prosecutors' decisions within the Department of Justice hierarchy, although it also explicitly bars judic

- victims - to prosecute alleged criminal wrongdoing. Redundant charging authority takes other forms as well. In large hierarchical agencies such as the U.S. Department of Justice, internal administrative review of front-line prosecutors’ charging or declination decisions by higher-ups creates a version of redundant enforcement

Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985) (holding due process bars prosecution in retaliation for exercising fundamental rights); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 355 (1983) (holding due process bars unduly vague offense definitions to reduce opportunities for selective enforcement); Papachristou