Epstein Secrets

> 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

9, 190 (S.C. 1845) (affirming that private individuals may file criminal or civil actions for the same offense but must elect the form before trial); Corley v. Williams, 17 S.C.L. (1 Bail.) 588, 588-89 (S.C. 1830) (providing an example of private prosecution). Pennsylvania and New York relied heavily on p

ive review somewhat comparable to those in E.U. member states. Federal law grants victims a right to seek review of prosecutors' decisions within the Department of Justice hierarchy, although it also explicitly bars judicial review of Justice Department decisions in this process. !!4 Although decision makers in an inter

with those interests, courts in this Circuit have routinely acknowledged the need to protect victim-witness identities. See, e.g., United States v. Corley, 13 Cr. 48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) ("Because Corley's minor victims have significant privacy and safety interests at

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 33 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 7 U.S. Department of Justice United Stales Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 28, 20

ject to a wide range of restrictions, including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In this case, consistent with the Government's customary practice, and as the

mless" is an odd statutory interpretation. The Majority's faulty interpretation actually makes this part of the venue provision superfluous. See ?. Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 314, 129 S. Ct. 1558, 1566, 173 L.Ed.2d 443 (2009) ("[O]ne of the most basic interpretive canons [is] that a statu

the crimes against the victims; (3) discovery of records explicating why the U.S. Attorney's Office decided to grant Epstein federal immunity; (4) the Department of Justice's designation of a representative to explain the Office's decision to resolve the Epstein case without any federal prosecution; (5) mandatory CVRA t

ice Department's Office of Legal Counsel ("OLCi. Maj. Op. at 1213-14 n.20. The Justice Department's 2010 OLC opinion, like the change of position by the Justice Department's local U.S. Attorney's Office, came only after Epstein's victims filed this lawsuit. See Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825, 100 S. Ct. 2486,

with those interests, courts in this Circuit have routinely acknowledged the need to protect victim-witness identities. See, e.g., United States v. Corley, 13 Cr. 48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) ("Because Corley's minor victims have significant privacy and safety interests at

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 33 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 7 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 28, 20

ject to a wide range of restrictions, including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In this case, consistent with the Government's customary practice, and as the

with those interests, courts in this Circuit have routinely acknowledged the need to protect victim-witness identities. See, e.g., United States v. Corley, 13 Cr. 48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) ("Because Corley's minor victims have significant privacy and safety interests at

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 28, 20

ject to a wide range of restrictions, including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In this case, consistent with the Government's customary practice, and as the

with those interests, courts in this Circuit have routinely acknowledged the need to protect victim-witness identities. See, e.g., United States v. Corley, 13 Cr. 48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) ("Because Corley's minor victims have significant privacy and safety interests at

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 33 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 7 U.S. Department of Justice United Stales Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 28, 20

ject to a wide range of restrictions, including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In this case, consistent with the Government's customary practice, and as the

with those interests, courts in this Circuit have routinely acknowledged the need to protect victim-witness identities. See, e.g., United States v. Corley, 13 Cr. 48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) ("Because Corley's minor victims have significant privacy and safety interests at

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 33 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 7 U.S. Department of Justice United Stales Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 28, 20

ject to a wide range of restrictions, including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In this case, consistent with the Government's customary practice, and as the

with those interests, courts in this Circuit have routinely acknowledged the need to protect victim-witness identities. See, e.g., United States v. Corley, 13 Cr. 48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) ("Because Corley's minor victims have significant privacy and safety interests at

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Motto Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York. New York 10007 July 28, 20

ject to a wide range of restrictions, including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In this case, consistent with the Government's customary practice, and as the

-02 at 58016 (July 20, 2006) (statement of Sen. Kerry) (emphasis added). Courts typically give special weight to the statements of a bill's sponsor, Corley'. U.S. 129 -5- Cast No. 08.80736-CV-MARRA P-011846 EFTA00192892 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 6 o

FCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANPPSANCHEZ, ES . ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011816 EFTA00192862 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler W

AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) ("Because Corley's minor victims have significant privacy and safety interests at stake, while Corley's interests are minimal, the Court finds good cause to modify the protective order in this case to prevent Corley from learning the surnames of the

with those interests, courts in this Circuit have routinely acknowledged the need to protect victim-witness identities. See, e.g., United States v. Corley, 13 Cr. 48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) ("Because Corley's minor victims have significant privacy and safety interests at

ject to a wide range of restrictions, including Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other policies of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In this case, consistent with the Government's customary practice, and as the