Epstein Secrets

r claims against these financial sponsors of terrorism. Statement Of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had subject matter jurisdiction over these actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1330, 1331, 1332, 1350, 1367, 1407, and 1605, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964 and 2338,

695, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135216, at *19-20 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011) (same); U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass’n v. Verizon Commce’ns, Inc., No. 10-CV-1842, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106657, at *12-16 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2011) (same); Redding v. Edwards, 569 F. Supp. 2d 129, 132 (D.D.C. 2008) (same); Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC

rorist activities and to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. See Wyatt, 785 F. Supp. 2d at 647-48; see also Goldberg v. UBS AG, 660 F. Supp. 2d 410, 428-29 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (finding that plaintiffs had “sufficiently pled that the defendant consciously disregarded the fact that it was supporting a terrorist organiza

06), but in practice the reported cases under the CVRA thus far show few examples where the government has been willing to do so. See, e.g., Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006) (victims' assertion of right affirmed; government does not take a position on t

(9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 1341, 1343-44 (D. Utah 2005); see also United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 333 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (reaching same conclusion). *98 Bucklew Memo, supra note 580, app. a, at 299, 302-03. DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017711 --- PAGE BREAK --

ered useless because the victim never knew of the proceeding at which the right had to be asserted."). 133 See United States v. Guevara-Toloso, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9762 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (noting that CVRA requires notice to victims of the crime charged against the defendant but not notice to victims of any p

rious crimes the right to restitution. *°* Reinforcing those laws, the CVRA guarantees that victims have "the right 43 Magistrate Judge Orenstein of the Eastern District of New York, who has written many thoughtful opinions on the CVRA, has taken a contrary position. See Report and Recommendation, United States v. Ingrassis, No.

ir feelings at the voting polls."); cf. Chenev v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 386 (2004) ("The decision to

onvincing Congress to expand their discretion at the expense of judges' sentencing authority, see United States v. Kupa, 976 F. Supp. 2d 417, 419-27 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (describing the legislative history and Justice Department lobbying related to federal drug statutes, notably 27 U.S.C. § 841 (2012)). 218 See