Epstein Secrets

...36 (3d Cir.2003). A District Court's determina- tion whether a cooperation agreement has been breached is a legal conclusion. Unit- ed States v. Baird, 218 F2d 221, 229 (3d Cir.2000). MI findings of fact are re- viewed for clear error. See Bell, 414 F.Sd at 478 (reviewing findings of fact related

ving O'Brien's Novem- ber 2002 complaint, Stolt-Nielsen hired John Nannes, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, to con- duct an internal investigation of possible antitrust violations by the Company and advise it regarding any criminal liability. On Novembe

risdiction to enforce or modify its order. Two years later, in July 1985, as part of a criminal investigation based on a referral from the FDA to the Department of Jus- tice, the government applied for and ob- tained a warrant to search an office com- plex that, as the warrant stated, housed the administrative offices of

n this case?) (We'll also consult with OIA to see if there are any options on the USAO side.) I've attached (yet another) report from former-Warden Baird that was submitted recently and re- attached her previous report and the UK's request for information. If it would be easier to discuss by phone, pl

stein in the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. 13 SDNY_00016903 Page 301 EFTA00138813 Velazquez said she wrote a letter to the Justice Department's inspector general and the head of the FBI demanding answers not only about Epstein's death but about what she called other rampant abuses of detai

d 609, 615-16 (ED. Pa. 2007) (non-prosecution agreements "are to be construed in light of `special due process concerns') (quoting United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 229 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). The government is constitutionally required to abide by the terms of the NPA. (DE 205-2:34)

n-prosecution agreements and requires that a crime victim be harmed by an offense that "is charged in Federal district court." (DE 403-15:1-2). The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") confirmed this view in 2010, noting that "the CVRA is best read as providing that the rights identified in section

ourt proceedings. Moreover, the CVRA directs that the Department of Justice and its investigative agencies "shall make their

yl) ("We authorized an appropriation of funds to assure ... that moneys would be made available to enhance the victim notification system, managed by the Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime, and the resources additionally to develop state-of-the-art systems for notifying crime victims of important statements o

vacy for victims' confidential records). 88 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152 (1973). 89 Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599-600 (1977). 9 Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972); see also Carey v. Population Servs. Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017738 --- PAGE BR