Epstein Secrets

election to affirm. Hendricks I. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285, 126 So. 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1930) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., United States" Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 230-31 (3d Cir. 2000) (recognizing that "'[u]ntil the party who has the power of avoidance elects to exercise it, the contract remain

y have limited the USAO-SDFL's capacity to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for his federal offenses against Petitioners," the USAO-SDFL did not bargain away the possibility of federal criminal charges being instituted in other districts based on the alleged sexual acts that Epstein c

lection to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285, 126 So. 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1930) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 230-31 (3d Cir. 2000) (recognizing that "quIntil the party who has the power of avoidance elects to exercise it, the contract remains

have limited the USAO-SDFL' s capacity to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for his federal offenses against Petitioners,17 the USAO-SDFL did not bargain away the possibility of federal criminal charges being instituted in other districts based on the alleged sexual acts that Epstein c

lection to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285, 126 So. 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1930) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 230-31 (3d Cir. 2000) (recognizing that "quIntil the party who has the power of avoidance elects to exercise it, the contract remains

have limited the USAO-SDFL' s capacity to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for his federal offenses against Petitioners,17 the USAO-SDFL did not bargain away the possibility of federal criminal charges being instituted in other districts based on the alleged sexual acts that Epstein c

lection to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285, 126 So. 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1930) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 230-31 (3d Cir. 2000) (recognizing that "'[u]ntil the party who has the power of avoidance elects to exercise it, the contract remain

have limited the USAO-SDFL's capacity to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for his federal offenses against Petitioners,17 the USAO-SDFL did not bargain away the possibility of federal criminal charges being instituted in other districts based on the alleged sexual acts that Epstein c

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)

2006, while the state court charge was pending, Mr. Epstein learned that the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") was investigating whether Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct violated federal law. The USAO- SDFL investigation was led by honorable federal prosecutor

lection to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285, 126 So. 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1930) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 230-31 (3d Cir. 2000) (recognizing that "lujntil the party who has the power of avoidance elects to exercise it, the contract remains

have limited the USAO-SDFL' s capacity to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for his federal offenses against Petitioners,17 the USAO-SDFL did not bargain away the possibility of federal criminal charges being instituted in other districts based on the alleged sexual acts that Epstein c