Epstein Secrets

Burnett Complaint at 275. 2. Before the Multidistrict Panel transferred Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp., 02 Civ. 1616, to this Court, Judge Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the claims against Prince Sultan relating to acts performed in his offi

here- fore not discretionary and not protected by the FSIA); Napolitano v. Tishman Constr. Corp., No. 96 Civ. 4402(5.1), 1998 WL 102789, at •4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 1998) (finding purchasing consulate buildings and hiring contractor to renovate is a plan- ning function and therefore discretionary). De

ice to the enjoined party of precisely what it must do to avoid being held in contempt—the party cannot be left guessing. See McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1311 (11th Cir. 1998). Second, a specific and reasonably detailed order is easy to enforce, while a vague order is not. See Iftnn O

dispute that it never conferred with the victims and kept the Agreement secret. See Gov't En Banc Brief at 5. 10 In July 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (`SDNY") had unsealed an indictment charging Epstein with a sex-trafficking conspiracy and substantive sex trafficking involving conduct that occur

blic health crisis poses to the preparation of the Defendant's defense constitute a compelling reason under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)"); United States v. Robertson, 17-Cr- 2949, Doc. 306 (D.N.M. February 6, 2021).7 The defendant in Robertson was charged with "frightening allegations" involving a shooting. He ha

to flee. See United Stares v. Zinger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at •1 8 EFTA00093087 C6sesel.213-Thilg240401Mt Db~t9tad420Ei1O3 tth M10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . lim

o Reconsider Motion for Review of Detention Order and Immediate Release. Doc. 274. The government filed a response in opposition [Doc. 282] and Mr. Robertson filed a reply [Doc. 284]. The United States Probation Office (USPO) also filed two memorandums addressing Mr. Robertson's release. Docs. 277 and 28

not prevent flight; at best, it limits a fleeing defendant's head start." United States v. Zarger, No. 00- CR-773-S-1 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at •1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000). Furthermore, while the Defendant now represents that she would be released to the custody of a family member, who would serve as the