Epstein Secrets

tatutes §796.03, §796.07, §796.045, §796.04, §796.09, §39.01, and §827.04. Page 4 of 12 EFTA00208865 16. The above-described acts took place in Paint Beach County, Florida at the residence of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. Any assertions by the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, that he was unaware of the age of th

ot subject to being set aside, rescinded, or canceled — regardless of whether or not the government failed to comply with the CVRA. On the contrary, Santobello and its progeny require the USAO-SDFL to continue to abide by the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and due process precludes this Court from

Rescission of the Non-Prosecution Agreement Between the USAO-SDFL and Epstein In an effort to establish standing and circumvent the requirements of Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971), and its progeny, Petitioners argue that the Non-Prosecution Agreement between the USAO-SDFL and Epstein is a

mingly broad scope of the investigation, Ms. asserts her rights under the Fifth Amendment. Indeed, considering that both the state authorities in Palm Beach County and your office are conducting investigations, there is every reason for her to be concerned and therefore to assert her constitutional rights. If

ot to prosecute in return for a person's cooperation binds the government to the extent that the person carries out his/her part of the bargain. See Santobello v. New York 404 U.S. 257 (1971); Wade v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 1840 (1992). Since such an agreement forecloses enforcement of the criminal law

ly broad scope of the investigation, Ms. Ross asserts her rights under the Fifth Amendment. Indeed, considering that both the state authorities in Palm Beach County and your office are conducting investigations, there is every reason for her to be concerned and therefore to assert her constitutional rights. If

ot to prosecute in return for a person's cooperation binds the government to the extent that the person carries out his/her part of the bargain. See Santobello v. New York 404 U.S. 257 (1971); Wade v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 1840 (1992). Since such an agreement forecloses enforcement of the criminal law