Epstein Secrets

d period, in and around January 2008, there can be no dispute that Epstein's attorneys aggressively sought review of the NPA at higher levels within the Department of Justice, seeking relief from the obligations Epstein had undertaken in that agreement. First, he raised challenges to the United States Attorney's exercise

ong the prerogatives of sovereignty is the power to create and enforce a criminal code.") (citin Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. I. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 601 (1982); McCulloch . Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 418, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819)). 15 EFTA00211732 the DOJ that there was no basis for a

d period, in and around January 2008, there can be no dispute that Epstein's attorneys aggressively sought review of the NPA at higher levels within the Department of Justice, seeking relief from the obligations Epstein had undertaken in that agreement. First, he raised challenges to the United States Attorney's exercise

ng the prerogatives of sovereignty is the power to create and enforce a criminal code.") (citing Alfred L. Snapp & Son. Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 601 (1982); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 418, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819)). 15 EFTA00799839 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 408 E

d period, in and around January 2008, there can be no dispute that Epstein's attorneys aggressively sought review of the NPA at higher levels within the Department of Justice, seeking relief from the obligations Epstein had undertaken in that agreement. First, he raised challenges to the United States Attorney's exercise

ng the prerogatives of sovereignty is the power to create and enforce a criminal code.") (citing Alfred L. Snapp & Son. Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 601 (1982); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 418, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819))- 15 EFTA00591476 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 401-2