Epstein Secrets

. The presumption is that Congress intends to change the law when it enacts amendments. Bailey v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 105, 110 (2002), citin Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 38, 59 n.48 (1985). Here, not only did Congress change the law by creating a victim notification requirement for plea bargains

n American jurisprudence, "a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another." Linda R.S. v. Richard D. 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Simply put, Epstein's state plea under the NPA could not extinguish any victim's right to prosecution since no such right

. The presumption is that Congress intends to change the law when it enacts amendments. Bailey v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 105, 110 (2002), citin Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 38, 59 n.48 (1985). Here, not only did Congress change the law by creating a victim notification requirement for plea bargains

n American jurisprudence, "a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another." Linda R.S. v. Richard D. 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Simply put, Epstein's state plea under the NPA could not extinguish any victim's right to prosecution since no such right

junction claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the United States Attorney and county officials. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Wallace, Circuit Judge, held that (1) the citizen did not have stand- ing to challenge the investigation, but the organizations did; (2) there were no ex-

federal equity jurisdiction in criminal prosecutions when the plaintiff is not being prosecuted or threatened with prosecution. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617-19, EFTA00191844 (1978); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 50-64, 91 S.Ct. 746, 763-55, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) (Younger). In ord