Epstein Secrets

re particularly strong, an injunction may issue even if the arguments in other areas are rather weak. *138 Kern L. Ruttenberg, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, Washington, DC, for Interested Party 1. Elizabeth G. Taylor, Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, Washington, DC, Daniel T. Hartnett, Royal B. Martin, Martin Brown & Sullivan,

der, LLP, Washington, DC, Daniel T. Hartnett, Royal B. Martin, Martin Brown & Sullivan, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Interested Party 2. Brent C. Snyder, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Antitrust Division, Washington, DC, for U.S. MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN D. BATES, District Judge. This case arises out of the plea agreement

nal Procedure Act of 1970. Section 3143(a) is a counter-pan of D.C.CT § 23-1325(b). In United States Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 C.1 1) (en bane) the District of Columbia Court of Appeals dealt with the constitutionality of various of those provisions in an extended opinion (with some dissents on dif- ferent

nstitute impermiss- ible ex post facto law. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 9, cl. 3; 18 U.S.C.A. § 3143. *1031 Judith Dobkin, John Scully, Sp. At- tys., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff. Elliot Samuels, I. P. Lynch, Chicago, Ill., Joseph M. rata, Wheaton, Ill., for defendants. MEMORANDUM O

n-breaching party is not entitled to rescission. *833 Michael R. Dreeben, Jonathan Goldman Ce- darbaurn, Jessie Acker Allen, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, Paula Camille Offenhauser, Asst. U.S. Any., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Lawrence Irwin Zinn, San Antonio, TX, for De- fendant-Appellant.

and not those made after agreement. Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule I I (c)(6), 18 U.S.C.A. *31 James P. Turner, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Civ. Rights Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Barry Kowalski & Suzanne Drouet, Attys., Crim. Section, Washing- ton, D.C., for U.S. Craig Jett, Dallas, Tex., for defendant Wood. MEMORA