Epstein Secrets

9 United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) 8, 10 United States v. Lopez, 356 F.3d 463 (2d Cir. 2004) 9, 11 United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920 (2d Cir. 2010) 7 United States v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1988) 9 ii EFTA00104413 United States v. Salamelz, 152 F.

secutorial overreach. It is no mystery what happened here. The Palm Beach FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") conducted a thorough investigation of Jeffrey Epstein from 2006-2008 (the "Florida Investigation"), but decided not to prosecute him or his "pote

pa, 533 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1975) 29 United States v. Persico, 620 F. Supp. 836 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 774 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1985) 22 United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920 (2d Cir. 2010) 22 United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551 (2d Cir. 1996) 12 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986)

squarely refutes the government's position. The co-conspirator immunity provision does not prohibit merely prosecutions by the USAO for the SDFL ("USAO-SDFL"), but by "the United States." This broad prohibition was intentional, as demonstrated by the express references elsewhere in the NPA to the United

pa, 533 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1975) 29 United States v. Persico, 620 F. Supp. 836 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 774 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1985) 22 United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920 (2d Cir. 2010) 22 United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551 (2d Cir. 1996) 12 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986)

squarely refutes the government's position. The co-conspirator immunity provision does not prohibit merely prosecutions by the USAO for the SDFL ("USAO-SDFL"), but by "the United States." This broad prohibition was intentional, as demonstrated by the express references elsewhere in the NPA to the United