Epstein Secrets

age and drafting history of the NPA does not "affirmatively appear" to bind this District 3 EFTA00103764 as to the SI Indictment counts. However, Annabi, by its own terms, is inapposite to the circumstances of this case, where one federal district has agreed that "the United States" will abandon cer

st levied her accusations more than a decade ago. The Palm Beach FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") interviewed Accuser-4 in or around 2007 during their three- year investigation of Epstein's alleged sexual abuse (the "Florida Investigation"). And

-SDNY") because it does not "affirmatively appear" to apply to this District. (Opp. at 2-7). But as we explained in our opening memorandum ("Mem."), Annabi is inapposite to the circumstances of this case. Annabi expressly stated that it was not addressing a situation, like the one here, where one feder

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

ecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not Limited to the SDFL. 18 1. The NPA is binding on the USAO in this District 18 2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis. 19 a. There is an "affirmative appearance" that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outsid

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

ecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not Limited to the SDFL. 18 1. The NPA is binding on the USAO in this District 18 2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis. 19 1. There is an "affirmative appearance" that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outsid

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

cs., Inc. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 499 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2007) 8, 9 United States v. Aleman, 286 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2002) 17 United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) passim United States v. CFW Const. Co., 583 F. Supp. 197 (D.S.C. 1984), of d, 749 F.2d 33 (4'h Cir. 1984) 6 United

t through discovery. The government argues that application of the co-conspirator immunity provision beyond the SDFL is barred by United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam), in which the Second Circuit stated that "[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States A

ision in the NPA is intended to refer only to the USAO-SDFL, it does so explicitly. See Mem. at 8-9 (citing examples of NPA's explicit references to USAO-SDFL). While the government is correct that the use of the term "the United States" in a plea agreement, without snore, is insufficient under Annabi and