Epstein Secrets

ted States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Dkt. No. 142-1 at 5. Under Annabi, Salatneh, and Gonzalez, a statement that "the United States" agrees not to prosecute implies no restriction on prosecutions in other districts. T

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

ted States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Dkt. No. 142-1 at 5. Under Annabi, Salatneh, and Gonzalez, a statement that "the United States" agrees not to prosecute implies no restriction on prosecutions in other districts. T

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

ted States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Dkt. No. 142-1 at 5. Under Annabi, Salatneh, and Gonzalez, a statement that "the United States" agrees not to prosecute implies no restriction on prosecutions in other districts. T

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

ted States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Dkt. No. 142-1 at 5. Under Annabi, Salatneh, and Gonzalez, a statement that "the United States" agrees not to prosecute implies no restriction on prosecutions in other districts. T

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

ted States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Dkt. No. 142-1 at 5. Under Annabi, Salatneh, and Gonzalez, a statement that "the United States" agrees not to prosecute implies no restriction on prosecutions in other districts. T

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

ted States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Dkt. No. 142-1 at 5. Under Annabi, Salatneh, and Gonzalez, a statement that "the United States" agrees not to prosecute implies no restriction on prosecutions in other districts. T

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

ted States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Dkt. No. 142-1 at 5. Under Annabi, Salatneh, and Gonzalez, a statement that "the United States" agrees not to prosecute implies no restriction on prosecutions in other districts. T

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

ted States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Dkt. No. 142-1 at 5. Under Annabi, Salatneh, and Gonzalez, a statement that "the United States" agrees not to prosecute implies no restriction on prosecutions in other districts. T

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

ted States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Dkt. No. 142-1 at 5. Under Annabi, Salatneh, and Gonzalez, a statement that "the United States" agrees not to prosecute implies no restriction on prosecutions in other districts. T

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

ted States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Dkt. No. 142-1 at 5. Under Annabi, Salatneh, and Gonzalez, a statement that "the United States" agrees not to prosecute implies no restriction on prosecutions in other districts. T

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres