Epstein Secrets

jurisdiction of his choosing (Le., the one to which he chose to flee). See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016); United States v. Kazeem, No. 15 Cr. 172, 2015 WL 4645357, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015); United States v. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12

leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise, not a mere consumer. g This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres

f 10 Honorable Henry Pitman United States Magistrate Judge July 8, 2019 Page 2 BACKGROUND A. Overview On July 2, 2019, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a sealed indictment (the "Indictment") charging the defendant with one count of sex trafficking of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 159

--- Honorable Henry Pitman United States Magistrate Judge July 8, 2019 Page 2 BACKGROUND A. Overview On July 2, 2019, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a sealed indictment (the "Indictment") charging the defendant with one count of sex trafficking of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 159

purports to bind "the Government." See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres

ation, which the non-prosecution agreement identifies as including investigations into the defendant's abuse of minor girls in the Palm Beach area. The Southern District of New York was not a signatory to that agreement, and the defendant was never charged federally.2 In June 2008, the defendant pled guilty in state court to one

purports to bind "the Government." See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres

jurisdiction of his choosing (Le., the one to which he chose to flee). See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, No. 16-MR-118, 2016 WL 7421924, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016); United States v. Kazeem, No. 15 Cr. 172, 2015 WL 4645357, at *3 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015); United States v. Young, Nos. 12 Cr. 502, 12

leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise, not a mere consumer. g This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres

--- Honorable Henry Pitman United States Magistrate Judge July 8, 2019 Page 2 BACKGROUND A. Overview On July 2, 2019, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a sealed indictment (the "Indictment") charging the defendant with one count of sex trafficking of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 159

purports to bind "the Government." See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres

--- Honorable Henry Pitman United States Magistrate Judge July 8, 2019 Page 2 BACKGROUND A. Overview On July 2, 2019, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a sealed indictment (the "Indictment") charging the defendant with one count of sex trafficking of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 159

purports to bind "the Government." See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres