Epstein Secrets

tion and that his release in June 2024 would not jeopardize the public welfare," According to the article, Rudy Giuliani, the then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who initially brought the case against Senter and 20 other Gambino family members and associates — including then-godfather "Big Paul"

rbes (12/08, Durkee), The Hill (12/08, Beitsch), Slate (12/08, Katzberg), Axios (12/08, Doherty), Fox News (12/08, Price, Spunt), Bloomberg (12/08, Tillman), Deadline (12/08, Johnson), MSNBC (12/08, Rubin), the Daily Beast (12/08, Alfred), the Independent (12/08, O'Connell, Woodward), U.S. News & World

o join the case, Dershowitz personally helped to negotiate the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) at issue in this case, which bars his prosecution in the Southern District of Florida as a "potential co-conspirator of Epstein." DE 280 at 4 (quoting NPA at 5). The Court has previously allowed Epstein to prospectively int

, S. Ct. 1338 (2006); United States' Orrega, 363 F.3ds1093 (11th Cir. 2004); United States Miranda, 348 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2003); United States I Tillman, 195 F.3 640 (11th Cir. 1999); United States , Pali!, supra, 338 F. d 1299 (11'h Cir. 2003); United States Garrett, 190 F.3 1220 (11th Cir. 1999);

en if after consultation with Petitioners the United States determined that it would be proper and desirable to institute a criminal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida against Epstein on the criminal charges contemplated in the Non-Prosecution Agreement, the United States would still be constitutionally

eement — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA00209772 contract."); Lomayaktewa I. Hatha

(15 years) under the Sentencing Guidelines. I have reviewed the submissions made on behalf of Mr. Epstein to the United States Attorney's office in the Southern District of Florida, which concluded that the cited federal statutes are inapplicable to the allegations made against Mr. Epstein and therefore, as a matter

ppx. 804 (2005); United States v. Ortega, 363 F.3d 1093 (11h Cir. 2004); United States v. Miranda, 348 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Tillman 195 F.3d 640 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v.Panfil, 338 F.3d 1299 (11° Cir. 2003); United States v. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); gin

een Jeffrey Epstein, represented by numerous attorneys (including lead criminal defense counsel Jay Leflcowitz), and the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of Florida.,] reptesentect-pciffier-ily-by Assistent-U7SrAttemey-Ar MaFie--WHefefier-ae-plea-diseussiens-genecally-begen-from-Ihe premise-that-Bpst

Thus, "[a] court may restrict distribution of discovery material even if there 'certainly is a public interest in knowing more' about its contents." Tillman'. C.R. Bard, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-222-J-34JBT (M.D. Ha. March 13, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41406, at *6, quoting Seattle Times Co.'. Rhinehar

ment — such judicial action might raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA00010478 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 9:08-c

outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey) share jurisdiction and venue with the Southern District of Florida over potential federal criminal charges based on the alleged sexual acts committed by Epstein against the Petitioners. Epstein is thus s