Epstein Secrets

torneys representing plaintiffs in civil litigation against Ms. Maxwell met with a section chief in the United States Attorney's Office ("USAO") for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") and pitched the idea of bringing a criminal case against Ms. Maxwell for conduct similar, if not identical, to that alleged in

which it was made. See, e.g., United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) ("agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and cannot bind other federal, state, or local authorities"); United States v. Ashraf, 320 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2009) (plea agreement "by its e

torneys representing plaintiffs in civil litigation against Ms. Maxwell met with I section chief in the United States Attorney's Office ("USAO") for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") and pitched the idea of bringing I criminal case against Ms. Maxwell for conduct similar, if not identical, to that alleged in

which it was made. See, e.g., United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) ("agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and cannot bind other federal, state, or local authorities"); United States v. Ashraf, 320 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2009) (plea agreement "by its e

axwell is a stunning example of prosecutorial 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 pros

F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (plea agreement explicitly stated that "[the] agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and cannot bind other federal, state, or local authorities"); United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004) (plea agreement explic