Epstein Secrets

against Epstein, they asserted their rights "in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred" — i.e., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Government does find room in its pleading to analyze this provision, calling it a mere "venue provision." Gov't Resp. at 13. But ev

hat violation are embodied in an NPA. The mere fact that something is covered in an NPA does not block judicial review. See, e.g., United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 834-35 (5th Cir. 1998) (reviewing issue of government's obligations under a NPA); United States v. Myles, 521 F.3d 946, 952 (8th Cir

e Doe #2 all information it is possession, including documents and correspondence, that they could use to present to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey to help persuades those offices to initiate criminal prosecutions of Epstein (Sealed Response, at 3, Bul

ke plea bargains, are contractual in nature, and are therefore interpreted in accordance with general principles of contract law." United States I. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 835 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Taylor I. Singletary, 148 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 1998) ("When enforcing an immunity agreement, we l

against Epstein, they asserted their rights "in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred" — i.e., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Government does find room in its pleading to analyze this provision, calling it a mere "venue provision." Gov't Resp. at 13. But ev

that violation are embodied in an NPA. The mere fact that something is covered in an NPA does not block judicial review. See, e.g., United States' Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 834-35 (5th Cir. 1998) (reviewing issue of government's obligations under a NPA); United States' Hyles, 521 F.3d 946, 952 (8th Cir.

013 (Doc. 188), Exhibit A hereto, ordering disclosure to plaintiffs of the intervenor attorneys' written communications with federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida made with the specific purpose of obtaining a favorable resolution of the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein through attorney-t

F.3d 1184, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008)("Due process requires the government to adhere to the promises it has made in a plea agreement"); United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 835-36 (5th Cir. 1998)("Nonprosecution agreements, like plea bargains, are contractual in nature, and are therefore interpreted in a

veral arguments from Maxwell, including that Epstein's unusual non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida barred prosecutors from the Southern District of New York from bringing the case against her. According to the article, the Florida agreement, which followed state and federal investigations in

ty." California Woman Sentenced to Nine Years in Prison for Fraudulent Scheme to Steal California Unemployment Insurance Benefits CBS News (09/18, Castaneda) reported that a judge sentenced a Northern California woman to nine years in prison on Tuesday for fraudulently obtaining more than $1 million in u

ven transac- tional immunity. Finally, the prosecutor most intimately involved with the agree- ment Patrick Sullivan, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Flor- ida had no recollection of any involvement with Jerry Lee Harvey.' He could not remember speaking to the Mobile U.S. At- torney's office o

ed States a Oregon, 718 F2d 299, 908 & n. 5 (9th Cir.1983). The district court erred in its ruling that it lacked juris- diction. See, e.g., Jett a Castaneda, 578 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir.1978) (felt). 1101 We have recognized, however, that as a general proposition, a district court has no "power to moni

e Doe #2 all information it is possession, including documents and correspondence, that they could use to present to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey to help persuades those offices to initiate criminal prosecutions of Epstein (Sealed Response, at 3, Bul

ke plea bargains, are contractual in nature, and are therefore interpreted in accordance with general principles of contract law." United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 835 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Taylor v. Singletary, 148 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 1998) ("When enforcing an immunity agreement, we l

e Doe #2 all information it is possession, including documents and correspondence, that they could use to present to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey to help persuades those offices to initiate criminal prosecutions of Epstein (Sealed Response, at 3, Bul

ke plea bargains, are contractual in nature, and are therefore interpreted in accordance with general principles of contract law." United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 835 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Taylor v. Singletary, 148 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 1998) ("When enforcing an immunity agreement, we l

e Doe #2 all information it is possession, including documents and correspondence, that they could use to present to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey to help persuades those offices to initiate criminal prosecutions of Epstein (Sealed Response, at 3, Bul

ke plea bargains, are contractual in nature, and are therefore interpreted in accordance with general principles of contract law." United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 835 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Taylor v. Singletary, 148 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 1998) ("When enforcing an immunity agreement, we l

e Doe #2 all information it is possession, including documents and correspondence, that they could use to present to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey to help persuades those offices to initiate criminal prosecutions of Epstein (Sealed Response, at 3, Bul

ke plea bargains, are contractual in nature, and are therefore interpreted in accordance with general principles of contract law." United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 835 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Taylor v. Singletary, 148 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 1998) ("When enforcing an immunity agreement, we l