Epstein Secrets

iscretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). In this case, that officer was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and he exercised his discretion by deferring prosecution in favor of prosecution by authorities of the State of Florida. Thus, no feder

mate cause analyses. Id. at 350, citing 27 EFTA00078861 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2nd Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the c

iscretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). In this case, that officer was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and he exercised his discretion by deferring prosecution in favor of prosecution by authorities of the State of Florida. Thus, no feder

A Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON EFTA00208063 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 57-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2n° Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the c

s whether the petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, had any rights under 18 U.S.C. § 377I(a), in the absence of a criminal charge being filed in the Southern District of Florida, charging someone with the commission of a federal crime in which petitioners were victims. Resolution of this issue is a matter of stat

ment that a victim be "directly and proximately harmed" encompassed the traditional "but for" and proximate cause analyses. Id. at 350, citing In Re Rendon Galvis , 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2 ' Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the

ding of the bars of the states of Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. I am also admitted to the practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court, and several other federal courts. 3. I graduated from Pri

, citing 27 EFTA00230092 ff ell.;;;;;:t; --- ------- 1 Case 9:O8-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2gd Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the c

A ripened at the moment of actual victimization, or at least at the point when they first contacted the government. Movants rely on a decision from the Southern District of Texas for the notion that CVRA rights apply prior to any prosecution. In United States' BP Products North America, Inc., the district court reas

ate cause analyses. Id. at 350, citing 27 EFTA00177077 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (20° Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the