Epstein Secrets

ited States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807, 874 (11th Cir. 2011), quoting United States v. Harvey, 869 F.2d 1439, 1443 (11th Cir.1989) (en banc). See, e.g., Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971) ("when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise ... of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be

motion, the government contended, inter alia, that the remedy of rescission of the non-prosecution agreement was prohibited on due process grounds. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 189) at 6-7. It was not until June 19, 2013, that the Court denied the motion and indicated

43 F.3d 807, 874 (I I th Cir. 2011), quoting United States v. Harvey, 869 F.2d 1439, 1443 (I I th Cir.1989) (en 6 EFTA00583800 bane). See, e.g., Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971)("when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise ... of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be

motion, the government contended, inter alia, that the remedy of rescission of the non-prosecution agreement was prohibited on due process grounds. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 189) at 6-7. It was not until June 19, 2013, that the Court denied the motion and indicated

ited States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807, 874 (11th Cir. 2011), quoting United States v. Harvey, 869 F.2d 1439, 1443 (11th Cir.1989) (en bane). See, e.g., Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971)(` when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise ... of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be

3771(dX3), in favor of pursuing civil settlement actions against Mr. Epstein prior to, rather than concurrently with, litigating their CVRA rights. See Order Denying Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 189) at 5 ("Over the course of the next eighteen months, the CVRA case stalled as petitioners pursued collateral civil claims agai