Back to Network
7
Shared Docs
7
Same-Page
7 / 7
Mentions
Document Mentions (7 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — 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
f the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — 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
f the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — 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 EFT
f the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — 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
f the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — 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
f the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek "is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement"). But even assuming arguendo
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — 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
mber 24, 2007, after a year-long investigation, the Department of Justice, through the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), entered into the NPA with Mr. Epstein. The NPA immunized Mr. Epstein from five distinct potential federal charges that "may have been committed
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
induced in part by the Non-Prosecution Agreement — 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
mber 24, 2007, after a year-long investigation, the Department of Justice, through the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), entered into the NPA with Mr. Epstein. The NPA immunized Mr. Epstein from five distinct potential federal charges that "may have been committed
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (146)
Entities connected to both Rooker and USAO-SDFL
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON10 w/ Rooker·37 w/ USAO-SDFL
United States
LOCATION9 w/ Rooker·31 w/ USAO-SDFL
the Southern District
LOCATION9 w/ Rooker·26 w/ USAO-SDFL
JD
Jane Doe
PERSON9 w/ Rooker·23 w/ USAO-SDFL
Kenneth Marra
PERSON10 w/ Rooker·20 w/ USAO-SDFL
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION8 w/ Rooker·17 w/ USAO-SDFL
FBI
ORGANIZATION8 w/ Rooker·17 w/ USAO-SDFL
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON9 w/ Rooker·15 w/ USAO-SDFL
SA
Santobello
PERSON9 w/ Rooker·15 w/ USAO-SDFL
Alexander Acosta
PERSON9 w/ Rooker·15 w/ USAO-SDFL
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON8 w/ Rooker·16 w/ USAO-SDFL
Paul Cassell
PERSON6 w/ Rooker·17 w/ USAO-SDFL
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION3 w/ Rooker·20 w/ USAO-SDFL
Bradley Edwards
PERSON7 w/ Rooker·16 w/ USAO-SDFL
Harvey Weinstein
PERSON9 w/ Rooker·13 w/ USAO-SDFL
Jacksonville
LOCATION9 w/ Rooker·12 w/ USAO-SDFL
Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc.
ORGANIZATION9 w/ Rooker·12 w/ USAO-SDFL
McDonald's Corp.
ORGANIZATION9 w/ Rooker·11 w/ USAO-SDFL
Phoenix
LOCATION8 w/ Rooker·12 w/ USAO-SDFL
A. Marie Villafana
PERSON7 w/ Rooker·12 w/ USAO-SDFL