Epstein Secrets

A"), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1 This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because See, e.g., Gntpo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004) ("Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final judgment."); United

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

RA"), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.' This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because See, e.g., Gnipo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004) ("Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final judgment."); United

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

RA"), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.' This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because See, e.g., Gnipo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004) ("Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final judgment."); United

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

RA"), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.' This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because See, e.g., Gnipo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004) ("Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final judgment."); United

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

A"), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1 This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because See, e.g., Gnipo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004) ("Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final judgment."); United

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

A"), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1 This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition because See, e.g., Gnipo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 571 (2004) ("Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final judgment."); United

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