Epstein Secrets

des strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly." United States States" Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens I. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 24

y have limited the USAO-SDFL's capacity to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for his federal offenses against Petitioners," the USAO-SDFL did not bargain away the possibility of federal criminal charges being instituted in other districts based on the alleged sexual acts that Epstein c

estion that Congress intended, but simply forgot, to provide additional remedies beyond those already specified. Courts agree. See United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (holding that the CVRA's "carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme," provides "strong evidence that Co

s in the context of a criminal sentencing. • All criminal prosecutors in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) will undergo additional training on the CVRA, victim rights, and victim assistance issues to be completed no later than one year from the date of

s strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 24

have limited the USAO-SDFL' s capacity to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for his federal offenses against Petitioners,17 the USAO-SDFL did not bargain away the possibility of federal criminal charges being instituted in other districts based on the alleged sexual acts that Epstein c

s strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 24

have limited the USAO-SDFL' s capacity to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for his federal offenses against Petitioners,17 the USAO-SDFL did not bargain away the possibility of federal criminal charges being instituted in other districts based on the alleged sexual acts that Epstein c

s strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 24

have limited the USAO-SDFL' s capacity to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for his federal offenses against Petitioners,17 the USAO-SDFL did not bargain away the possibility of federal criminal charges being instituted in other districts based on the alleged sexual acts that Epstein c

s in the context of a criminal sentencing. • All criminal prosecutors in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) will undergo additional training on the CVRA, victim rights, and victim assistance issues to be completed no later than one year from the date of

estion that Congress intended, but simply forgot, to provide additional remedies beyond those already specified. Courts agree. See United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (holding that the CVRA's "carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme," provides "strong evidence that Co

to the Illegal Concealment of the Non- Prosecution Agreement 10 2. Evidence Exists that the Epstein Defense Team Acted in Bad Faith. 18 3. The USAO-SDFL Was Not Authorized to Extend Epstein Immunity Without First Conferring with his Victims. 23 II. THE CVRA AUTHORIZES RESCISSION AS A REMEDY.

g enforcement of their rights in appellate courts had to shoulder the heavy burden traditionally associated with the "mandamus" relief. See U.S. v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 58, 532-33 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) and holding crime victims had to satisfy high mandamus standards); United S

erences to the "Government" in this case should be generally understood to refer to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), which is currently being represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. 2 EFTA00022550 --- PAGE BREAK --- Ca

g enforcement of their rights in appellate courts had to shoulder the heavy burden traditionally associated with the "mandamus" relief. See U.S. v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 58, 532-33 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) and holding crime victims had to satisfy high mandamus standards); United S