Epstein Secrets

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

ractual rights to a contracting party (Epstein) who has not been made a party to the proceedings before the Court. See, e.g., School Dist of City of Pontiac v. Secretary of U.S. Dept of Ethic., 584 F.3d 253, 303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hornbook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an acti

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

ractual rights to a contracting party (Epstein) who has not been made a party to the proceedings before the Court. See, e.g., School Dist of City of Pontiac v. Secretary of U.S. Dept of Educ., 584 F.3d 253, 303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hornbook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an actio

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

ractual rights to a contracting party (Epstein) who has not been made a party to the proceedings before the Court. See, e.g., School Dist of City of Pontiac v. Secretary of U.S. Dept of Educ., 584 F.3d 253, 303 (6th Cir. 2009) ("It is hornbook law that all parties to a contract are necessary in an actio