Epstein Secrets

st levied her accusations more than a decade ago. The Palm Beach FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") interviewed Accuser-4 in or around 2007 during their three- year investigation of Epstein's alleged sexual abuse (the "Florida Investigation"). And

ere arrested at Kennedy Airport on November 23, 1982, in possession of four kilograms of heroin and were charged in a three-count indictment in the Eastern District of New York with (I) conspiracy to import heroin into the United States, (2) a substantive offense of importing heroin, and (3) possession of heroin

secutorial overreach. It is no mystery what happened here. The Palm Beach FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") conducted a thorough investigation of Jeffrey Epstein from 2006-2008 (the "Florida Investigation"), but decided not to prosecute him or his "pote

s opinion that the defendants did not have a Double Jeopardy claim because they "were never in jeopardy with respect to the dismissed counts of the Eastern District indictment." Annabi, 771 F.2d at 671. The court was clear that the defendants' only claim on appeal was that the Southern District indictment "viol

squarely refutes the government's position. The co-conspirator immunity provision does not prohibit merely prosecutions by the USAO for the SDFL ("USAO-SDFL"), but by "the United States." This broad prohibition was intentional, as demonstrated by the express references elsewhere in the NPA to the United

); United States v. Ashraf, 320 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2009) (plea agreement "by its express terms, bound only the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia"); Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x at 270 ("Paragraph 13 explicitly states that the agreement binds only the United States Attorney's Office for t

squarely refutes the government's position. The co-conspirator immunity provision does not prohibit merely prosecutions by the USAO for the SDFL ("USAO-SDFL"), but by "the United States." This broad prohibition was intentional, as demonstrated by the express references elsewhere in the NPA to the United

); United States v. Ashraf, 320 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2009) (plea agreement "by its express terms, bound only the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia"); Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x at 270 ("Paragraph 13 explicitly states that the agreement binds only the United States Attorney's Office for t