Epstein Secrets

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

F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (plea agreement explicitly stated that "[the] agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and cannot bind other federal, state, or local authorities"); United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004) (plea agreement explic

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

which it was made. See, e.g., United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) ("agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and cannot bind other federal, state, or local authorities"); United States v. Ashraf, 320 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2009) (plea agreement "by its e

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

which it was made. See, e.g., United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) ("agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and cannot bind other federal, state, or local authorities"); United States v. Ashraf, 320 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2009) (plea agreement "by its e