Epstein Secrets

unding the practice, we respectfully propose it here as a fallback, asking the Court to revisit its propriety despite the reservations expressed in Zarrab. Those reservations, though admirably motivated and sincerely held, raise substantial equal protection concerns. They impair the statutory right to

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

§ 1591. See Fierro, 2012 WL 13042630, at *4 ("[T]he TVPA is inapplicable to individual purchasers of sex from trafficking victims...").1° I° While Fiero represents the law in this district, Mr. Epstein notes that there is a division of authority on the scope of § 1591. See United States v. Jungers, 7

ot, of course, suggest that wealthy defendants should bear a special disadvantage. The facts supporting the Court's ruling of pretrial detention in Zarrab are easily distinguishable. The present case does not have national security implications, Mr. Epstein is a United States citizen (and does not poss

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

§ 1591. See Fierro, 2012 WL 13042630, at *4 ("[T]he TVPA is inapplicable to individual purchasers of sex from trafficking victims...").1° I° While Fiero represents the law in this district, Mr. Epstein notes that there is a division of authority on the scope of § 1591. See United States v. Jungers, 7

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

ot, of course, suggest that wealthy defendants should bear a special disadvantage. The facts supporting the Court's ruling of pretrial detention in Zarrab are easily distinguishable. The present case does not have national security implications, Mr. Epstein is a United States citizen (and does not poss

§ 1591. See Fierro, 2012 WL 13042630, at *4 ("[T]he TVPA is inapplicable to individual purchasers of sex from trafficking victims...").1° I° While Fiero represents the law in this district, Mr. Epstein notes that there is a division of authority on the scope of § 1591. See United States v. Jungers, 7

unding the practice, we respectfully propose it here as a fallback, asking the Court to revisit its propriety despite the reservations expressed in Zarrab. Those reservations, though admirably motivated and sincerely held, raise substantial equal protection concerns. They impair the statutory right to

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

§ 1591. See Fierro, 2012 WL 13042630, at *4 ("[T]he TVPA is inapplicable to individual purchasers of sex from trafficking victims...").1° I° While Fiero represents the law in this district, Mr. Epstein notes that there is a division of authority on the scope of § 1591. See United States v. Jungers, 7