Epstein Secrets

ameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 22 United States v. Sattar, No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK), 2003 WL 22510398 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2003) 29 United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 24 United States v. Vaval, 404 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2005) 13 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 2422 26 18 U.S.C.§ 2423 26 Ot

him to benefit third- parties," and therefore the defendant was a third-party beneficiary with standing to enforce the agreement. Id. at 609. Both Florida West and EI-Sadig illustrate how the government's argument that Ms. Maxwell lacks standing to enforce the NPA is contrary to bedrock principles of contra

ameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 22 United States v. Sattar, No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK), 2003 WL 22510398 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2003) 29 United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 24 United States v. Vaval, 404 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2005) 13 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 2422 26 18 U.S.C.§ 2423 26 Ot

him to benefit third- parties," and therefore the defendant was I third-party beneficiary with standing to enforce the agreement. Id. at 609. Both Florida West and EI-Sadig illustrate how the government's argument that Ms. Maxwell lacks standing to enforce the NPA is contrary to bedrock principles of contra

F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1999) 10 EFTA00028882 --- PAGE BREAK --- United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 17 United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 12 Other Authorities Dienst, J., Valiquette, J., Winter, T., and Fitzpatrick, S. "Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghisl

hree courts have applied the third-party beneficiary doctrine to confer standing on third parties to enforce immunity provisions in plea agreements. Florida West, 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228; El- Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d at 608-09; United States v. CFWConst Co., 583 F. Supp. 197, 203 (D.S.C. 1984), aff'd, 749 F.2d