Epstein Secrets

tlement, factors which Congress has required the court to consider. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(2). W.R. me, 409 F.3d at 564. In this instance, as in W.R. Huff, there was an un-convicted defendant, Epstein. Unlike in W.R. me, here Epstein was the only defendant. Nonetheless, the AUSA who investigated Epst

A Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON EFTA00208063 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 57-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2n° Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the c

restitution measures against nonconvicted defendants." In re W.R. Hu fir Asset Mgt. Co., LLC , 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). In W.R. Huff, petitioners filed two writs of mandamus seeking to vacate settlement agreements of forfeiture actions between the United States and members of the

ment that a victim be "directly and proximately harmed" encompassed the traditional "but for" and proximate cause analyses. Id. at 350, citing In Re Rendon Galvis , 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2 ' Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the

r restitution measures against nonconvicted defendants." hi re W.R. Huff Asset Mgt. Co., LLC, 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). In W.R. Huff petitioners filed two writs of mandamus seeking to vacate settlement agreements of forfeiture actions between the United States and members of the

ate cause analyses. Id. at 350, citing 27 EFTA00177077 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (20° Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the

ttlement, factors which Congress has required the court to consider. See 18 U.S.C. § 377l(dX2). W11. Huff 409 F.3d at 564. In this instance, as in W.R. Huff there was an un-convicted defendant, Epstein. Unlike in Wit. Huff here Epstein was the only defendant. Nonetheless, the AUSA who investigated Epste

, citing 27 EFTA00230092 ff ell.;;;;;:t; --- ------- 1 Case 9:O8-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2gd Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the c