Epstein Secrets

In American jurisprudence, "a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another." Linda R.S.1. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Simply put, Epstein's state plea under the NPA could not extinguish any victim's right to prosecution since no such right

s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. See Exs. G, K, L. Indeed, from late 2007 to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys attempted to convince senior attorney at CEOS that Ep

n American jurisprudence, "a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another." Linda R.S. v. Richard D. 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Simply put, Epstein's state plea under the NPA could not extinguish any victim's right to prosecution since no such right

s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. See Exs. G, K, L. Indeed, from late 2007 to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys attempted to convince senior attorney at CEOS that Ep

n American jurisprudence, "a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another." Linda R.S. v. Richard D. 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Simply put, Epstein's state plea under the NPA could not extinguish any victim's right to prosecution since no such right

s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. See Exs. G, K, L. Indeed, from late 2007 to May 2008, Epstein's attorneys attempted to convince senior attorney at CEOS that Ep