Epstein Secrets

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

ong the prerogatives of sovereignty is the power to create and enforce a criminal code.") (citin Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. I. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 601 (1982); McCulloch . Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 418, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819)). 15 EFTA00211732 the DOJ that there was no basis for a

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

ng the prerogatives of sovereignty is the power to create and enforce a criminal code.") (citing Alfred L. Snapp & Son. Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 601 (1982); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 418, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819)). 15 EFTA00799839 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 408 E

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

ng the prerogatives of sovereignty is the power to create and enforce a criminal code.") (citing Alfred L. Snapp & Son. Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 601 (1982); McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 418, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819))- 15 EFTA00591476 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 401-2