Epstein Secrets

dissatisfied with that result. . . . . [You], Professor Dershowitz, former Solicitor [General] Starr, former United

William Clinton, Donald Trump, Kevin Spacey, and Alan Dershowitz, and other “prominent businessmen, aca

han two months[] ago, it has become clear that several attorneys on your legal team are dissatisfied with that result. . . . . [You], Professor Dershowitz, former Solicitor [General] Starr, former United States Attorney Lewis, Ms. Sanchez and Messrs. Black, Goldberger and Lefcourt previously had the o

nvestigation, identified him as a wealthy Palm Beach resident with influential contacts, including William Clinton, Donald Trump, Kevin Spacey, and Alan Dershowitz, and other “prominent businessmen, academics and scientists.”210 Villafaña, Lourie, Sloman, and Acosta learned of this press coverage early in the

icy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves as having failed to register with the Selective Service system. The petitioner in Wayte claimed that the self-reported non-registrants were “vocal” opponents of the registration program who were being punished for the exercise of their

r unless based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Id. These principles were reiterated in Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985), a case involving the government’s policy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves as ha

15 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87203, * For Jeffrey Epstein, Intervenor: Jacqueline Perczek, Roy Eric Black, Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf, Miami, FL. For Alan M. Dershowitz, Intervenor: Kendall Brindley r21 Coffey, LEAD ATTORNEY, Gabriel Groisman, Coffey Burlington, P.L., Miami, FL; Steven Russell Safra, Thomas E. Scot

bnick Kornspan & Stumpf, Miami, FL. For Alan M. Dershowitz, Intervenor: Kendall Brindley r21 Coffey, LEAD AT

lack Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf, Miami, FL. For Alan M. Dershowitz, Intervenor: Kendall Brindley r21 C

made an inexplicably poor decision when it decided not to prosecute Epstein. "[T]he Government retains 'broad discretion' as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607, 105 S. Ct. 1524, 84 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1985). The CVRA incorporates this principle, providing that "[n]othing in t

Courts tread lightly where prosecutorial discretion is concerned because "the decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review." Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also 35 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. 203, 203 n.648 (2006). "Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's g

gement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts on his behalf by former President Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. These materials are needed to prove the victims allegation that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed w

n, Prince Andrew, and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. These materials are needed to prove the victims

linton, Prince Andrew, and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. These materials are needed to prove

k, 630 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing procedure for forfeiture). "[T]he Government retains broad discretion as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985) (quotation omitted). The CVRA expressly does not impair that broad discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6

e.g., United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 463-66 (1996) (examining the Equal Protection Clause's prohibition on racially- motivated charging); Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985) (holding due process bars prosecution in retaliation for exercising fundamental rights); Kolender v. Lawso

note 224 (citing state statutes in Florida and Wisconsin that encourage or mandate local prosecutors to adopt policies that improve enforcement). 27 Gershowitz, supra note 219. 8 On domestic violence and rape offenses, see Gruber, supra note 221, at 752-63 (recounting the feminist movement's efforts to refo