Epstein Secrets

Exhibit V. France Extradition Opinion Exhibit W. Letter of Exhibit X. Letter of EFTA00093221

bail proceeding, that are not even foreclosed by the cases the government does cite to you. They cite to you the -- I'm going to skip this one, the Annabi case, A-N-N-A-B-I case, which says, "The plea the office of the U.S. Attorney for the plea is entered unless it affirmatively agreement binds onl

as to confer a benefit on the third party." Fla. W. Intl Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 (quot

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement

as to confer a benefit on the third party." Fla. W. Intl Ainvays, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 (quot

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement

as to confer a benefit on the third party." Fla. W. Intl Ainvays, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 (quot

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement

er for the consideration of the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, the United States District Judge who was t

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), ard, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement or the "

as to confer a benefit on the third party." Fla. W. Intl Ainvays, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 (quot

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement

titled by (Name) * —- “* cA.* . -a r.A' \ <'.X ' -W. »=*. Trmo> Juveroie Dtsposibdn'r>~ , ' r? « -14»

ates v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)). This is true even if the text of the agreement purports to bind “the Government.” See Annabi, Tl\ F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)