Epstein Secrets

h hooted in B138CS•1% vt -qr. litsus •il- Arkgrirliii•Ariuns, Florida, Georgia, ISGS Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexis0, North Caroline, Texas, Virginia Arkeratn, Connecticut, Oahe/are, Kentucky. Mahe, Massachusetts, New Hur•Pelhira, New Jersey, New Vont, Ohba, Pennsylvania. Rhode bland, Vermont

R PW F• rigePP l7G Alabama, Adzona, Florida. Georgia. bateelttla, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia ArkanSa, Connecticut, Deiaware, Kentucky, Maine, Meatiachtsettc, New Nampa**, New Jersey. New York, OS, Pennsylvania. Rhode hand, Vement, West Virginia Ninon. Indiana, Iowa. K

involv- ing section 2255. In Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp2d 603, 613 (E.D.Va.2005), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, held, after analyzing the legisla- tive history of section 2255 to determine Congress' intent, that a criminal conviction under one of the listed

gine, we still must deter- mine if we have jurisdiction under it. Jur- isdiction cannot be conferred on us by the will or the waiver of the parties. Dela- ware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 692, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). If jur- isdiction does not exist, we are bound to dismiss the suit howeve

394 ‘ORGE G. RI r Gepraoe ST ERE CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA 25333-3304 REBECCA A. BETTS oehiae 500 LEE STREET

lly fast because I didn’t want to make it sound like I was lying or anything. EM at 38-39. Thus, consistent with the guidance provided in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), the search warrant affidavit in this case reveals knowing and reckless falsehoods and omitted material information. This is pre