Epstein Secrets

r of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adrian Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova.

victims, the NPA granted federal immunity not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential co-conspirator of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adrian Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova." It is only because the victims filed this lawsuit, and the District Court ordered the NPA be pro

ates in their control over criminal prosecutions. Id. (quoting United States v. Cox. 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1965)); accord. e.g.. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821. 832, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) ("gyre decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict ... has long been r

olved the exact same crimes and same evidence being reviewed by the U.S. Attorney's office when he was employed there. Specifically, he represented Sarah Kellen (Epstcin's number one co-conspirator who was actually named as such in the NPA), his housekeeper (Louella Ruboyo), his pilots Larry Morrison, Larry

ployed there. Specifically, he represented Sarah Kellen (Epstcin's number one co-conspirator who was actu

y's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler'. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no criminal charg

not use non-public Government information for any purpose. 14. After opening my private practice on January 2, 2008, I was retained to represent Sarah Kellen for purposes of civil depositions in causes of action to which the United States was not a party. At a later time, I was retained to represent seve

nuary 2, 2008, I was retained to represent Sarah Kellen for purposes of civil depositions in causes of ac

y's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler!. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no criminal charg