Epstein Secrets

ut a federal amendment. 3' In April 22, 1996, Senators Kyl and Feinstein introduced a federal victims’ rights amendment with the backing of President Clinton. 3? The intent of the amendment was to "restore, preserve, and protect, as a matter of right for the victims of violent crimes, the practice of victi

ral victims’ rights amendment with the backing of President Clinton. 3? The intent of the amendment was to "restore,

to interpret CVRA); United States v. Cienfuegos, 462 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2006) (same); United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1344 (D. Utah 2006) (same); United States v. Ingrassia, 2005 WE 2875220 (E.D.N_Y. 2005) (same). 94 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) (2006). °° CVRA Subcommittee Memo, supra n

t stage." 1° 157 Proposed Amendments, supra note 71, R. 60(a)(3), at 15-16. 158 Compare United States v. Degenhardt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1345-46 (D. Utah 2005) (finding that a victim must be heard orally at sentencing), and United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 333 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (noting in di

- approached the President and Congress regarding a federal amendment. © On April 22, 1996, Senators Kyl and Feinstein with the backing of President Clinton introduced a federal victims' rights amendment. © The amendment was intended to "restore, preserve, and protect, as a matter of right for the victims

6, Senators Kyl and Feinstein with the backing of President Clinton introduced a federal victims' rights amendment. ©

thdrawn if the CVRA was passed). 224 18 U.S.C. 3663A, 3664 (2000). 25 Td. 3663, 3664. See generally United States v. Bedonie, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Utah 2004) (discussing different statutes), rev'd on other grounds, United States v. Serawop, 410 F.3d 656 (10th Cir. 2005). 26 18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(1) (em

interests of justice standard); United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc., 711] F.2d 1164, 1174 (2d Cir. 1983) (compelling need standard). 68 See, e.g., D. Utah Crim. Local R. 32-1(c) (presentence reports not released without order of the court). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017751 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page

, foreign presidents, and world leaders are highly relevant and admissible (Motion in Limine 1) ..00...0.. eee eceeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeneene 6 2. Meeting Bill Clinton at Jeffrey Epstein’s private island twice (Motion in Limine 2)..... 8 FOIA responses and related materials are admissible (Motion in Limine 3)......

. eee eceeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeneene 6 2. Meeting Bill Clinton at Jeffrey Epstein’s private island twice (Motion

ian River Estates, Inc., 276 F.3d 790, 799 n.5 (6th Cir. 2002) . 13 Rowe v. DPI Specialty Foods, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00708-DN, 2015 WL 3533844, at *5 (D. Utah i eb) 13,28 S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) oo. cccccteeeseeeee 19 Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361, 1364-