Epstein Secrets

LLP FR Tr. at 6 8, 22, 45; Tab 7, Tr. 13; Tab 8 Robson Tr. at 8; Tab 9, Tr. at 5; and O, MI Tr. at 14

here is no support for CEOS's view that the courts or a jury should ultimately decide whether a "novel" construction of the law is correct. Instead, the Executive Branch itself has a non-delegable obligation not to exceed its authority; the power of other branches to check or remedy such usurpation does not legitimi

SIGHT_012352 IN RE: J&FFREY EPSTEIN DRAFT TAPED CAR INTERVIEW ii 02505 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012353 (Thereupon, the following interview was had:) MS. ROBSON: -- say anything to you about this (inaudible), nght? BY UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Q You know we're nol going to argne again. We're not gomg lo keep

regard this provision as legally binding would impair the Executive's constitutional role and would constitute an abdication of the responsibility of the Executive Branch." Id. at 734. It should be noted that the legislation in question was pending in Congress, and the possibility that President Carter would sign the l

he case in Thailand. I When the private interest factors do not weigh in favor of dismissal, the court must consider the public interest factors. Robinson. 117 F.3d at 908. Although the court is not obligated to consider the public interest factors when the balance of private interest facto favors d

predators accountable. Boonma maintains that dismissing this case would clearly disregard United States public policy expressed by Congress and the Executive Branch. •10 Although the court recognizes that Congressional enactments and Administration policy evidence the intent to combat sex crimes again