Epstein Secrets

e statutory provision," not by outside objectives, such as those facilitating successful prosecution. See Cuellar, supra, Slip op. at 7. As Justice Alito stated in his concurring opinion, the government must prove not just the "effect" of the secretive transportation, but also that "petitioner knew th

nt the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). 26. The next day, AUSA advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that "one of his partners is married to an AUSA here," and explained that, because of that personal relationshi

ving one of these effects was a design (i.e. purpose) of the transportation" of currency. Cuellar v. United States, supra, 553 U.S., Slip op. At I (Alito, J. concurring). Similarly, it is not enough that one effect of a communication scheduling a visit between Mr. Epstein and a minor was that there mi

present the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). 26. The next day, advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that "one of his partners is married to an AUSA here," and explained that, because of that personal relationshi

ive statutory provision,” not by outside objectives, such as those facilitating successful prosecution. See Cuellar, supra, Slip op. at 7. As Justice Alito stated in his concurring opinion, the government must prove not just the “effect” of the secretive transportation, but also that “petitioner knew tha

the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). The next day, AUSA Villafana advised the defense that she was removing one of the alternatives to Mr. Ocariz from our consideration, on the basis that “one of his partners is married to an AUSA here,” and explained that, because of that personal relationship