Epstein Secrets

esponse to inquiries of state law enforcement officers or the Special Agents, their contents would have been presented to the federal grand jury: Pryor wrote. The i allegedly with- held by may have been a tipping point in the controversial probe of Epstein. Federal prosecu- tors ended up strikin

ur Office prevails on that issue, the victims would obviously have no claim under the CVRA. The victims would then pursue their appellate rights in the Eleventh Circuit. If, however, the victims prevail on that issue, then your Office would take "no position" on the remedy sought by the victims for the violation of

interpretation of the remedy provision in *1316 § 377I(d), which refers back to those § 3771(a) rights. Indeed, both the Majority and Chief Judge Pryor's concurrence examine the CVRA as a whole and look to various subsections of the CVRA to support their conclusion that § 377I(d) does not grant Ms.

ssent misses the point: we are not only deciding Ms. Wild's case today. The majority's opinion will set precedent for how CVRA suits will proceed in the Eleventh Circuit. The mere fact that an Assistant United States Attorney in this case recognized certain individuals as victims says nothing about how prosecutors a

nse to inquiries of state law , enlacement officers or the Special l Agents. their contents would have been presented to the federal grand jccy" Pryor wrote. information allegedly with- held by Rodriguez may have been a tipping point in the controversial probe of Epstein. Federal prosecu- tors co

ur Office prevails on that issue, the victims would obviously have no claim under the CVRA. The victims would then pursue their appellate rights in the Eleventh Circuit. If, however, the victims prevail on that issue, then your Office would take "no position" on the remedy sought by the victims for the violation of