Epstein Secrets

ntext of the pending criminal prosecution of the conduct of the accused that allegedly victimized them"); see also In re W.R. Huff Asset Management (United States v. Rigas), 409 F.3d 555 (2d Cir. 2005) (rejecting challenge to settlement agreement in forfeiture action in connection with Rigas/Adelphia fraud cas

the CVRA because "the offense charged against a defendant can serve as a basis for identifying a 'crime victim' as defined in the CVRA"); Searcy v. Paletz, No. 6:07-1389-GRA-WMC, 2007 WL 1875802 *6 . June 27, 2007) (inmate does not qualify as a "crime victim" under the CVRA wher, has been a prosecut

008. After Epstein’s June 30, 2008 state court pleas, she sent out substantially similar notification letters to two victims who resided outside of the United States. 222 We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after

e described unless there is an appropriate, articulable reason not to do so.” Id., Art. II, ¶ C. 399 Id., Art. IV, ¶ B.1. 400 Searcy v. Paletz, 2007 WL 1875802, at *5 (D.S.C. June 27, 2007) (an inmate is not considered a crime victim for purposes of the CVRA until the government has filed c

in the case). The U.S. Attorney's Office has generally disputed some of these allegations without offering specifics as to what happened. See, e.g., United States' Response to Jane Doe #1 & Jane Doe #2's Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victim Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Reme

ctim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections. !°! Yet none of these cases - United States v. 10 104 Turner, !9? Searcy v. Paletz, !°3 or Searcy v. Skinner - provide strong support for OLC's position. Turner is a particularly 9 See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c). % Td. § 10607(c)(3)(A).

following circumstances: CVRA rights attach when an officer or employee of the Department of Justice or any other department or agency of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime has substantial evidence that an identifiable person has been directly and proximate

t) the following circumstances: CVRA rights attach when an officer or employee of the Department of Justice or any other department or agency of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime has substantial evidence that an identifiable person has been directly and pr

in the case). The U.S. Attorney’s Office has generally disputed some of these allegations without offering specifics as to what happened. See, e.g., United States’ Response to Jane Doe #1 & Jane Doe #2’s Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victim Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Reme

ded that a victim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections.'°! Yet none of these cases—United States v. Turner,'°? Searcy v. Paletz,'® or Searcy v. Skinner'°*—provide strong support for OLC’s position. Turner is a particularly poor fit. Although OLC’s memorandum characterizes Turn

endment prosecution also make clear that a later court hearing would start such a prosecution. For instance, in the Fourth Circuit case cited by OLC, United States v. Alvarado, the court reasons that “the main reason a law enforcement officer files [] a complaint is to establish probable cause for an arrest warr