Epstein Secrets

"United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). As the S

Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind `the Government"' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States'

r v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 48 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 166 United States v. Ahmed, No.

med in the proposed agreement, because the USAO was not interested in prosecuting those individuals if Epstein entered a plea. Villafana told OPR, [Ville considered Epstein to be the top of the food chain, and we wouldn't have been interested in prosecuting anyone else.' She did not consider the possi

some acceptable alternate form," no bill of particulars is required. See United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987) (per curiam); United States v. Morales, 280 F. Supp. 2d 262, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); see, e.g., United States v. Kazarian, No. 10 Cr. 895 (PGG), 2012 WL 1810214, at *25 (S.D.N.Y.

]he identities of the United States banks and other financial institutions that `offer[ed] payment processing services directly to merchants,"' and Ville identities of the United States banks and other financial institutions that used Independent Sales Organizations or other third parties to process p

port of its motion to stay. DE 140. In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing information to the victims: "[T]he United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search for that information." DE

tification letter. The notification promises that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. 1's rights, including Ville reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the distric

port of its motion to stay. DE 140. In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing information to the victims: "[T]he United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search foi that information." DE

tification letter. The notification promises that the Justice Department would make its "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe No. 1's rights, including Ville reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the distric