Epstein Secrets

not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adrian Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova." It is only because the vi

ederal immunity not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential co-conspirator of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adrian Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova." It is only because the victims filed this lawsuit, and the District Court ordered the NPA be produced, that the victims and

on, like the change of position by the Justice Department's local U.S. Attorney's Office, came only after Epstein's victims filed this lawsuit. See Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825, 100 S. Ct. 2486, 2497, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980) (holding that an agency's "interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede

ll be deferred" provided that Epstein met certain conditions. Additionally, the Agreement extended immunity to Epstein's named co-conspirators, • Lesley Groff, [and ' as well as "any potential co-conspirators" of Epstein's. In return for federal immunity, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to two low-level

y to Epstein's named co-conspirators, • Lesley Groff, [and ' as well as "any potential co-conspirato

eading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 170 (2012) ("A word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text ...."); cf. also Mohasco Corp. v. Silver. 447 U.S. 807, 826, 100 S.Ct. 2486.65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980) (rejecting interpretation that would "giv[e] the word 'filed' two different mean

ates also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to MI, Lesley Groff, or ." (DE 407 at ¶ 40.) The NPA also provided that: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the

pstein, including but not limited to MI, Lesley Groff, or ." (DE 407 at ¶ 40.) The NPA also provided t

obligations to notify the victims. In any event, an agency's own "'interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Next, the Court rejects the Government's contention that Jane Doe 2 is not protected by 31 EFTA00794152 Cas