Epstein Secrets

ent sought dismissal of the case. Although details of the arguments are elusive because the briefing remains sealed, the decision of District Judge Kenneth E. Marra denying the motion, Doe v. United States, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1266 (S.D. Fla. 2013), reveals that the government argued the victims did not have s

e the agreement, such ruling would be futile because the prosecutors' office legally was bound to abide by the terms of its earlier contract. Judge Marra found as a threshold matter that the CVRA "authorize[d] the rescission or 're-opening' of a prosecutorial agreement, including a non-prosecution arr

d to abide by the terms of its earlier contract. Judge Marra found as a threshold matter that the CVRA "author

phones, including at least one heavily encrypted device, former MCC guard Victor Casado pleaded guilty in April 2018 to taking a $45,000 bribe from Zarrab to smuggle in a cellphone, alcohol, Dayquil and other items. Accusations of spectacular security breakdowns inside the MCC were a running feature of

d to abide by the terms of its earlier contract. Judge Marra found as a threshold matter that the CVRA "author

ent sought dismissal of the case. Although details of the arguments are elusive because the briefing remains sealed, the decision of District Judge Kenneth E. Marra denying the motion, Doe v. United States, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1266 (S.D. Fla. 2013), reveals that the government argued the victims did not have s

e the agreement, such ruling would be futile because the prosecutors' office legally was bound to abide by the terms of its earlier contract. Judge Marra found as a threshold matter that the CVRA "authorize[d] the rescission or 're-opening' of a prosecutorial agreement, including a non-prosecution arr

phones, including at least one heavily encrypted device, former MCC guard Victor Casado pleaded guilty in April 2018 to taking a $45,000 bribe from Zarrab to smuggle in a cellphone, alcohol, Dayquil and other items. Accusations of spectacular security breakdowns inside the MCC were a running feature of

d to abide by the terms of its earlier contract. Judge Marra found as a threshold matter that the CVRA "author

ent sought dismissal of the case. Although details of the arguments are elusive because the briefing remains sealed, the decision of District Judge Kenneth E. Marra denying the motion, Doe v. United States, 950 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1266 (S.D. Ha. 2013), reveals that the government argued the victims did not have st

e the agreement, such ruling would be futile because the prosecutors' office legally was bound to abide by the terms of its earlier contract. Judge Marra found as a threshold matter that the CVRA "authorize[d] the rescission or `re-opening' of a prosecutorial agreement, including a non-prosecution arr

phones, including at least one heavily encrypted device, former MCC guard Victor Casado pleaded guilty in April 2018 to taking a $45,000 bribe from Zarrab to smuggle in a cellphone, alcohol, Dayquil and other items. Accusations of spectacular security breakdowns inside the MCC were a running feature of

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioner

ot, of course, suggest that wealthy defendants should bear a special disadvantage. The facts supporting the Court's ruling of pretrial detention in Zarrab are easily distinguishable. The present case does not have national security implications, Mr. Epstein is a United States citizen (and does not poss

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioner

of Denmark-from where defendant could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the 9 This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy def

ot, of course, suggest that wealthy defendants should bear a special disadvantage. The facts supporting the Court's ruling of pretrial detention in Zarrab are easily distinguishable. The present case does not have national security implications, Mr. Epstein is a United States citizen (and does not poss