Epstein Secrets

ement" (an amendment that still does not clearly require that CVRA rights apply to a Non- Prosecution Agreement), Motion at 48, fn 175. Despite Judge Marra's determinations that the CVRA rights are applicable in the absence of a formal federal charge, see e.g. Dkt 189 at 8, the USAO was acting consiste

ecution Agreement), Motion at 48, fn 175. Despite Judge Marra's determinations that the CVRA rights are applic

, 563 F.3d 1092, 1099 (10th Cir. 2009) (stating that "the purpose of the CVRA is to permit victim participation in ongoing criminal matters"); In re Acker, 5% F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (characterizing as "uncertain" the question whether a victim has rights before formal charges are filed). 2 EFT

t of Florida, No. 9:08-cv-80736- ICAM, Kenneth A. Marra, Senior District Judge, 359 F.Supp.3d 1201, dete

lleged perpetrator. Alleged perpetrator intervened. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 9:08-cv-80736- ICAM, Kenneth A. Marra, Senior District Judge, 359 F.Supp.3d 1201, determined that government had violated CVRA, but after alleged perpetrator's death, alleged victim's

391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008). The Sixth Circuit has deemed it "uncertain" whether CVRA protections apply "prior to [the] filing of ... charges." In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010). The district courts that have considered the question are divided. Compare, e.g., 1' United States it Oakum, No

of their intent to use the correspondence. The notice specifically covered this CVRA action: [A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in which two victims of sexual assault by [you] allege they were deprive

[A]s you know, there is currently pending before Judge Marra a case filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act

trict court concluded that the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at 726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in de

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs,

strict court concluded that the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at 726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in d

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs,

trict court concluded that the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at 726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in de

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs,

trict court concluded that the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at 726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in d

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs,

trict court concluded that the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at 726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for EFTA00301887 r

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs,

strict court concluded that the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at 726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in d

0642P 3 Palm Beach FL morning CL A raided 056 05115 06:06P 2 Palm Beach Fl. IncanIng CL MN Included 667 0918 07:30P 1 Palm Bosch FL Marra FL MN laCkidlid 066 0918 cease 8 dueller FL Incanh0 CL MN InCiabil 669 0918 09:49P I Pews Beech FL MOM/. CL MN 100400 Page-17 or 2

estined°, Usage • Call ppa 11pe Airtime charws 968 05101 05.30P 3 Palm Beam Fl Mobile Cl. MN insuCed 969 06101 0523P 2 West Palm FL Acker FL Y leaded 970 0101 05:58P 1 West Palm Ft. Meaning Cl MN Nettled 971 98101 06:60P 2 West laPm FL Inbcenerg CL MN Yb0ed 972 08.01 0