Epstein Secrets

er the agreement. The Circuit Court, just like the federal court, had no authority to judicially review the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Executive Branch of the federal government. The Circuit Court's inquiry on June 30, 2008 was limited to the pleas of guilty made by Epstein, and whether they 12 EF

vicing. Id. at 1311. Green Tree Servicing filed a motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration, which the district court denied. Id. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found that, despite Mrs. Blinco's failure to sign the promissory note, she was nonetheless subject to the arbitration clause because she invoked th

here is no support for CEOS's view that the courts or a jury should ultimately decide whether a "novel" construction of the law is correct. Instead, the Executive Branch itself has a non-delegable obligation not to exceed its authority; the power of other branches to check or remedy such usurpation does not legitimi

individual woman. As the statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(6) 'requires the specific intent to commit illegal

here is no support for CEOS's view that the courts or a jury should ultimately decide whether a "novel" construction of the law is correct. Instead, the Executive Branch itself has a non-delegable obligation not to exceed its authority; the power of other branches to check or remedy such usurpation does not legitimi

individual woman. As the statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(b) `requires the specific intent to commit illegal

rri Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193, 202-03 (1979). The Constitution places the power to prosecute crimes in the hands of disinterested public officials in the Executive Branch. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 3 (duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"); United States'. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 467 (1996) ("powe

criminal trial." Alcatel-Lucent 688 F.3d at 1306 (citing United States'. Johnson 983 F.2d 216, 219 (11th Cir. 1993)). Against this backdrop, where the Eleventh Circuit has determined that the CVRA must be strictly construed, this Court should decline to enlarge these proceedings to allow additional 3 Government E

er the agreement. The Circuit Court, just like the federal court, had no authority to judicially review the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Executive Branch of the federal government. The Circuit Court's inquiry on June 30, 2008 was limited to the pleas of guilty made by Epstein, and whether they 12 EF

vicing. Id. at 1311. Green Tree Servicing filed a motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration, which the district court denied. Id. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found that, despite Mrs. Blinco's failure to sign the promissory note, she was nonetheless subject to the arbitration clause because she invoked th

orney General were consulted, received legal submissions, and fully approved the exercise of discretion by the heads of the USAO-SDFL. In the end, the Executive Branch exercised, in good faith, the unreviewable prosecutorial discretion afforded to it by Article II of the Constitution, as even recognized by Congres

ed Mr. Epstein's rights and privileges, Mr. Epstein and his counsel intervened to assert their rights, both in the district court, and on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. See Doe No. 1, supra. That there would be no judgment against Mr. Epstein at the end of this CVRA litigation, however, was understood throughout t

There is no support for CEOS’s view that the courts or a jury should ultimately decide whether a “novel” construction of the law is correct. Instead, the Executive Branch itself has a non-delegable obligation not to exceed its authority; the power of other branches to check or remedy such usurpation does not legitimize

s to engage in a criminal sex act or (b) that Owens was under the age of 18.) (emphasis added). Again, none of these factors is present in this case. The Eleventh Circuit’s interpretation of the statute makes perfect sense: were § 1591 not limited in this fashion, it would threaten to criminalize a host of localized beha

intentions, partial rescission would pose a significant risk of harm to certain victims, which must be considered in crafting an equitable remedy. The Eleventh Circuit has admonished courts considering equitable remedies to "bear in mind that a poorly crafted remedy may achieve justice for one by working a substan

owers of the [United States attorneys] in their control over criminal prosecutions."). The decision whether to prosecute Epstein lies solely within the Executive Branch, and any order today, by this Court, as to what the government must do in the future would be wholly inappropriate. 26 EFTA00010567 --- PAGE BR

here is no support for CEOS's view that the courts or a jury should ultimately decide whether a "novel" construction of the law is correct. Instead, the Executive Branch itself has a non-delegable obligation not to exceed its authority; the power of other branches to check or remedy such usurpation does not legitimi

individual woman. As the statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(b) `requires the specific intent to commit illegal