Epstein Secrets

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

er in the former firm of Herman, , & Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each lawsuit is entitled "Jane Doe # vs. Jeffrey Epstein," despite the fact that each of the plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of Feder

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

ered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2015 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2's PROTECTIVE MOTION PUR

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

the formcr firm of Herman, Sloman, & Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each lawsuit is entitled "Jane Doe # vs. 'effigy Epstein" despite the fact that each of the plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of Federa

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 EFTA00085734 Case 9:08-c

-cv-80736-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2019 Page 1 of 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Civil Action No. PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA • Government's Response to Petition

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. I JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenor. I INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO

predators accountable. Boonma maintains that dismissing this case would clearly disregard United States public policy expressed by Congress and the Executive Branch. •10 Although the court recognizes that Congressional enactments and Administration policy evidence the intent to combat sex crimes again

affirm the judgment of the District Court. John DOE # 1; Kelly Doe # 1, Parents of Jane Doe # 1, Individually and as Guardians on behalf of Minor Jane Doe # 1; John Doe # 2; Kelly Doe # 2, Parents of Jane Doe # 2, as Guardians on behalf of Minor Jane Doe # 2 I William Lawson CHAMBERLIN, Jr.; Kathr

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

in the former firm of Herman, Sloman, & Mermelstein, filed five lawsuits, each asking for $50 million, against Mr. Epstein. Each lawsuit is entitled “Jane Doe # vs. Jeffrey Epstein,” despite the fact that each of the plaintiffs is an adult and not entitled to plead anonymously. See Tab 32, Examples of Feder

U.S. Attorney's Office properly conferred in a timely fashion back in 2007"); id. at 24-25 ("If the Government had properly conferred with the two Jane Does ... [t]hese events would have provided Jane Doe 1 and 2 with much more information about Epstein's criminal conspiracy and its scope and operation,

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