Epstein Secrets

11/30, Tin), Politico (11/30, Foley), The Epoch Times (11/30, Nguyen Ly), The Independent (11/30, Woodward), CNBC (11/30, Kimball), Newsweek (11/30, Brady), Forbes (11/30, Kaplan), The Hill (11/30, Coleman), Axios (11/30, Staff Writer) and Business Insider (11/30, Staff Writer). Back to Top CAPITOL V

f you do it, you potentially go to jail and face civil sanctions." FBI Document Showcases How Secure Messaging Apps Stack Up Apple Insider (11/30, Peterson) reported that a new FBI document detailing its legal access to secure messaging apps indicates that the agency has a "limited" ability to access th

withhold relevant information contrary to its position in court. In their motion (at pp. 5-9), the victims explained why fairness entitles them to "Brady" information (i.e., information contradicting the Government's position) no less than criminal defendants. In response, the Government does not eve

ges. It was at that point (at a minimum) that the Government should have extended to the victims their right to confer. To the same effect is In re Peterson, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. 2010), a case that the Government cites as supporting its position. Gov't Resp. at 21-22. But Peterson squarely rejects

it was legally obligated to do so. shows that the government has accept accusers accounts without serious scrutiny. Given the ovenunent's ongoitut Brady obligations. it is unsettling that the government would simply acce I Contrary to the government's assertion. the defense has not abandoned our leg

in to French authorities in Guadeloupe and confessed to committing a murder in the United States. Despite turning himself in to French authorities, Peterson remained beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement despite the repeated requests of OIA and U.S. officials. See Durbin, Schakowsky, Emanuel (bye Fre

e attorneys representing criminals, the Office would promptly turn over all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under Brady' Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and related decisions. Victims' counsel asked the Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would p

trict court had no authority under mandatory restitution act to reopen restitution proceedings after sentencing). More recently in the case °fin re Peterson, No. 2:10-CV-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), the district court denied relief under the Crime Victims' Restitution Act before any ch