Epstein Secrets

tance In May 2005, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales issued the "Attorney General Guidelines for Vict

e of prosecutorial discretion. A. Compliance with Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance In May 2005, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales issued the "Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance." Ex. M. Article II.D provides definitions of "crime victim": I. Enforce

represented Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. (a) This placed both petitioners on notice that Epstein would be pleading guilty on June 30, 2008, in Palm Beach Circuit Court. I. THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONERS' § 3771(a)(2) RIGHT TO REASONABLE, ACCURATE, AND TIMELY NOTICE Supreme Court has repeatedly emphas

e of prosecutorial discretion. A. Compliance with Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance In May 2005, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales issued the "Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance." Ex. M. Article MD provides definitions of "crime victim": 1. Enforceme

tance In May 2005, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales issued the "Attorney General Guidelines for Vict

presented Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. (Id.) This placed both petitioners on notice that Epstein would be pleading guilty on June 30, 2008, in Palm Beach Circuit Court. Petitioners' arguments and the record in this case simply do not establish that there was any violation of the petitioners' right to confer. See a

e of prosecutorial discretion. A. Compliance with Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance In May 2005, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales issued the "Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance." Ex. M. Article MD provides definitions of "crime victim": 1. Enforceme

tance In May 2005, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales issued the "Attorney General Guidelines for Vict

epresented Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. (ti) This placed both petitioners on notice that Epstein would be pleading guilty on June 30, 2008, in Palm Beach Circuit Court. Petitioners' arguments and the record in this case simply do not establish that there was any violation of the petitioners' right to confer. See a