Epstein Secrets

in effect, nor did CEOS review the federal prosecutors' inappropriate efforts to implement those tenns. We detail this point below. EFTA00208771 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP SUBMISSION TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Jeffrey Epstein, a successful businessman and noted ph

olations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(b). Since the limited review conducted by CEOS, two Supreme Court decisions—one authored by Justice Scalia and the other by Justice Thomas—have revitalized the bedrock principles that federal criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, that they may not

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP make an independent decision not adversely affected by conclusions that over and over have proven, witness by witness, allegation by allegation, to

olations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(b). Since the limited review conducted by CEOS, two Supreme Court decisions—one authored by Justice Scalia and the other by Justice Thomas—have revitalized the bedrock principles that federal criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, that they may not

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP SUBMISSION TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN Jeffrey Epstein, a successful businessman and noted ph

olations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(b). Since the limited review conducted by CEOS, two Supreme Court decisions—one authored by Justice Scalia and the other by Justice Thomas—have revitalized the bedrock principles that federal criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, that they may not