Epstein Secrets

course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney . . . ." Letter from Robin C. Ashton to Professor Paul G. Cassell, May 6, 2001, attached as Exhibit 1 to Victim's Mot. File Supp. Auth. DE #82. Accordingly, an order by this Court making "a specific finding of mis

Letter from Robin C. Ashton to Professor Paul G. Cassell, May 6, 2001, attached as Exhibit 1 to Victim's

mself of it by standing on the sidelines.9 As a result, Epstein has simply waived whatever due process right he might otherwise possess. See, e.g., Krieger v. Fadely 211 F.3d 134, 135 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (finding waiver of right to heard argument where litigant waited months to raise the issue, possibly f

course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney . . . ." Letter from Robin C. Ashton to Professor Paul G. Cassell, May 6, 2001, attached as Exhibit 1 to Victim's Mot. File Supp. Auth. DE #82. Accordingly, an order by this Court making "a specific finding of mis

Letter from Robin C. Ashton to Professor Paul G. Cassell, May 6, 2001, attached as Exhibit 1 to Victim's

mself of it by standing on the sidelines.9 As a result, Epstein has simply waived whatever due process right he might otherwise possess. See, e.g., Krieger, Fadely 211 F.3d 134, 135 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (finding waiver of right to heard argument where litigant waited months to raise the issue, possibly for

ustified lethal force, see generally Heather Ann Thompson, Blood in the Water: The Attica Prison Uprising of 1971 and Its Legacy (2016). 41 Cf. Paul Cassell, Who Prosecutes the Police? Perceptions of Bias in Police Misconduct Investigations and a Possible Remedy, Wash. Post: Vololkh Conspiracy Blog (Dec.

chments/2015/02/06/{v2014aprfv_20]6app2.pdf (describing aspects of the "Vulnerable People Priority Goal"). 46 See Lichtblau, supra note 141. 47 See Paul G. Cassell & James R. Marsh, Full Restitution for Child Pornography Victims: The Supreme Court's Paroline Decision and the Need for a Congressional Response, /3

ml (last updated Apr. 4, 2018). The Canadian Supreme Court affirms the prosecutor's wide discretion with reference to his political independence. See Krieger v. Law Society of Alta., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 372, para. 32 (Can.) ("The independence of the Attorney-General, in deciding fairly who should be prosecuted