Epstein Secrets

rosecutors were able to ignore the controversial nonprosecutibn agreement because it contained some significant fine print; said former federal Judge Patil Cassell, who for years has fought to get the agreement thrown.but. It says only that ho charges could be filed.against Epstein in South Florida, he said. Ber

The complaint does not seek forfeiture of Epstein's house in Palm Beach. While heartened that Epstein howfaces serious Criminal charges in New York, Cassell said he would continue to push a West Palm Beach-based federal judge to throw out the nonprosecutibn agreement that Acosta forged with Epstein's star

eclltor~ were able to ,ignore the controversial nOhprosecutibn agreement because it contained some significant.fine print; sa1d former federal Judge Paul Casseil; who for years Jias-foughtto get the agreement thrown.out. It says. only that no charges could be fikdagainsf Epsteinin South Florida, he said, B,

access to criminal proceedings, see, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980), including pre-trial criminal proceedings. Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1983). Indeed, “the integrity of the judicial process, which public scrutiny is supposed to safeguard, is just a

osecutors were able to ignore the controversial nonprosecution agreement because it contained some significant fine print, said former federal Judge Paul Cassell, who for years has fought to get the agreement thrown out. It says only that no charges could be filed against Epstein in South Florida, he said.

e complaint does not seek forfeiture of Epstein's house in Palm Beach. While heartened that Epstein now faces serious criminal charges in New York, Cassell said he would continue to push a West Palm Beach-based federal judge to throw out the nonprosecution agreement that Acosta forged with Epstein's st

cess to criminal proceedings, see, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980), including pre-trial criminal proceedings. Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1983). Indeed, “the integrity of the NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 15 ACTIVE 696232185v3 judicial process, which p

tus, E.F. (2000, April) The poet as brain mechanic: A 2050 version of physics for poets. Global Business Network Bulletin, p.1-5. Loftus, E. L. and Castelle, G. (2000) Crashing Memories in Legal Cases. In P.J. van Koppen & N.H.M. Roos (Eds). Rationality, Information and Progress in Law and Psychology. Ma

R. Pomerantz (Eds). Psychology and the Real World: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society. pp. 83-88. New York: Worth Publishers. Newman, E.J., Berkowitz, S.R., Nelson, K.J., Garry, M., & Loftus, E.F. (2011) Attitudes about memory dampening drugs depend on context and country. Applied

, X., Lin, C., & Dong, Q. (2012) Brief exposure to misinformation can lead to long-term false memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 301- 307. Newman, E.J. & Loftus, E.F. (2012) Clarkian Logic on Trial. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 260-263. Davis, D. & Loftus, E.F. (2012). Inconsiste

dwards Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Blvd Suite 1650 Ft. Lauderdale FL 33301 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul G. Cassell Email: PRO HAG ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite

: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul G. Cassell Email: PRO HAG ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represen

()nip:imam & Enfortenant of Judgment 0 IS) Medium Act 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loam (Fad. %tains) 0 IS) Recovery of Overpaymers of Newman's Aeneas O 160 Stockholden' Suits 0 190 Other Cotermi 0 195 Convect Product Liability 0 196 Franchise PERSONAL INJURY 0 310 Airplane 0 315 Mut

aims Against Public Prosecutor; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 P-013925 Thru P-013927 Draft Letter, from Robin C. Ashton to Professor Paul G. Cassell, with handwritten correction Deliberative Process Privilege Attorney Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary Duty; No

075 E-mail: [email protected] and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 1 EFTA00179619 Case 9:08-cv-807

ds, a type of restitution; "[c]riminal forfeiture is . . . separate from restitution, which serves an entirely different purpose." United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235, 1241 (9th Cir. 2011). Among other differences between restitution and forfeiture, only the criminal defendant is subject to restit

ictims Fairly: Integrating Victims into the Federal Rules o Criminal Procedure 2007 Reporter 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861 * Length: 59852 words Author: Paul G. Cassell* * Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law of the University of Utah, Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 2002-07. Thanks to

in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Proposed Amendments in Light of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 835, 852-924 [hereinafter Cassell, Proposed Amendments]. 5 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (a)(8). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017637 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 3 of 78 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *865

have very strong incentives 257 See Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 475-76 (1973); United States v. Bahamonde, 445 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir. 2006); Newman v. Hopkins, 192 F.3d 1132, 1135 (8th Cir. 1999), vacated 529 U.S. 1084 (2000); United States ex rel. Veal v. DeRobertis, 693 F.2d 642, 646- 47 (7th C