Epstein Secrets

t prosecutorial discretion and the grand jury to judicial scrutiny — exactly the outcome that the CVRA states is disallowed. For example, in In re Petersen, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), an individual and a corporation filed an emergency petition for enforcement of the CVRA, "seeking an orde

tion for mandamus that would have to be heard within 72 hours." At least one prisoner has filed exactly this type of suit, not once, but twice. See Searcy v. NFN Palen, 2007 WL 1875802 (D.S.C. June 27, 2007) (prisoner who alleged he was victim of assault filed suit under CVRA attempting to force U.S. A

alleged he was victim of assault filed suit under CVRA attempting to force U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, and BOP to prosecute alleged perpetrator); Searcy v. NFN Skinner, 2006 WL 1677177 (D.S.C. June 16, 2006) (same). These fears are not imagined — several individuals have tried to use the CVRA to for

Kan. 2015) (Sections 3771(a)(1) (right to protection from accused) and Section 3771(a)( ght to confer) do not apply in pre-charging context); In re Petersen, 2010 WL 5108692 *2 (_. Ind. 2010) ("the U.S. Attorney didn't have an obligation under the CVRA to confer with [victims] until after was filed and

hts under the CVRA because "the offense charged against a defendant can serve as a basis for identifying a 'crime victim' as defined in the CVRA"); Searcy v. Paletz, No. 6:07-1389-GRA-WMC, 2007 WL 1875802 *6 . June 27, 2007) (inmate does not qualify as a "crime victim" under the CVRA wher, has been

t prosecutorial discretion and the grand jury to judicial scrutiny — exactly the outcome that the CVRA states is disallowed. For example, in In re Petersen, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), an individual and a corporation filed an emergency petition for enforcement of the CVRA, "seeking an orde

tion for mandamus that would have to be heard within 72 hours." At least one prisoner has filed exactly this type of suit, not once, but twice. See Searcy v. NFN Paletz, 2007 WL 1875802 (D.S.C. June 27, 2007) (prisoner who alleged he was victim of assault filed suit under CVRA attempting to force U.S.

t prosecutorial discretion and the grand jury to judicial scrutiny — exactly the outcome that the CVRA states is disallowed. For example, in In re Petersen, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), an individual and a corporation filed an emergency petition for enforcement of the CVRA, "seeking an orde

tion for mandamus that would have to be heard within 72 hours." At least one prisoner has filed exactly this type of suit, not once, but twice. See Searcy' NFN Pale!; 2007 WL 1875802 (D.S.C. June 27, 2007) (prisoner who alleged he was victim of assault filed suit under CVRA attempting to force U.S. Att

hat prosecutorial discretion and the grand jury to judicial scrutiny exactly the outcome that the CVRA states is disallowed. For example, in In re Petersen, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. lnd. Dec. 8, 2010), an individual and a corporation filed an emergency petition for enforcement of the CVRA, "seeking an orde

alleged he was victim of assault filed suit under CVRA attempting to force U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, and BOP to prosecute alleged perpetrator); Searcy v. NFN Skinner, 2006 WL 1677177 (D.S.C. June 16, 2006) (same). These fears are not imagined — several individuals have tried to use the CVRA to for

at victims acquire rights even before a prosecution begins. The District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held to the same effect in In re Petersen. 7* There, the court held that a victim's right to be treated with fairness and with respect for [his or her] dignity and privacy "may apply before a

. 76 Id. Petersen also held that one specific CVRA right - the right to confer - only applies after charges have been filed. Id. But the authorities Petersen cites for that proposition prove no such thing. Confusingly, Petersen cited the Fifth Circuit's ruling in Dean for support; but (as just explained ab

that a victim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections. !°! Yet none of these cases - United States v. 10 104 Turner, !9? Searcy v. Paletz, !°3 or Searcy v. Skinner - provide strong support for OLC's position. Turner is a particularly 9 See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c). % Td. § 10607(

t victims acquire rights even before a prosecution begins.” The District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held to the same effect in In re Petersen. There, the court held that a victim’s right to be treated with fairness and with respect for [his or her] dignity and privacy “may apply before any

rts concluded that a victim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections.'°! Yet none of these cases—United States v. Turner,'°? Searcy v. Paletz,'® or Searcy v. Skinner'°*—provide strong support for OLC’s position. Turner is a particularly poor fit. Although OLC’s memorandum characte