Epstein Secrets

se, which is before us on a petition for writ of mandamus, arises out of a civil suit filed under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004. Petitioner Courtney Wild is one of more than 30 women—girls, really—who were victimized by notorious sex trafficker and child abuser Jeffrey Epstein. In her petition, Ms.

is one of more than 30 women—girls, really—who were victimized by notorious sex trafficker and child abuser Jeffrey Epstein. In her petition, Ms. Wild alleges that when federal prosecutors secretly negotiated and entered into a non- prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007, they violated her rig

t for Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel purposes, that a "prosecution" does not begin with the criminal complaint's filing. See P. United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2006) ("The filing of a federal criminal complaint does not commence a formal prosecution."); see also, e.g., ‘I

is, see td. at 149—50 n.29. 47 S. Ct. 21, because we must consider the constitutional issues whether or not they apply to the specific facts of Ms. Wilds case, ()Clark. 543 U.S. at 380. 125 S. Ct. at 724. This is not some groundbreaking method of statutory interpretation—it is simply the canon of co

against Epstein. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because no prosecution was underway for years and lacking any information about the case, on July 7, 2008, Courtney Wild (proceeding as "Jane Doe I") filed an emergency petition in "the district court in the district in which the crime occurred." See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(

ates v. States, 652 F.3d 734. 741- 42 (7th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Boskic, 545 F.3d 69, 82—84 (1st Cir. 2008) (same); United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2006) (same). Rather, the Sixth Amendment right doesn't attach—because a "prosecution" doesn't begin—until, at the

rs at his busy law practice. This was a complete wild goose chase, as the U.S. Attorney's Office was c

ation of adversary judicial proceedings against the defendant," than can the filing of an affidavit in support of a search warrant. United States' Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 200 (4th Cir. 2006) (quotia United States. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 187, 189) (emphasis added). See also United States I Langley, 848 F