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

e United States in their control over criminal prosecutions. Id. (quoting United States v. Cox. 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1965)); accord. e.g.. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821. 832, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) ("gyre decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict ... has l

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(

c prosecutions, until they come before the court to which they are returnable, are within the exclusive direction of the district attorney ....'); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832, 105 S. Ct. 1649, 1656, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) r[T]he decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to indict ..

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

ate Attorney's Office in light of the pre- existing state investigation. In addition to the authorities cited above, the Supreme Court's decision in Heckler'. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), further supports the interpretation that the CVRA does not provide for judicial intervention in a case where no crim