Epstein Secrets

al crimes related to fraud, securities crimes, and money laundering, among others, and that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Indiana had "refused to confer with them, denied them their right to full and timely restitution, . . . and demonstrated `a total indifference and lack of

tion." United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *11, citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996)(quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)). Allowing claims like Petitioners' to proceed would open the inner workings of that prosecutorial discretion an

al crimes related to fraud, securities crimes, and money laundering, among others, and that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Indiana had "refused to confer with them, denied them their right to full and timely restitution, ... and demonstrated `a total indifference and lack of re

tion." United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *11, citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996)(quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)). Allowing claims like Petitioners' to proceed would open the inner workings of that prosecutorial discretion an

itioners argument that Mr. Epstein "has made himself an ordinary litigant through his intervention." Doe No. 1, 749 F.3d at 1005; see also State of Indiana ex rel. Zoeller v. Pastick, 696 F. Supp. 970, 993 n.18 (N.D. Ind. 2010) ("The fact that the Foundations have moved to intervene [] does not now mean

re a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor's discretion." United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 . . . (1979); see Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 . . . (1978). Fokker Services, 818 F.3d at 741. Accordingly, judicial authority is "at its most limited when reviewing

al crimes related to fraud, securities crimes, and money laundering, among others, and that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Indiana had "refused to confer with them, denied them their right to full and timely restitution, ... and demonstrated 'a total indifference and lack of re

etion." United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *11, citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996Xquoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)). Allowing claims like Petitioners' to proceed would open the inner workings of that prosecutorial discretion an