Epstein Secrets

esented the case to the U.S. Attomey’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. In 2007, the Office contacted counsel

rights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific crimes affecting the victims. Citing Dean, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed that the rights were expansive and could apply before charges were filed but were subject to the outer limit that the Government has at least

quotation marks omitted). 4 See, e.g., Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 172-73 (2001). 1 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 2, 689 (1972)). 1© See, e.g., United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2006). 7 OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14 n

sented the case to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. In 2007, the Office contacted counsel

ights even before prosecutors filed a superseding indictment covering the specific crimes affecting the victims. Citing Dean, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York agreed that the rights ® John W. Gillis & Douglas E. Beloof, The Next Step for a Maturing Victim Rights Movement: Enforcing Crime Victim Rights in t

uotation marks omitted). ™ See, e.g., Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 172-73 (2001). 75 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1972)). 76 See, e.g., United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 2006). ” OLC CVRA Rights Memo, supra note 2, at 14

rance Company of New Jersey, Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, Glens Falls Insurance Company, and National Ben Franklin Insurance Company of Illinois are *vi members of the CNA Insurance Companies. Appellants’ parent organization, the CNA Financial Corporation, a publicly traded corporation, owns m

r claims against these financial sponsors of terrorism. Statement Of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had subject matter jurisdiction over these actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1330, 1331, 1332, 1350, 1367, 1407, and 1605, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964 and 2338,

rorist activities and to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. See Wyatt, 785 F. Supp. 2d at 647-48; see also Goldberg v. UBS AG, 660 F. Supp. 2d 410, 428-29 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (finding that plaintiffs had “sufficiently pled that the defendant consciously disregarded the fact that it was supporting a terrorist organiza

ement effort. For a rare example, see Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 91-93 (1985). 35. See U.S. Const. amend. V (Double Jeopardy Clause); Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 136-39 (1959) (affirming power of state to prosecute defendant after a federal prosecution for the same bank robbery); United States v

onvincing Congress to expand their discretion at the expense of judges' sentencing authority, see United States v. Kupa, 976 F. Supp. 2d 417, 419-27 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (describing the legislative history and Justice Department lobbying related to federal drug statutes, notably 27 U.S.C. § 841 (2012)). 218 See

(S.D.N.Y. 2005) has been a party to lawsuits in the South- ern District of New York, both as a plain- tiff and defendant.

quarters to Chicago in the name of BIF. fd. 11838. Mr. Batterjee is listed as one of BIF’s three founders in its arti- cles of incorporation filed in Illinois. 7d. 1183. Through an alias, Mr. Batterjee allegedly sent money to BIF’s branches. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017888 --- PAGE BREAK --- 824 Id. 1184; see al