EFTA01139453Set 9
2015-11-1034p24,253w
matrix are rational numbers and represent the payoff of an interaction, i.e., a (resp., b) is the
payoff of a resident type interacting with another resident (resp., mutant) type ... resp., d) is the payoff of a mutant
type interacting with a resident (resp.. mutant) type. Given two vertices, x and v. we denote ... same type as v. If v is a mutant type, and SiatV < Ohy (resp., if v is a resident type, and ≤ OR),
then the individual gives birth to an individual
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01139453.pdf
EFTA00178057Set 9
2011-05-0290p23,378w
District of Florida, . . [the victims] cannot invoke
any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply
irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(I) of the CVRA ... pleading to analyze this provision, calling it a
mere "venue provision." Gov't Resp. at 13. But even assuming this a venue provision, the
question remains what is the provision ... that Congress "maintained separate legislation aimed at rights
governing pre-charging protections," Gov't Resp. at 19, supposedly found in 42 U.S.C. § 10607.
No court has cited § 10607 has bearing
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00178057.pdf
EFTA00597318Set 9
2017-08-1133p10,597w
Government has responded by contesting some facts, but not others. See Gov't Resp. to
2
EFTA00597319
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 417 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2017 ... Page 3 of 33
Petitioners' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (hereinafter "Gov't Fact Resp."), DE 407.
To grant summary judgment, the Court need only rely on the facts that ... prosecutors would
defer federal prosecution in favor of a Florida state prosecution. Gov't Resp. to Petitioners'
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (hereinafter "Gov't Fact Resp
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00597318.pdf
EFTA01098264Set 9
2011-05-0229p9,339w
District of Florida, . . . [the victims] cannot invoke
any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply
irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(1) of the CVRA ... pleading to analyze this provision, calling it a
mere "venue provision." Gov't Resp. at 13. But even assuming this a venue provision, the
question remains what is the provision ... that Congress "maintained separate legislation aimed at rights
governing pre-charging protections," Gov't Resp. at 19, supposedly found in 42 U.S.C. § 10607.
No court has cited § 10607 has bearing
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01098264.pdf
EFTA00207984Set 9
2011-05-0229p9,189w
District of Florida, . . . [the victims] cannot invoke
any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply
irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(1) of the CVRA ... pleading to analyze this provision, calling it a
mere "venue provision." Gov't Resp. at 13. But even assuming this a venue provision, the
question remains what is the provision ... that Congress "maintained separate legislation aimed at rights
governing pre-charging protections," Gov't Resp. at 19, supposedly found in 42 U.S.C. § 10607.
No court has cited § 10607 has bearing
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00207984.pdf
EFTA00077571Set 9
2017-04-1334p9,022w
meeting was about Epstein only and had nothing
to do with Maxwell. Resp. at 89 & n.39. See Ex. J. AUSA notes refer to Maxwell as
Epstein's "head recruiter ... investigate Epstein, not
Maxwell," and that the discussion included only "passing references to Maxwell." Resp. at 89
n.39. The government bases this argument exclusively on a phone call prosecutors conducted ... witnesses constitute best evidence"). Although the government attached these notes to its
Response, Resp. Ex. 5, the government does not rely on them as part of its argument, choosing
instead
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00077571.pdf
EFTA00029100Set 8
2017-04-1334p8,943w
meeting was about Epstein only and had nothing
to do with Maxwell. Resp. at 89 & 1.39. See Ex. J. AUSA notes refer to Maxwell as
Epstein's "head recruiter ... investigate Epstein, not
Maxwell," and that the discussion included only "passing references to Maxwell." Resp. at 89
1.39. The government bases this argument exclusively on a phone call prosecutors conducted ... witnesses constitute best evidence"). Although the government attached these notes to its
Response, Resp. Ex. 5, the government does not rely on them as part of its argument, choosing
instead
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00029100.pdf
EFTA00792569Set 9
39p7,774w
repeated statements about the unreliability
of the Probable Cause Affidavit as a "simple misunderstanding." Resp.
Br. at 47. The People improperly attempt to bolster their newfound
alignment with the hearing ... prosecuted on the vast
majority of allegations in the Probable Cause Affidavit. See Resp. Br. at
48 (surmising, without basis, that the hearing court determined "where
zealous private counsel ... several of Appellant's arguments on
appeal should be disregarded on preservation grounds. See Resp. Br. at
52-59. First, Appellant disputes that it has made any appellate
arguments
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00792569.pdf
EFTA01168858Set 9
39p7,780w
repeated statements about the unreliability
of the Probable Cause Affidavit as a "simple misunderstanding." Resp.
Br. at 47. The People improperly attempt to bolster their newfound
alignment with the hearing ... prosecuted on the vast
majority of allegations in the Probable Cause Affidavit. See Resp. Br. at
48 (surmising, without basis, that the hearing court determined "where
zealous private counsel ... several of Appellant's arguments on
appeal should be disregarded on preservation grounds. See Resp. Br. at
52-59. First, Appellant disputes that it has made any appellate
arguments
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01168858.pdf
EFTA01085680Set 9
33p6,959w
repeated statements about the unreliability
of the Probable Cause Affidavit as a "simple misunderstanding." Resp.
Br. at 47. The People improperly attempt to bolster their newfound
alignment with the hearing ... prosecuted on the vast
majority of allegations in the Probable Cause Affidavit. See Resp. Br. at
47 (surmising, without basis, that the hearing court determined "where
zealous private counsel ... several of Appellant's arguments on
appeal should be disregarded on preservation grounds. See Resp. Br. at
52-59. First, Appellant disputes that it has made any appellate
arguments
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01085680.pdf
EFTA00028929Set 8
2017-04-1334p8,953w
meeting was about Epstein only and had nothing
to do with Maxwell. Resp. at 89 & n.39. See Ex. J. AUSA notes refer to Maxwell as
Epstein's "head recruiter ... investigate Epstein, not
Maxwell," and that the discussion included only "passing references to Maxwell." Resp. at 89
n.39. The government bases this argument exclusively on a phone call prosecutors conducted ... witnesses constitute best evidence"). Although the government attached these notes to its
Response, Resp. Ex. 5, the government does not rely on them as part of its argument, choosing
instead
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00028929.pdf
EFTA01085764Set 9
33p6,903w
repeated statements
about the unreliability of the Probable Cause Affidavit as a "simple
misunderstanding." Resp. Br. at 47. While citing no change in
circumstance to justify such an abrupt ... EFTA01085769
prosecuted on the vast majority of allegations in the Probable Cause
Affidavit. See Resp. Br. at 47 (surmising, without basis, that the
hearing court determined "where zealous private counsel ... evidence at the hearing,
and the sufficiency of the hearing court's Order. See Resp. Br. at 52-57. But
contrary to the People's assertions, these issues were
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01085764.pdf
EFTA00622175Set 9
2005-02-1754p7,431w
Epstein. Response at 2. She then asserts that she has "no relationship" with Epstein.
Resp. at 2. But the support for the position turns out to be nothing other than ... been held
significantly close to tip the scales in favor of permitting the inference." Resp. at 3 (emphasis
added). Defendant conveniently overlooks, for example, cases in which co-conspirators'
invocations ... inference where the invoking non-party was the principal, not the agent."
Resp. at 4. But did discuss a comparable case — a case cited and discussed at
length in LiButti
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00622175.pdf