Epstein Secrets

on that either the earlier or later court was misled.5 731 F.3d at 1182. On September 18, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit issued its en banc decision in Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., -- F.3d --, 2017 WL 4110047 (11th Cir. Sep. 18, 2017)(en banc), which reexamined judicial estoppel jurisprudence in the Eleven

vicing. Id. at 1311. Green Tree Servicing filed a motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration, which the district court denied. Id. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found that, despite Mrs. Blinco's failure to sign the promissory note, she was nonetheless subject to the arbitration clause because she invoked th

ing name," claiming to be with the FBI. D.E. 310-1, 1 25. She states she did answer some basic questions, which is consistent with FBI Special Agent Slater's account. S/A Slater Declaration, D.E. 304-1, 1 7. She also admits that the conversation "probably didn't even last three minutes," D.E. 310-1, 1

criminal trial." Alcatel-Lucent 688 F.3d at 1306 (citing United States'. Johnson 983 F.2d 216, 219 (11th Cir. 1993)). Against this backdrop, where the Eleventh Circuit has determined that the CVRA must be strictly construed, this Court should decline to enlarge these proceedings to allow additional 3 Government E

ing name," claiming to be with the FBI. D.E. 310-1, ¶ 25. She states she did answer some basic questions, which is consistent with FBI Special Agent Slater's account. S/A Slater Declaration, D.E. 304-1, ¶ 7. She also admits that the conversation "probably didn't even last three minutes," D.E. 310-1, ¶

c. D.E. 310 at 15-16 citin International Broth. of Teamsters I. AFL-CIO, 32 F.R.D. 441, 442 (E.D.Mich. 1963). Since it is a precedential decision of the Eleventh Circuit, McLellan is binding authority. Accordingly, if the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are applied to petitioners' motion to add Jane Doe No. 3 and J

ing name," claiming to be with the FBI. D.E. 310-1, ¶ 25. She states she did answer some basic questions, which is consistent with FBI Special Agent Slater's account. S/A Slater Declaration, D.E. 304-1, ¶ 7. She also admits that the conversation 3 In her haste to justify her action in 2007, telling S/A

fic. D.E. 310 at 15-16, citing International Broth. of Teamsters'. AFL-CIO, 32 F.R.D. 441, 442 (E.D.Mich. 1963). Since it is a precedent decision of the Eleventh Circuit, McLellan is binding authority. Rule 15 governs petitioners' motion to add two new parties. II. PETITIONERS' MOTION TO AMEND THEIR PETITION SHOULD

on that either the earlier or later court was misled.5 731 F.3d at 1182. On September 18, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit issued its en banc decision in Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., -- F.3d --, 2017 WL 4110047 (11th Cir. Sep. 18, 2017)(en banc), which reexamined judicial estoppel jurisprudence in the Eleven

vicing. Id. at 1311. Green Tree Servicing filed a motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration, which the district court denied. Id. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit found that, despite Mrs. Blinco's failure to sign the promissory note, she was nonetheless subject to the arbitration clause because she invoked th

ith a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding." Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2002), overruled in part, Slater v. United States Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174, 1176-77 (11th Cir. 2017). It is "an equitable concept intended to prevent the perversion of the judicia

ed Mr. Epstein's rights and privileges, Mr. Epstein and his counsel intervened to assert their rights, both in the district court, and on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. See Doe No. 1, supra. That there would be no judgment against Mr. Epstein at the end of this CVRA litigation, however, was understood throughout t

. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 332 (1979). Epstein raises no suggestions that he has been denied that opportunity here. Epstein does point to the fact that the Eleventh Circuit has previously ruled in this case that he is not "an ordinary litigant." Jane Doe 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1005 (11th Cir. 2014). But that

istent position under oath in a separate proceeding, and (2) these inconsistent positions were calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system." Slater v. United States Steel Corp. 871 F.3d 1174, 1181 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted). It should be remembered that Jane Doe 1 and 2 were

. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 332 (1979). Epstein raises no suggestions that he has been denied that opportunity here. Epstein does point to the fact that the Eleventh Circuit has previously ruled in this case that he is not "an ordinary litigant." Jane Doe 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1005 (11th Cir. 2014). But that

istent position under oath in a separate proceeding, and (2) these inconsistent positions were calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system." Slater v. United States Steel Corp. 871 F.3d 1174, 1181 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted). It should be remembered that Jane Doe 1 and 2 were