Epstein Secrets

d period, in and around January 2008, there can be no dispute that Epstein's attorneys aggressively sought review of the NPA at higher levels within the Department of Justice, seeking relief from the obligations Epstein had undertaken in that agreement. First, he raised challenges to the United States Attorney's exercise

anaged Care Litigation, 285 F.3d 971, 976 (11th Cir. 2002) rev'd on other grounds by PacifiCare Health Sys.. Inc.. Book, 538 U.S. 401 (2003), citing Tepper Realty Co. I. Mosaic Tile Co., 259 F.Supp. 688, 692 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). This case does not involve an arbitration clause which petitioners are seeking to evade,

d period, in and around January 2008, there can be no dispute that Epstein's attorneys aggressively sought review of the NPA at higher levels within the Department of Justice, seeking relief from the obligations Epstein had undertaken in that agreement. First, he raised challenges to the United States Attorney's exercise

naged Care Litigation 285 F.3d 971, 976 (11th Cir. 2002) rev'd on other grounds by PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 (2003), citing Tepper Realty Co. v. Mosaic Tile Co., 259 F.Supp. 688, 692 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). 24 EFTA00799848 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 408 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2017

d period, in and around January 2008, there can be no dispute that Epstein's attorneys aggressively sought review of the NPA at higher levels within the Department of Justice, seeking relief from the obligations Epstein had undertaken in that agreement. First, he raised challenges to the United States Attorney's exercise

naged Care Litigation 285 F.3d 971, 976 (11th Cir. 2002) rev'd on other grounds by PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 (2003), citing Tepper Realty Co. v. Mosaic Tile Co., 259 F.Supp. 688, 692 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). 24 EFTA00591485 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 401-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/201

n-prosecution agreements and requires that a crime victim be harmed by an offense that "is charged in Federal district court." (DE 403-15:1-2). The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") confirmed this view in 2010, noting that "the CVRA is best read as providing that the rights identified in section

ged Care Litigation, 285 F.3d 971, 976 (11th Cir. 2002), rev'd on other grounds, PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 (2003), quoting Tepper Realty Co. v. Mosaic Tile Co., 259 F. Supp. 688, 692 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). "Equitable estoppel precludes a party from claiming the benefits of a contract while si