Epstein Secrets

736-KAM Document 416 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2017 Page 23 of 65 So far as appears in the available public materials, Senator Kyl's concern that the Justice Department's policy of conferring with victims about plea agreements before charges were filed would be a "dead letter" went unaddressed. Even today, the Justice

cted with the Justice Department's other statements on combatting sex abuse and trafficking. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. Delivers Remarks at Justice Department Event Marking National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month (Jan. 29, 2015) http:/Avww.justice.gov/opa/speech/attomey-general-eric-h- holder-jr-

are irrelevant, and we really hope he does not prove the point that a man can commit heinous crimes against children and buy his way out of it. If the Department of Justice's recent commitment to the protection of our children from child molesters is to be more than rhetoric, then this is the time and the case where the

both this CVRA action and the related civil suits. There is no concealment or unfairness that are the hallmarks for applying judicial estoppel. Cf. Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying doctrine in circumstances showing deliberate concealment of assets). The Supreme Court has clearly held "

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

ken by that party in a previous proceeding.' Judicial estoppel is an equitable concept intended to prevent the perversion of the judicial process." Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. 291 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Judicial estoppel prohibits "parties from deliberately changing positions according to the

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

el precludes a party from "asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with 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 e