Epstein Secrets

tions to the victims — and having induced reliance by the victims - the Government is stopped from taking a different position now. As explained by the Eleventh Circuit, to make out a claim of estoppel against the Government, a party must adduce evidence of the following: (1) words, conduct, or acquiescence that in

is no way of knowing whether the State would have offered a plea bargain within the proper range of punishment that he deemed acceptable"); State.. Mazzone, W.Va. 368, 572 S.E.2d 891, 897 (2002) (where plea agreement was that defendant would plead guilty to 2 felony counts of felon in possession of fi

intentions, partial rescission would pose a significant risk of harm to certain victims, which must be considered in crafting an equitable remedy. The Eleventh Circuit has admonished courts considering equitable remedies to "bear in mind that a poorly crafted remedy may achieve justice for one by working a substan

l plea agreement); State v. Wall, 502 S.E.2d 585, 588 (N.C. 1998) (same); Ex parte Rich,194 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (same); State v. Mazzone, 572 S.E.2d 891, 897 (W.Va. 2002) ("[A] plea agreement which cannot be fulfilled based upon legal impossibility must be vacated in its entirety.").

. 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

tive one); Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (court cannot enforce an illegal sentence below the statutory range); State v. Mazzone, 212 W.Va. 368, 374 (2002) (court would not enforce plea agreement that called for court to unlawfully sentence the defendant by treating two misdem

. 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

tive one); Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (court cannot enforce an illegal sentence below the statutory range); State v. Mazzone, 212 W.Va. 368, 374 (2002) (court would not enforce plea agreement that called for court to unlawfully sentence the defendant by treating two misdem