Epstein Secrets

aware, its handling of this case was recently an issue discussed by the United States Senate, when the U.S. Attorney who handled the Epstein case (Alexander Acosta) came before the Senate to be confirmed as the Secretary of Labor. Mr. Acosta was asked a number of questions about his handling of this case and,

enate, when the U.S. Attorney who handled the Epstein case (Alexander Acosta) came before the Senate to be confirmed as the Secretary of Labor. Mr. Acosta was asked a number of questions about his handling of this case and, ultimately, Senator Feinstein was compelled to vote against Mr. Acosta's nomin

is communicated to the identified individuals at this most critical stage." DE 361 at 23,1 61. And ultimately, it is undisputed that U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta assured Epstein's defense counsel that his "Office would not . . . contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civ

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 "

ions, including but not limited to: R. Alexander Acosta (U.S. Attorney), Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant

lated federal law. The USAO- SDFL investigation was led by honorable federal prosecutors with outstanding reputations, including but not limited to: R. Alexander Acosta (U.S. Attorney), Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant U.S. Attorney), Matthew Menchel (Chief, Criminal Division), Andrew Lourie (Deputy Chief, Northern

ial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction."). The notion that "well-connected lawyers corrupted [] then-U.S Attorney Alex Acosta and his team into giving Epstein a sweetheart deal" has been soundly debunked; 11 EFTA00299031 there is no such evidence — NONE. Sloman, Alex Aco

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

ments regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at 9-15. 4 EFTA00591465 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume

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