Epstein Secrets

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

tage by litigation on one theory, and then seek an inconsistent advantage by pursuing an incompatible theory." Slater, 871 F.3d at 1180-81, quoting Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co., 81 F.3d 355, 358 (3d Cir. 1996). The Eleventh Circuit "employs a two-part test to guide district courts in applying

ents regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Leflcowitz, 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 EFTA00799828 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume

ity and/or detrimental reliance are often present in judicial estoppel cases, they are not required.'" Burnes 291 F.3d at 1286 (citations omitted); Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co., 81 27 EFTA00799851 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 408 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2017 Page 28 of 32 There is a

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

vity and/or detrimental reliance are often present in judicial estoppel cases, they are not required." Burnes 291 F.3d at 1286 (citations omitted); Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co., 81 27 EFTA00591488 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 401-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 29 of 33 There i