Epstein Secrets

58-59, 89-90). Petitioners leveraged the NPA to their advantage by arguing that it precluded Mr. Epstein from contesting liability. See Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1002 (11'h Cir. 2014) ("As a basis for relief against Epstein in the civil suit, the victims relied on Epstein's waiver of his right

y stems from the Constitution's delegation of "take Care" duties, U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, and the pardon power, id. § 2, to the Executive Branch. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 . . . (1996); In re Aiken Cnty., 725 F.3d 255, 262-63 (D.C.Cir.2013). Decisions to initiate charges, or to dismiss

m 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 equitable concept intended to prevent the perversion of the judicial SO EFTA00299070 process

his lawyers signed the NPA, which itself provided that "[t]he parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States received a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstei

ition under oath in a separate proceeding, and (2) these inconsistent positions were calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system." Slater v. United States Steel Corp. 871 F.3d 1174, 1181 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted). It should be remembered that Jane Doe 1 and 2 were confronting unprecedented sec

his lawyers signed the NPA, which itself provided that "[t]he parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States received a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstei

ition under oath in a separate proceeding, and (2) these inconsistent positions were calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system." Slater v. United States Steel Corp. 871 F.3d 1174, 1181 (11th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted). It should be remembered that Jane Doe 1 and 2 were confronting unprecedented sec