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

ged Care Litigation, 285 F.3d 971, 976 (11th Cir. 2002), rev'd on other grounds, PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 (2003), quoting Tepper Realty Co. v. Mosaic Tile Co., 259 F. Supp. 688, 692 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). "Equitable estoppel precludes a party from claiming the benefits of a contract while si

that "[w]hether to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor's discretion," United States I. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979), and the CVRA explicitly states that "[n]othing in th[e] [Act] shall be construed to impair the prosecutoria

anaged Care Litigation, 285 F.3d 971, 976 (11th Cir. 2002) rev'd on other grounds by PacifiCare Health Sys.. Inc.. Book, 538 U.S. 401 (2003), citing Tepper Realty Co. I. Mosaic Tile Co., 259 F.Supp. 688, 692 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). This case does not involve an arbitration clause which petitioners are seeking to evade,

that "[w]hether to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor's discretion " United States v. Batchelder 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979), and the CVRA explicitly states that "[n]othing in th[e] [Act] shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial

naged Care Litigation 285 F.3d 971, 976 (11th Cir. 2002) rev'd on other grounds by PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 (2003), citing Tepper Realty Co. v. Mosaic Tile Co., 259 F.Supp. 688, 692 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). 24 EFTA00799848 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 408 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2017

that "[w]hether to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor's discretion " United States v. Batchelder 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979), and the CVRA explicitly states that "[n]othing in th[e] [Act] shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial

naged Care Litigation 285 F.3d 971, 976 (11th Cir. 2002) rev'd on other grounds by PacifiCare Health Sys., Inc. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401 (2003), citing Tepper Realty Co. v. Mosaic Tile Co., 259 F.Supp. 688, 692 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). 24 EFTA00591485 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 401-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/201