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

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

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

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

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

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