Epstein Secrets

ot performing under the terms of the NPA. This tips the balance of equities even further in favor of the plaintiffs. Epstein makes allegations that the U.S. Attorney’s Office has unfettered discretion in determining breaches of the NPA, but this is no different than in any contractual setting. If one party believes that t

itutionality or even impropriety. Incendy at 956 (citing United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 11 (1970)). See also Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Wright, 261 Fed. Appx. 259, 263 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[N]o ‘special circumstances’ existed in this case warranting a stay, as there is no record evidence sugge

f the plaintiffs. Epstein makes allegations that the U.S. Attorney’s Office has unfettered discretion in determining breaches

70)). See also Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Wright, 261 Fed. Appx. 259, 263 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[N]o

ch effort was successful. See Correspondence from U.S. Attorney’s Office to Epstein (hereinafter “U.S. Attorney’s Correspo

her Florida state and federal courts. See, SCI Funeral Svs. of Fla., Inc. v. Henry, 839 So. 2d 702, n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“As the Levin court cited Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1984), with approval, presumably the cause of action for malicious prosecution continues to exist and