Epstein Secrets

er the agreement. The Circuit Court, just like the federal court, had no authority to judicially review the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Executive Branch of the federal government. The Circuit Court's inquiry on June 30, 2008 was limited to the pleas of guilty made by Epstein, and whether they 12 EF

on that either the earlier or later court was misled.5 731 F.3d at 1182. On September 18, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit issued its en banc decision in Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., -- F.3d --, 2017 WL 4110047 (11th Cir. Sep. 18, 2017)(en banc), which reexamined judicial estoppel jurisprudence in the Eleven

rri Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193, 202-03 (1979). The Constitution places the power to prosecute crimes in the hands of disinterested public officials in the Executive Branch. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 3 (duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"); United States'. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 467 (1996) ("powe

ing name," claiming to be with the FBI. D.E. 310-1, 1 25. She states she did answer some basic questions, which is consistent with FBI Special Agent Slater's account. S/A Slater Declaration, D.E. 304-1, 1 7. She also admits that the conversation "probably didn't even last three minutes," D.E. 310-1, 1

er the agreement. The Circuit Court, just like the federal court, had no authority to judicially review the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Executive Branch of the federal government. The Circuit Court's inquiry on June 30, 2008 was limited to the pleas of guilty made by Epstein, and whether they 12 EF

on that either the earlier or later court was misled.5 731 F.3d at 1182. On September 18, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit issued its en banc decision in Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., -- F.3d --, 2017 WL 4110047 (11th Cir. Sep. 18, 2017)(en banc), which reexamined judicial estoppel jurisprudence in the Eleven

orney General were consulted, received legal submissions, and fully approved the exercise of discretion by the heads of the USAO-SDFL. In the end, the Executive Branch exercised, in good faith, the unreviewable prosecutorial discretion afforded to it by Article II of the Constitution, as even recognized by Congres

ith a claim 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 judicia