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

stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit

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

stoppel does not apply to them because the government has not established one of the elements of the three-part test examined in Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2013). D.E. 416 at 60. Specifically, petitioners contend the government has not demonstrated the second factor, that petit

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

F.2d 1324, 20 EFTA00299040 1325 (9th Cir. 1975). As this Court has recognized, "a contracting party is the paradigm of an indispensable party." HDR Engineering, Inc. v. R.C.T. Engineering, Inc., No. 08- 81040-CIV-ICAM, 2010 WL 2402908, *2 (S.D.Fla. June 15, 2010) (citation omitted). "Parties to a contract are ind