Epstein Secrets

ney Alex Acosta and his team into giving Epstein a sweetheart deal" has been soundly debunked; 11 EFTA00299031 there is no such evidence — NONE. Sloman, Alex Acosta Acted with Professionalism, Miami Herald Op-Ed, supra. The NPA was and is a valid and binding agreement. It contains no illegal provis

estigation was led by honorable federal prosecutors with outstanding reputations, including but not limited to: R. Alexander Acosta (U.S. Attorney), Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant U.S. Attorney), Matthew Menchel (Chief, Criminal Division), Andrew Lourie (Deputy Chief, Northern Region), and AUSA Anna Marie Vil

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

d their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email from Sloman to Lefkowitz. Epstein's attorneys responded by citing to the Attorney General's Guidelines provision stating that there must be a charge filed in a

her the victims should be notified, despite the absence of a federal charge being filed. Indeed, on November 27, 2007, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman advised Jay Lefkowitz by email that the Justice for All Act of 2004 obligated the United States to "notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming

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

d their rights associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email from Sloman to Lefkowitz. Epstein's attorneys responded by citing to the Attorney General's Guidelines provision stating that there must be a charge filed in a

her the victims should be notified, despite the absence of a federal charge being filed. Indeed, on November 27, 2007, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman advised Jay Lefkowitz by email that the Justice for All Act of 2004 obligated the United States to "notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming

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