Epstein Secrets

atement reveals how inapposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal

erson ..."). § 2423(b) is not such a statute. Federal court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak l

Madly (213) 680-8440 [email protected] 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 (213)680'8400 www.kirkland.com June 19,2008 John Roth, Esq. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Aven

is alleged crimes. Applying Masha's Law thereby would revive Defendant's exposure to penalties in direct contravention of the Ex Post Facto clause. The Supreme Court's decision in California Stogner 539 U.S. 607 (2003), perfectly illustrates the point. In Stegner, the defendant was charged in 1998 based on sex cri

was prepared again, and was reviewed in anticipation of presentation to the grand jury. On June 23, 2008, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General John Roth denied the various appeals of Epstein's attorneys and wrote, "Even if we were to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe

nvestigation doesn't rise to the level of a federal obstruction which requires the pendency or the foreseeability of a federal investigation under the Supreme Court's decision in Aguilar, A-g-u-i-l-a-r, a judge in California. We just contend that even when you look backwards to whether this constitutes an obstru

. Again, I may be butchering his name. THE COURT: That's his last name? MR. : That's his last name. Mark I think is his first name. He assigned John Roth, who was a former Florida prosecutor and was his deputy or the deputy to the Deputy Attorney General. And Mr. Roth received further written submis

nvestigation doesn't rise to the level of a federal obstruction which requires the pendency or the foreseeability of a federal investigation under the Supreme Court's decision in Aguilar, A-g-u-i-l-a-r, a judge in California. We just contend that even when you look backwards to whether this constitutes an obstru

. Again, I may be butchering his name. THE COURT: That's his last name? MR. : That's his last name. Mark I think is his first name. He assigned John Roth, who was a former Florida prosecutor and was his deputy or the deputy to the Deputy Attorney General. And Mr. Roth received further written submis

th Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Kenneth W. Starr : To Call Writer Directly: FP Facsimile: www.kirkland.com Dir. Fax: June 19, 2008 John Roth, Esq. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue

tatement reveals how inapposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court’s very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court’s interpretive methodology when it comes to federal c