Epstein Secrets

criminal statute could support both a narrow or broad application of the federal criminal law, "the tie must go to the defendant." United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. and Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S (June 2, 2008), Slip Op. at 6. 2 February 25, 2003 Trafficking in Persons National Security Presi

AO to do so, it is not in accord with the principles of justice. Indeed, as noted, just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court underscored this point in Santos and Cuellar. The Court made clear that prosecutorial discretion does not provide the USAO cart blanche to expand criminal statutes as they seek to

800 CHARLESTON. WEST VIRGINIA 25301 June 19, 2008 Mr. John Roth Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Mr. Roth: TELEPHONE FACSWIL.MMI WRITER'S DIRECT OK e•fiella I write to offer my rea

ecution 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 criminal law—powerfully demonst

AO to do so, it is not in accord with the principles of justice. Indeed, as noted, just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court underscored this point in Santos and Cuellar. The Court made clear that prosecutorial discretion does not provide the USAO cart blanche to expand criminal statutes as they seek to

O. rADEARY e. MoVEY CS COUNSEL DOWSE MOIJCH June 19, 2008 Mr. Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice Dear Mr. Roth: TELEPHONE FACSRA.MIMI WRITER'S DIRECT ORR 1 write to offer my reaction to the May 15, 2008 correspondence from the United States

ecution 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 criminal law—powerfully demonst

(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 Avenue, N.W., Room 4115 Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Mr. Roth: Facsimile: (213) 6804500 Dir. Fax: (213) 6804500 I again want t

ecution 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 criminal law—powerfully demonst

Los Angeles, California 90017 www.kirkland.com June 19, 2008 Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 4115 Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Facsimilo: Dir. Fax: I again want to thank you for this opportunity to exp

ecution 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 criminal law—powerfully demonst

alifornia 90017 (213) 680-8400 www.kirkland.com June 19, 2008 Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 4115 Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Mr. Roth: Facsimile: (213) 680.8500 Dir. Fax: (213)680-8500 I again want