Epstein Secrets

the facts underlying them, we see nothing in the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office that gives us any reason to alter our opinion. Sincerely, John Roth Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General cc: Alex Acosta EFTA00208767 LAW OFFICES ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC MALL EN REBECCA& OETS

olations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(b). Since the limited review conducted by CEOS, two Supreme Court decisions—one authored by Justice Scalia and the other by Justice Thomas—have revitalized the bedrock principles that federal criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, that they may not

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

olations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(b). Since the limited review conducted by CEOS, two Supreme Court decisions—one authored by Justice Scalia and the other by Justice Thomas—have revitalized the bedrock principles that federal criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, that they may not

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

der the law that existed when the con uct took place has timeless and universal appeal." Kaiser Alum. & trt Corp . B mo 494 U.S. 827, 855 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring). Id. at 265 (footnote omitted). Courts therefore apply the statute in effect at the time of the underlying conduct unless there is