Epstein Secrets

willful breach. Paragraph 8 and its waiver provisions are not clear (or as stated by Mr. Acosta are "far from simple," see Mr. Acosta letter to Ms. Sanchez, December 19, 2007). Paragraph 8 does not "speak for itself." That the provisions of ¶8 are "far from simple" is illustrated in the construction of

ng are in effect asking courts to alter that language, and lijourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of Ethel provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1 187." See also Dodd U S , 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. Title 18 o

ntent to perform the busi- ness of the employer and, as such, is not within the scope of employment" Fitzger- ald, 410 Aid at 1272. For example, in Sanchez by Rivera v. Montanez, 165 Pa. Cmwlth. 381, 645 Aid 383 (1994), a child and his parents sued a community action agency, alleging that the agency w

of compulsory process, and thus are difficult to identify or interview," such that "(lequiring extensive investigation would defeat the purpose of Ethel motion." Id. Of course, the movant must provide "enough information to enable the District Court to balance the parties' interests." Id. The court

./ember 19, 2007 DELIVERY BY Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Briekell 14th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Sanchez.: I write to follow up on the December le' meeting between defense counsel and the Epstein prosecutors, as welt es our First Assistant, the Miami F

of how birly to implement the § 2255 portions of the iNgretanent so that real victims, if any. who in bet suffered -personal injury as a result of Ethel violation- if any of specified federal criminal statutes such as 1X U.S.C. § 2422(h) are placed in the same position as if there had been a trial

nditions of the Agreement, including plea, sentence, and incarceration, as modified by the United States Attorney's December 19, 2007 letter to Ms. Sanchez by the SDFL will elect to terminate the Agreement. background The Agreement was the product of months of negotiations. Specifically, you requeste

of how fairly to implement the § 2255 portions of the Agreement so that real victims, if any. who in filet sutkred "personal injury as a result of Ethel violation"' if any of specified federal criminal statutes such as I X U.S.C. § 2422(h) arc placed in the same position as if there had been a tria