Epstein Secrets

m to be. It should be noted that the SDFL has never provided you with any evidence supporting its investigation. This is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970)). Ultimately, you requested an independent review. Subsequent to th

intend to respond to your e-mai or ca him otherwise. Furthermore, you make reference to' our uy ea ne." Respectfully, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") has never agreed to any such deadline. Should you decide to provide the SDFL with an additional information, please do so throug and, in

m to be, It should be noted that the SDFL has never provided you with any evidence supporting its investigation. This is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct: 160 (1970)). Ultimately, you requested an independent review. Subsequent to the

and/or her supervisors advise him otherwise. Furthermore, you make reference to "our July 8 deadline." Respectfully, thc United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") has never agreed to any such deadline. Should to provide the SDK. with ssa itditional information, please do so through AUSA , and, in

m to be. It should be noted that the SDFL has never provided you with any evidence supporting its investigation. This is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina'. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 5.O. 160 (1970)). Ultimately, you requested an independent review. Subsequent to the

nle /or her supervisors advise him otherwise. Furthermore, you make reference to "our July 8 deadline." Respectfully, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") has never agreed to any such deadline. Should you decide to provide the SD v additional information, please do so timuge nd, in her absen

m to be. It should be noted that the SDFL.has never provided you with any evidence supporting its investigation. This is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970)). Ultimately, you requested an independent review. Subsequent to the

and/or her supetvisors advise him otherwise. Furthermore, you make reference to “our July 8 deadline.” Respectfully, the United _ States.Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“SDFL”) has never agreed to any such deadline. Should you decide to provide the SDFL with any additional information, please do so through AUSA Vil

em to be, It should be noted that the SDFL has never provided you with any evidence supportig its investigation. This is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970)). Ultimately, you requested an independent review. Subsequent to the

a and/or her supervisors advise him otherwise. Furthermore, you make reference to "our July 8 deadline." Respectfully, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") has never agreed to any such deadline. Should you decide to provide the SDFL with any additional information, please do so through AUSA Vi

them to be, It should be noted that the SDFL has never provided you with any evidence suppolg its investigation. This is not, and has never been, an Alford plea situation (see North Carolina Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct: 160 (1970)). Ultimately, you requested an independent review. Subsequent to the

a and/or her supervisors advise him otherwise. Furthermore, you make reference to "our July 8 deadline." Respectfully, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") has never agreed to any such deadline. Should you decide to provide the SDFL with any additional information, please do so through AUSA Vi