Epstein Secrets

Golinkin, Sandy 220-E 72nd Apt 17C Goess, Pilar OQ 43 1 505 1775 00 43 1 713 3905 00 33 1 47223ta7 oo 16 4453 ?egde:killen 505 946 3643 (w) Gomez, Thomas 220 E. 65th Street 001 EFTA00191493 a Graft Fogsois 721 Madison Ave. NY 020 ,18~ w) (Hm)6157 new bond Street w London 3SJ atr4 b28

AND_ al Air Center Helicopter 77 ;5-7335 Nicholas & Tina 774-09M home 90-1012/11 cell Christopher Taxi 90-1581 reel° ia 6777-5092 (home) Cox, Madison mwww, Cox Design. Inc. 220 West 19th Street 9M Poor 10011 or) n adisontox.00m 01121263 26-V21 Mor000 p 917 495 Epstein, Jeffrey LS.i I00

oid the interpretation that "engenders constitutional issues if a reasonable alternative interpretation poses no constitutional question." See C a Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 864, 109 S. Ct. 2237, 2241, 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989). Therefore, Judge Newsom's interpretation should be adopted. Thi

itable remedy"). Furthermore, it has long been an "indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (quoting 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *23). For that reason, "[w]here legal rights have been inv

ority's post-charge model avoids those problems, the Court is compelled by the canon of constitutional avoidance to adopt the latter model. See?. Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 864, 109 S. Ct. 2237, 2241, 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989) ("It is our settled policy to avoid an interpretation of a feder

90, 99 S.Ct. 1946. And "it is a general and indisputable rule[ ] that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy." I I Marbuty v. Madison, 5 U.S. (I Cranch) 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (quoting 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *23). I agree with the Majority, however, that the prese