Epstein Secrets

April 27, 2011 JEFFREY E EPSTEIN 6100 RED HOOK QUARTERS , SUITE B3 ST THOMAS , VIRGIN ISLANDS 00802 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 9 E 71ST ST NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021-4102 JEFFREY EPSTEIN D

ED HOOK QUARTERS , SUITE B3 ST THOMAS , VIRGIN ISLANDS 00802 JEFFREY EPSTEIN 9 E 71ST ST NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021-4102 JEFFREY EPSTEIN Dear Mr. Epstein: RECEIVED LSJ, LLC Several of us are wanting to challenge the registry especially the addition of restrictions to our lives. This will be a fight

April 27, 2011 JEFFREY E EPSTEIN 6100 RED HOOK QUARTERS , SUITE B3 ST TH

YORK, NEW YORK 10021-4102 JEFFREY EPSTEIN Dear Mr. Epstein: RECEIVED LSJ, LLC Several of us are wanting t

ve sentencing. This will directly affect you as the state has been able to add additional restrictions at will to all sex offenders. This will be an Ex Post Facto fight For Sex Offenders as mentioned on http://www.pattisblog.com Article Time to Revisit Ex Post Facto Cause for S'x Offenders. We are att

me, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge the defendant with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.i ARGUMENT I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case The defendant seeks to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement ("NPA"

in illegal sex acts, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count Three charges the defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charges the defendant with transporti

NARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant

f America Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00102999 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case 3 A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York 4 1. The Text of the Agreement

d the Ex Post Facto Clause. But that is not the law. See Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d at 630 (rejecting the argument that "there is `daylight' between the Ex Post 34 EFTA00103059 Facto Clause and Landgraf s second step."). Maxwell cites no precedent for the proposition that, in the criminal context, much l

e, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge the defendant with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. 1 ARGUMENT I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case The defendant seeks to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement ("NPA"

in illegal sex acts, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count Three charges the defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charges the defendant with transporti

NARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant

f America Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00099941 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case. 3 A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New Yolk 4 1. The Text of the Agreement

d the Ex Post Facto Clause. But that is not the law. See Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d at 630 (rejecting the argument that "there is `daylight' between the Ex Post 34 EFTA00100001 Facto Clause and Landgraf s second step."). Maxwell cites no precedent for the proposition that, in the criminal context, much l