Epstein Secrets

5. Since this involves a statutory interpretation issue, I am reluctant to start offering opinions on whether a breach of the Agreement occurs when Epstein argues that the current version of section 2255, with its floor of $150,000 in damages, does not apply to him. He may have agreed in negotiations t

to also include a response to his October 15, 2008 letter to me, which he filed with the court, which I have yet to SOD EFTA00190723 receive in the U.S. Mail. However, which version of 18 U.S.C. 2255 applies ($50,000 vs. $150,000) seems to be a question of retroactivity of the amendment. This is a civil

5. Since this involves a statutory interpretation issue, I am reluctant to start offering opinions on whether a breach of the Agreement occurs when Epstein argues that the current version of section 2255, with its floor of $150,000 in damages, does not apply to him. He may have agreed in negotiations t

to me. I was tempted to also include a response to his October 15, 2008 letter to me, which he filed with the court, which I have yet to receive in the U.S. Mail. However, which version of 18 U.S.C. 2255 applies ($50,000 vs. $150,000) seems to be a question of retroactivity of the amendment. This is a civil

5. Since this involves a statutory interpretation issue, I am reluctant to start offering opinions on whether a breach of the Agreement occurs when Epstein argues that the current version of section 2255, with its floor of $150,000 in damages, does not apply to him. He may have agreed in negotiations t

to me. I was tempted to also include a response to his October 15, 2008 letter to me, which he filed with the court, which I have yet to receive in the U.S. Mail. However, which version of 18 U.S.C. 2255 applies ($50,000 vs. $150,000) seems to be a question of retroactivity of the amendment. This is a civil r