Epstein Secrets

and agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: 77a9-- Dated: Dated: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 it. EFTA00233437 By signing this agreement,

- Dated: Dated: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANC

o be interpreted in I favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United States Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476, 485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857 (1917); McBoyle . United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931); United States'. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347-349, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (197

See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from I. to G. Lefcourt ("In other words, if the sex offense case is res

ill understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.'" Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 703 (2005) (quoting McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931)) (citation omitted). Two recent Supreme Court decisions dramatically underscore these principles and help

will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.”” Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 703 (2005) (quoting McBoyle v. United States, 283 USS. 25, 27 (1931)) (citation omitted), Two recent Supreme Court decisions dramatically underscore these principles and help t

3, August 16, 2007 Letter from M. Villafana to G. Lefcourt (“In other words, if the sex offense case is reso