Epstein Secrets

and agrees to comply with than. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UN: TED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: BY: Dated: Dated: Dated: ifrja JEFFREY EPSTEIN GERALD LF,FCOURT, &SQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTELN LILLY ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00229984 • • ..... . 1 lwm.+77 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5

ion Agreement and agrees to comply nith thorn. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: Dated: i_1" Dated: DOA EY: IkEISIET TNAD A GERALD LEFCOLIRT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN EFTA00229982 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-5 Entered

— Dated: Dated: By: ASSISTANT U.S. TEO GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANC

ould apply. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . .." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[i]f the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts have

bnick Komspan & Stumpf, Miami, FL; (3) Gerald B. Lefcourt, Law Office of Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C., New York

m multiple law firms, such as: (1) Jay P. Lefkowitz, Kirkland & Ellis, New York, NY; (2) Roy Black, Black Srebnick Komspan & Stumpf, Miami, FL; (3) Gerald B. Lefcourt, Law Office of Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C., New York, NY (4) Lilly Ann Sanchez, Fowler White Burnett, Miami, FL; (5) Jack A. Goldberger, Goldberger & W

opriate equitable 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 ha

alleged conduct. See, e.g., Letter from Gerald B. Lefcourt to a EFTA00299028 USAO-SDFL, June 25, 2007 (a

the many contradictory sworn statements and inconsistencies in the various witness accounts of Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct. See, e.g., Letter from Gerald B. Lefcourt to a EFTA00299028 USAO-SDFL, June 25, 2007 (attached as Exhibit 1). Those presentations also included detailed statutory analysis and discussion

of relief against Mr. Epstein.3 III. THE CVRA ITSELF DOES NOT AUTHORIZE IMPOSITION OF THE EPSTEIN REMEDIES Citing a line of cases beginning with Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), the Petitioners contend that the CVRA authorizes "the invalidation of an illegal non- prosecution agreement so that t