Epstein Secrets

is not inconsistent with our belief that the required scope of waiver was to a predicate offense in the singular, see, e.g., Mr.Acosta's letter to Ken Starr, December 4, 2007, p.2 ("were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims would not have to show that g violation of an enumeration secti

t that the plaintiff was injured, see United States I. Scheidt, supra (finding each to be a separate element) and the letter from Mr. Acosta to Mr. Starr, supra December 4, 2007 letter at p.2 which agrees that Mr. Epstein can contest the injury element under the NPA ("were Mr. Epstein convicted at tr

could 'agree" to the occurrence of a predicate pursuant to his NPA obligations but still contest that the plaintiff was injured, see United States I. Scheidt, supra (finding each to be a separate element) and the letter from Mr. Acosta to Mr. Starr, supra December 4, 2007 letter at p.2 which agrees that

is not inconsistent with our belief that the required scope of waiver was to a predicate offense in the singular, see, e.g., Mr.Acosta's letter to Ken Starr, December 4, 2007, p.2 ("were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims would not have to show that a violation of an enumeration secti

est that the plaintiff was injured, see United Stated, Scheidt, supra (finding each to be a separate element) and the letter from Mr. Acosta to Mr. Starr, supra December 4, 2007 letter at p.2 which agrees that Mr. Epstein can contest the injury element under the NPA ("were Mr. Epstein convicted at tr

of the offense (e.g., 2004-5) govern the minimum statutory damage amount (t50,000 rather than $150,000) under ex post facto laws, see United States I. Scheidt, 2010 W.L. 144837 (E.D. Cal., 2010) (indicating that the statute in effect at the time of the violation governs the minimum damage remedy)? Black,

is not inconsistent with our belief that the required scope of waiver was to a predicate offense in the singular, see, e.g., Mr.Acosta's letter to Ken Starr, December 4, 2007, p.2 ("were Mr. Epstein convicted at trial, the plaintiff-victims would not have to show that a violation of an enumeration secti

e singular, see, e.g., Mr.Acosta's letter to Ken Starr, December 4, 2007, p.2 ("were Mr. Epstein convic

009); Doe No. 4'. Epstein 2009 WL 383286 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); and Poe No. 51. Epstein 2009 WL 383383 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); see also U.S. I. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010); U.S. I. Rain, 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (ED. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Ferenci, 2009 WL