Epstein Secrets

and comply with the letter and spirit of the NPA. As to the third item, we have reviewed your letter to Mr. Sloman of February 8, 2010. While Mr. Acosta did state in his letter of December 19, 2007, that he did not believe that the Office was EFTA00183808 ROY BLACK, ESQ. FEBRUARY 11, 2010 PAGE 2

e.g., letters from Jay Lefkowitz to Black. Srebnick. Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A EFTA00183814 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Esq. , Esq. March 5, 2010 Page 4 Alex Acosta October 10, 2007, p.4 and November 29, 2007, p.2. Again, we are only requesting that you inform us whether in the event Mr. Epstein did not contest

ng are in effect asking courts to alter that language, and lijourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of Ethel provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1 187." See also Dodd U S , 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. Title 18 o

he SDFL offered, in my opinion, numerous and various reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimatel resulted in United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to . In that letter, the United States Attorney tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite y, e DFL was not obligated t

s Chief of Staff.' Above Mr. in the SDFL's chain of command were 1 Criminal Division Chief, First Assistant USA Sloman and finally, U.S. Attorney Acosta. Prior to seeking approval to return an indictment, Epstein's legal team had been actively working to convince this Office that such action was not

of how fairly to implement the § 2255 portions of the Agreement so that real victims, if any. who in filet sutkred "personal injury as a result of Ethel violation"' if any of specified federal criminal statutes such as I X U.S.C. § 2422(h) arc placed in the same position as if there had been a tria

Attorney Southern District of Florida ALUMDIelt ACOSTA 9r N.E 4 SInvr WINO rt4163.4710RNRY Mato. Ml.

of how birly to implement the § 2255 portions of the iNgretanent so that real victims, if any. who in bet suffered -personal injury as a result of Ethel violation- if any of specified federal criminal statutes such as 1X U.S.C. § 2422(h) are placed in the same position as if there had been a trial