Epstein Secrets

ce from your office 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 o

litigate, see, e.g., letters from Jay Lefkowitz to Black. Srebnick. Korrtspan & Stumpf. P.A. EFTA00722001 Jeff Sloman . 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

govern the minimum statutory damage amount ($50,000 rather than $150,000) under ex post facto laws, see United States v. 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. Srebnick. Komspan & Stumpf.

ce from your office 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 o

fkowitz to Mack. Srebnick. Komspan & Stumpf. P.A. EFTA00213281 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. Marie Villafana, 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

govern the minimum statutory damage amount ($50,000 rather than $150,000) under ex post facto laws, see United States v. 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. Srebnick. Komspan & Stump& P

ce from your office 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 o

fkowitz to Mack. Srebnick. Komspan & Stumpf. P.A. EFTA00189957 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. Marie Villafana, 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

govern the minimum statutory damage amount ($50,000 rather than $150,000) under ex post facto laws, see United States'. 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. Srebnick. Komspan & Stump& P

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 EFTA00194762 ROY BLACK, ESQ. FEBRUARY 11, 2010 PAGE 2

kowitz to Black. Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A EFTA00194768 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. Marie Villafana, 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

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, Srebnick. Komspan & Stumpf,

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

) govern the minimum statutory damage amount ( 50,000 rather than $150,000) under ex post facto laws, see United States 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. SrebnIck, Kornspan & Stumpf.