Epstein Secrets

in your office hopefully before the year ends. Roy Black RB/wg Enclosure Black, Srebnick. Komspan & Stu

ward. If you email me some dates when you are available this month, we can schedule a short meeting in your office hopefully before the year ends. Roy Black RB/wg Enclosure Black, Srebnick. Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. EFTA00225784 ROY BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK Scan' A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. STUMPF. MARIA NEYR

a short meeting in your office hopefully before the year ends. Roy Black RB/wg Enclosure Black, Srebnick. Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. EFTA00225784 ROY BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK Scan' A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. STUMPF. MARIA NEYRA JACKIE PERCZEK MARK A.J. SHAPIRO JARED LOPEZ BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN & STU

e of § 2423 Cases, ixhibit 30, and make this case more like Hansen Half, 291 U.S. 559 (1934), and Mortensen United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). In Hansen, the Supreme Court rejected charges against a woman traveling back to her home in the United States to "continue her irregular and improper conduct

tics in Disregard of the United States Attorney's Manual are Used 9. In June 2007, AUSA subpoenaed the investigating agent of Epstein's attorney, Roy Black, in a clear effort to invade the defense camp. The subpoena was specifically drafted to discover the investigator's contacts with all prospective wi

l court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing

d Tactics in Disregard of the United States Attorney's Manual are Used 9. In June 2007, subpoenaed the investigating agent of Epstein's attorney, Roy Black, in a clear effort to invade the defense camp. The subpoena was specifically drafted to discover the investigator's contacts with all prospective wi

court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seei

udge Marra also had scheduled a hearing on Epstein's motion to quash grand jury subpoenas for the computer equipment removed from Epstein's home by Roy Black's investigator when they learned of the stale investigation. This was postponed to allow plea negotiations and eventually was withdrawn pursuant to th

Page 28 of 36 the same act are intended to have the same meaning.") (quotation and citation omitted). Two Mann Act cases are particularly apt. In Hansen', Half, 291 U.S. 559 (1934), the Government charged the defendant with violating the Mann Act after she returned to the country with a man with who

l court decisions watering down the “for the purpose of “ requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing

s in Disregard of the United States Attorney’s Manual are Used In June 2007, AUSA Villafana subpoenaed the investigating agent of Epstein’s attomey, Roy Black, in a clear effort to invade the defense camp. The subpoena was specifically drafted to discover the investigator’s contacts, with all prospective wi