Epstein Secrets

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

olations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(b). Since the limited review conducted by CEOS, two Supreme Court decisions—one authored by Justice Scalia and the other by Justice Thomas—have revitalized the bedrock principles that federal criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, that they may not

dwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys for Jane Doe # I and Jane Doe # 2 Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. Attorneys for Intervenors 25 Government Exhibit A Case No. 08-Ki736-CIV-MARRA EFTA00210

There is no history of "any private prosecution of federal crimes." Young'. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Rs S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 816 n.2 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring). While victims clearly have an interest in the outcome of criminal litigation that deserves recognition, the Framers determined tha

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

olations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422(b) and 2423(b). Since the limited review conducted by CEOS, two Supreme Court decisions—one authored by Justice Scalia and the other by Justice Thomas--have revitalized the bedrock principles that federal criminal statutes must be narrowly construed, that they may no

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 This was postponed to allow plea negotiations and eventually was withdrawn pursuant to th

der the law that existed when the con uct took place has timeless and universal appeal." Kaiser Alum. & trt Corp . B mo 494 U.S. 827, 855 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring). Id. at 265 (footnote omitted). Courts therefore apply the statute in effect at the time of the underlying conduct unless there is

NICK, KORNSPAN & STUMPF, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 Office: (305) 371-6421 Fax: (305) 358-2006 By /S/ ROY BLACK, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 126088 JACKIE PERCZEK, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 0042201 23 EFTA00177962 Page I of 55 Westlaw Page I 531 F.3d 197 (Cite a

s should be proven to a jury in the same manner as the other elements of the crint Writing•for the majority in Sattazahn . Pennsylvania, Justice Scalia explained at before Ring, "capital-sentencing proceedings were un- derstood to be just that: sentencing pro- ceedings. " 537 U.S. 101, 110, 123 S.C