Epstein Secrets

, Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 305.371.6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBlaciccom EFTA00213246 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. A. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 29, 2010 Page 2 Declaratory Judgment action asking the Court presiding over the Jane Doe 103 lawsuit to determine whether the raising

6 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. A. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 29, 2010 Page 2 Declaratory Judgme

13267 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Roy BLACK [[email protected] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:59 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Cc:

evard, Suite 1300. Miami. Florida 33131. Phone: 305-371-6421• Fax: 30S-1M-2DM • mw.RoyBlack.coni EFTA00194793 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. A. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 29, 2010 Page 2 Declaratory Judgment action asking the Court presiding over the Jane Doe 103 lawsuit to determine whether the raising

94814 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by

y Southern District of Florida 500 E. Broward Blvd, 7th Floor Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33394 Re: B.B. JEFFREY EPSTEIN OUR FILE NO.: 080303 Dear Ms. Villafana: As you are aware, this firm represents Plaintiff, Jane Doe, a/k/a/ B.B. in the civil litigation against Jeffrey Epstein styled B.B. I Jeffrey Epst

33509 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by