Epstein Secrets

here is no support for CEOS's view that the courts or a jury should ultimately decide whether a "novel" construction of the law is correct. Instead, the Executive Branch itself has a non-delegable obligation not to exceed its authority; the power of other branches to check or remedy such usurpation does not legitimi

Madly (213) 680-8440 [email protected] 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 (213)680'8400 www.kirkland.com June 19,2008 John Roth, Esq. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Aven

orney General were consulted, received legal submissions, and fully approved the exercise of discretion by the heads of the USAO-SDFL. In the end, the Executive Branch exercised, in good faith, the unreviewable prosecutorial discretion afforded to it by Article II of the Constitution, as even recognized by Congres

r. Epstein's alleged conduct. See Lefcourt Letter (Exhibit 1); see also Letter from Stephanie D. Thacker, former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, to John Roth, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General, June 19, 2008 (attached as Exhibit ) (noting that "[t]his is a case about purely local activity, involv

th Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Kenneth W. Starr : To Call Writer Directly: FP Facsimile: www.kirkland.com Dir. Fax: June 19, 2008 John Roth, Esq. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue

There is no support for CEOS’s view that the courts or a jury should ultimately decide whether a “novel” construction of the law is correct. Instead, the Executive Branch itself has a non-delegable obligation not to exceed its authority; the power of other branches to check or remedy such usurpation does not legitimize