Epstein Secrets

! IN FLORIDA AND COLORADO Roy Black, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Ptumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 March 4, 2010 Martin G. Weinberg, Esq. Martin G. Weinberg, PC 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 ADELCOJI J. BENAVENTE PAPALEGAL/INVISTIOATOR JESSICA CADWELL BOBBIE M.

MCKENNA ASHLIE STOKEN•BARINO BETTY STOKES PARALEGALS RJTA H. BIJDNYK Of COUNSEL EDWARD M. RICCI OE COUNSEL Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Roy and Marty: This letter represents my thoughts on issues concerning the NPA and my ability to fully defend Mr. Epstein in the civil case recently filed by Mr.

her discussions. Respectfully submitted, MARTIN WEINBERG, ESQ. ROY SLACK, ESQ. /wg cc: Jeffrey Sloman,

wsuit - you would nevertheless believe that the raising of any of the legal arguments outlined above would violate the NPA Respectfully submitted, MARTIN W BERG, ESQ. ROY B CK, SQ. /wg By Black. Srebnick. Komspan & Stumpf. PA EFTA00194769 BURMAN, CRITTON LUTTIER&COLEMAN,ar YOUR TRUSTED ADVOCATES A

t that the statute is to apply retroactively, and, accordingly, the statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct is to apply. Landgraf USI Film Products supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any application to

wsuit - you would nevertheless believe that the raising of any of the legal arguments outlined above would violate the NPA Respectfully submitted, MARTIN W BERG, ESQ. ROY B CK, SQ. /wg By Black. Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf. PA EFTA00183815 BURMAN, CRITTON LUTTIER&COLEMAN, LLP YOUR TRUSTED ADVOCATES

IN FLORIDA AND COLORADO Roy Black, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Ptumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 March 4, 2010 Martin G. Weinberg, Esq. Martin G. Weinberg, PC 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 ADELCW I J. BENAVENTE PARATEGAViNVESSIGATOR JESSICA CADWELL BOBBIE M.

MCKENNA ASHLIE STOKEN-BARING BETTY STOKES PARALLOALS RITA H. BUONYK OF COUNSEL EDWARD M. RICCI OF COUNSEL Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Roy and Marty: This letter represents my thoughts on issues concerning the NPA and my ability to fully defend Mr. Epstein in the civil case recently filed by Mr.

her discussions. Respectfully submitted, MARTIN WEINBERG, ESQ. ROY LACK, ESQ. By /wg cc: , Esq. Rob

t that the statute is to apply retroactively, and, accordingly, the statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct is to apply. landgraf USI Film Products supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any application to

tson, 599 F.2d 1149 (2d Cir. 1979) 78 United States v. Wedd, No. 15 Cr. 616 (KBF), 2016 WL 1055737 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10,2016) 271 United States v. Weiner, 479 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973) 187 United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980) 205,206,208,223 United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611 (A

779314 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) .Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungvs v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgralv. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martin

son, 599 F.2d 1149 (2d Cir. 1979) 78 United States v. Wedd, No. 15 Cr. 616 (KBF), 2016 WL 1055737 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2016) 271 United States v. Weiner, 479 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973) 187 United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980) 205, 206, 208, 223 United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611

14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) 111 Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Marti

son, 599 F.2d 1149 (2d Cir. 1979) 78 United States v. Wedd, No. 15 Cr. 616 (KBF), 2016 WL 1055737 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2016) 271 United States v. Weiner, 479 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973) 187 United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980) 205, 206, 208, 223 United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611

14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) 111 Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Marti

. 2018) 105 United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181 (1977) 96, 97 United States v. Watson, 599 F.2d 1149 (2d Cir. 1979) 53 United States v. Weiner, 479 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973) 125 United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980) 138, 139, 140, 149 United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611

v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 624-30 (E.D. Va. 2019) (holding that the 2003 amendment of § 3283 applies to pre-enactment conduct). In Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994), the Supreme Court set forth a two-part framework for determining whether a statute applies retroactively. At step one of the

son, 599 F.2d 1149 (2d Cir. 1979) 78 United States v. Wedd, No. 15 Cr. 616 (KBF), 2016 WL 1055737 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2016) 271 United States v. Weiner, 479 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973) 187 United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980) 205, 206, 208, 223 United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611

4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) 111 Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martin