Epstein Secrets

that Mr. Epstein will act in good faith and comply with the letter and spirit of the NPA. As to the third item, we have reviewed your letter to Mr. Sloman of February 8, 2010. While Mr. Acosta did state in his letter of December 19, 2007, that he did not believe that the Office was EFTA00194762 ROY

st merely of a notification and will neither encourage nor discourage attendance or submission of materials related to the application. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman United States Attorney By: s/A. Marie Villafafia A. Marie Villafafia Assistant United States Attorney cc: Jeffrey H. Sloman, U.S. Attorney Ro

consider 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 • Miami, Florida 33131 • Phone: 305-371.6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006. wiinv.Royelack.com EFTA00194766 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 5, 2010 Page 2 responsive motions that relate to the scope of waiver of liability that is me

te, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

that Mr. Epstein will act in good faith and comply with the letter and spirit of the NPA. As to the third item, we have reviewed your letter to Mr. Sloman of February 8, 2010. While Mr. Acosta did state in his letter of December 19, 2007, that he did not believe that the Office was EFTA00183808 ROY

st merely of a notification and will neither encourage nor discourage attendance or submission of materials related to the application. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Sloman United States Attorney By: s/A. Villa afia A. Assistant United States Attorney cc: Jeffrey H. Sloman, U.S. Attorney Robert K. Senior, Acting

consider 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 30S-371.6421 • Fax: 305-358-2006 • suww.RoyBlack.com EFTA00183812 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Esq. , Esq. March 5, 2010 Page 2 responsive motions that relate to the scope of waiver of liability that is memorialized in the NPA. Add

, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United Statcs I. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in

he FBI commenced its own investigation, then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District ofFlorida, Alexander Acosta, asked First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman whether it was “appropriate to approach [State Attorney Krischer] and give him a heads up re where we might go?” Sloman replied, “No for fear that it

y constitutional free speech principles, as a testifying grand jury witness is free to disclose her grand jury testimony . In I Butterworth v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court, weighing the competing interests of grand jury secrecy and the First Amendment, held unconstitutional Section 905;.27’s prohibition on a witness rev

ROY BIACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK SCOTT A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. srumpt. MARIA NEYRA JACKIE PERCZEK MARK A.J. SHAPIRO JARED LOPEZ Jeff Sloman, Esq. United States Attorney 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN STUMPF - P.A. March 29, 2010 Assistant United Stat

e, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

ROY BIACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK Scott A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. STUMPF MARIA NEYRA JACKIE PERCZEK MARK A.J. SHAPIRO JARED LOPEZ Jeff Sloman, Esq. United States Attorney 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN STUMPF P.A. JESSICA FONSECA-NADER KAntutEn P. RIILU

e, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

gainst me during the negotiations. Q. Is this part of your work product that you're waiving right now? MR. SWEDER: No, no. A. My conversation with Jeffrey Sloman is not work product. MR. SCOTT: Here's a -- BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. What is the work product -- MR. SCOTT: Excuse me. Please review wo MwA HM B@ WHY

tially determined who was going to be President of the most powerful country in the world. There were two attorneys who argued that case in front of the United States Supreme Court, and arguing for the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. He had put his credibility on the line in arguing the Bush versus

t responds to CEOS’s assessment of its limited review of Mr. Epstein’s case; and a point-by- point rebuttal to First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Sloman’s recent letter which we believe contains factual inaccuracies typical of our correspondence from the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami (the “

1978), the search warrant affidavit in this case reveals knowing and reckless falsehoods and omitted material information. This is precisely the type the United States Supreme Court sought to guard against. The age of the alleged victims, and of Mr. Epstein’s intent in that regard, is an element of the crimes that must be proven