at Agreement. appears to have been deliberately designed to deprive as or an adequate opportunity II, seek your Offices review iu this minter. lice LISAO's desire to etveclose :t Complete review is tmclersiamtible. yivew than the Child Fsploitation and Obscenity Section ("CLOS- ) has already determine

d victims could recover. Our objections regarding the Section 2255 component of the Agreement began as early as August 2 when. after receiving the LISAO's proposed Non-Prosecution Agreement, we suggested that the 2255 component of the Agreement could be satisfied by the creation of tt restitution fu

would, however, like to address one issue. Your December I letter states that as a result or defense counsel objections to the amendment "imam, the LISAO proposed an addendum to die Agreement to provide for the use of an independent third pany sekcior. As I recall this matter, before I had any knowled

d victims could recover. Our objections regarding the Section 2255 component of the Agreement began as early as August 2 when, after receiving the LISAO's proposed Non-Prosecution Agreement. we suggested that the 2255 component of the Agreement could be satisfied by the creation of I restitution fun

d victims could recover. Our objections regarding the Section 2235 component of the Agreement began as early as August 2 when. after receiving the LISAO's proposed Non-Prosecution Agreement. we suggested that the 2255 component of the Agreement could be satisfied by the creation of restitution fund:

he witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger' of criminal liability. Hoffman'. United States, 341 U.S. 479,486 (1951). 7 This could give the LISAO a tremendous advantage in prosecuting Epstein in the Federal Criminal Action. See Comment, Using Equitable Powers to Coordinate Parallel Civil and C