Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00213290Other

ROY BLACK

Date
Unknown
Source
Reference
EFTA 00213290
Pages
2
Persons
8
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

ROY BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK SCOTT A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. STUMPF MARIA NEYRA JACKIE PERCZEK MARK A.J. SHAPIRO JARED LOPEZ Jeffrey Sloman, Esq. United States Attorney 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Sloman: BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN &STUMPF -P.A.- February 8, 2010 JESSICA FONSECA-NADER KATHLEEN P. PHILLIPS AARON ANTHON MARCOS BEATON, JR. MATTHEW P. O'BRIEN JENIPER J. SOULIKIAS NOAH Fox E-Mail: First, thank you for meeting with us on Wednesday and providing us with an opportunity to address a wide range of concerns with you. At the conclusion of the meeting we discussed Mr Epstein's eligibility for a modification, or termination of his one-year community control sentence under either of two provisions of state law, FSA §948.05 and FSA §948.10(4). You asked what our position would be in the event an application for such relief was made regarding notification of those persons determined by you to be federal rather than just stat

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
ROY BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK SCOTT A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. STUMPF MARIA NEYRA JACKIE PERCZEK MARK A.J. SHAPIRO JARED LOPEZ Jeffrey Sloman, Esq. United States Attorney 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Sloman: BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN &STUMPF -P.A.- February 8, 2010 JESSICA FONSECA-NADER KATHLEEN P. PHILLIPS AARON ANTHON MARCOS BEATON, JR. MATTHEW P. O'BRIEN JENIPER J. SOULIKIAS NOAH Fox E-Mail: First, thank you for meeting with us on Wednesday and providing us with an opportunity to address a wide range of concerns with you. At the conclusion of the meeting we discussed Mr Epstein's eligibility for a modification, or termination of his one-year community control sentence under either of two provisions of state law, FSA §948.05 and FSA §948.10(4). You asked what our position would be in the event an application for such relief was made regarding notification of those persons determined by you to be federal rather than just state victims. We believe that such notification would not be required by 18 USC §3771. Your office has come to a similar conclusion, see AUSA Alex Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Sanchez, pg 2. We are sensitive, however, to the adversarial litigation previously filed regarding other §3771 issues. Accordingly, we propose the following: 1. That if Mr Epstein applies for a termination of community control sentence that seeks an early release from all probation, that your office would (a) not oppose this request under state law, i.e., you would permit the state to make its own discretionary decision on the application without taking a position one way or the other, (b) not consider it a breach of the NPA for Epstein to either so apply or, if the application is allowed, to accept the reduction, and (c) notify the federal victims that such an application has been made, and the date, if any, when the matter would be heard. We further propose, however, that the victim notification letter neither request nor encourage the attendance of the federal victims at any scheduled hearing nor request nor encourage that the federal victims make filings in state court as to their position since those rights, to our understanding, are at most limited under state law to state victims. Those on the 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 305.371.6121 • Fax: 305-358-2006. wsysylitcyBlack com EFTA00213290 Jeffrey Sloman, Esq. February 8, 2010 Page 2 federal victim notification list, of course, once notified, would have the non- statutory right at their own election to attend any hearing, 2. That if Mr Epstein applies for a modification of community control that only converts it, pursuant to FSA §948.10(4) into a normal probation with no shortening of the terms of supervision that you would neither oppose nor support the request nor would either the request nor any acceptance of any subsequent order converting the community control to some other form of probation be considered a breach of the NPA, however, given that Mr Epstein would remain under state supervision for the remainder of the 12-month sentence, no prior notification to federal victims would be provided. Respectfully submitted, /wg cc: MARTIN WEINBERG, ESQ. ALAN SHOWITZ, ESQ. ROY By Esq. , Esq. Black. Srebnick. Komspan & Stumpf. P.A EFTA00213291

Related Documents (6)

OtherUnknown

(USAFLS)

(USAFLS) From: Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:25 PM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: draft letter to DAG I t.'"...1. ;Or • > EXHIBIT B-127 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014941 57 EFTA00224728 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida Airs: Assistant LAS Auorney 99N.& eth Street Aftam: Ft 33132 (305) 961-9100 DELIVERY BY FEDERAL EXPRESS June 2, 2008 Honorable Mark Filip Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Judge Filip, Jeffrey Epstein is a part-time resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating allegations that, over a two-year period, Epstein paid approximately 28 minor females from Royal Palm Beach High School to come to his house for sexual favors. In July 2006, the matter was presented to AUSA A. Marie Villafana of our West Palm Beach b

14p
OtherUnknown

ROY BLACK

ROY BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK SaYIT A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. STUMPY? MARIA NEYRA JACKIE PERCZEK MARK A.J.lAPIRO JARED BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN STUMPF P.A. May 18, 2010 VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Counsel: JESSICA FONSECA-NADER KATHLEEN P. PHILLIPS AARON ANTHON MARCOS BEATON, JR. JENIPER J. SOULUCIAS NOAH FOX JOSHUA SHORE E-Mail: RBlack(lfioyBlack.com Jeff Sloman, Esq. United States Attorney 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 Assistant United States Attorney 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 We received notice this morning that Podhurst Orseck, P.A. has filed a civil complaint seeking over $2,000,000 in addition to the $526,000 they have already been paid by Jeffrey Epstein for their work as attorney representatives. As we communicated to you during our February 3, 2010

49p
OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs I UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48

13p
OtherUnknown

isiMoi keels to Starr

isiMoi keels to Starr EFTA00176157 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Kenneth W. Starr, Esq Kirkland & Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Starr: 99 N.E. 4Srne1 Miami. FL 33132 (303)961-9100. Telephone (303) 530.6444 Facsimile I write in response to your November 28'h letter, in which you raise concerns regarding the Non-Prosecution Agreement between this Office and your client, Mr. Epstein. I take these concerns seriously. As your letter focused on the Section 2255 portion of the Agreement, my response will focus primarily on that issue as well. I do wish to make some more general observations, however. Section 2255 provides that "[ajny person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of [enumerated sections of Title 18) and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation . . . may sue in

21p
OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Plaintiffs I UNITED STATES, Defendants JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case. BACKGROUND As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48

13p
OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-ev-80736-Civ-ICAM JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2 I UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER COME NOW Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to file this response in opposition to Epstein's Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order (DE 247). Epstein's motion is a thinly-disguised attempt to relitigate issues already covered by the court's earlier ruling eleven months ago (DE 188), which allowed the victims to file correspondence relating to Epstein's non-prosecution agreement in the public court file. Rather than reverse its previous ruling, this Court should reaffirm it — and allow the important issues presented by this case to be litigated in the light of day. BACKGROUND Because of Epstein's penchant for relitigating issues that have already been decided, it

20p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.