Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00213332Other

Roy BLACK

Date
Unknown
Source
Reference
EFTA 00213332
Pages
2
Persons
5
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Roy BLACK HOWARD M. SRESNICK SCOTT A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. STUMPF MARIA NEYRA JACKIE. PERCZEK MARK A.J. SHAPIRO JARED LOPEZ BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN STUMPF PA. January 20, 2010 Esq. 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 JESSICA FONSECA-NADP.R KATHLEEN P. PHILLIPS AARON AMNON MARCOS BEATON. JR. MATTHEW P. O'BRIEN JENIFER J. SOULIKIAS NOAH Fox E-Mail: We are now facing a difficult issue about the attorney's fees in the civil cases brought against Mr. Epstein related to your prior criminal investigation. I broached this subject with you on the phone a couple of weeks ago, but I could see our discussion was not fruitful at that time. Since we could not come to any agreement on how to handle this, we must proceed ahead based on our understanding of the non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Epstein has paid the atto

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. SRESNICK SCOTT A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. STUMPF MARIA NEYRA JACKIE. PERCZEK MARK A.J. SHAPIRO JARED LOPEZ BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN STUMPF PA. January 20, 2010 Esq. 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 JESSICA FONSECA-NADP.R KATHLEEN P. PHILLIPS AARON AMNON MARCOS BEATON. JR. MATTHEW P. O'BRIEN JENIFER J. SOULIKIAS NOAH Fox E-Mail: We are now facing a difficult issue about the attorney's fees in the civil cases brought against Mr. Epstein related to your prior criminal investigation. I broached this subject with you on the phone a couple of weeks ago, but I could see our discussion was not fruitful at that time. Since we could not come to any agreement on how to handle this, we must proceed ahead based on our understanding of the non-prosecution agreement. Mr. Epstein has paid the attorney representative $526,000 and accepts his obligation under the NPA to pay additional reasonable legal fees that precede litigation claims under 17C of the Addendum. However we believe that the request by the attorney representative for over $1.5M additional fees is both unreasonable and outside the Addendum's criteria for payment. Litigation may ensue since we have been unable to resolve these matters through an agreement. We never contemplated that the legal fee agreement would result in a bill for $2.1M when the Addendum was entered. We understand you and Jay had different views on whether an attorney representative could both sue Epstein for some clients and remain as counsel to settle other cases. We believe that the attorney representative could either settle the cases and be paid hourly or litigate and be paid out of the judgment, but not both. The language of the NPA is in need of legal construction regarding whether Epstein's obligations end when 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phone: 305-371-6421 • Fax: 305-358.2006 • bxxxxxitoyalack.com EFTA00213332 A. Marie Villafana, Esq. January 20, 2010 Page 2 the attorney representative brings a lawsuit for any of his clients - a matter that a court should settle free from any consideration that initiating litigation to resolve this outstanding issue would be perceived as a breach. Just to be sure, Mr. Epstein will pay whatever fees a court determines are owed and we only want assurance that litigating the legal and factual issues over such liability will be consistent with and not violate the NPA. We don't think it is the government's position that Epstein must simply pay any bill he receives, regardless of the amount and type of work done, particularly one for $2.1M. So we have no alternative but to go to court to resolve this issue. We are sending you this letter because the attorney representative is using the threat of a breach as leverage to get his fees. I don't believe the government's power to indict and incarcerate should be used to assist a private lawyer in collecting an exorbitant legal fee. Thus we are putting you on notice, and asking that if you disagree with our legal opinion that a suit is not in conflict with the NPA, to tell us without delay. Cordially yours, MW:RC:RB/wg Martin G. Weinberg, Esq. Robert D. Critton, Jr. Roy Black Roy Blac Black. Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. EFTA00213333

Related Documents (6)

OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 2

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Privilege Log, which is attached hereto. The documents referenced in the Privilege Log are being delivered today to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex pane in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: I I I I a EFTA00209306 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 216 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/27/2013 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIF

16p
OtherUnknown

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS)

Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:04 PM To: Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Lourie, Andrew (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS) Subject: Epstein I just received a call from the FBI telling me that Vanity Fair is sniffing around again. The reporter is a former detective. He told the FBI agent that his sources tell him "the State has been bought off," and asked if our investigation had been sent to "the circular file." Nesbitt responded, "All I can tell you is that we have an open investigation." On another note, I am going to see the grand jury tomorrow and I anticipate a number of questions regarding the status of the indictment. I'm not sure what, if anything, I can tell them. And I did not hear back regarding making changes to the indictment. Can I get some feedback on that? Thank you. A. Marie Villafana Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL

651p
OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT The United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida ("the United States"), and Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") enter into the following agreement: 1. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to the Information which charges the defendant with two counts of knowingly and intentionally violating the privacy protection accorded to child victims by 18 U.S.C. § 3509; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 403. 2. The defendant is aware that the sentence will be imposed by the Court after considering the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements (hereinafter "Sentencing Guidelines"). The defendant acknowledges and understands that the Court will compute an advisory sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines and that the applicable guidelines will be determined by the Court re

82p
OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 312-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2015 Page 1 of 25

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 312-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2015 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2's PROTECTIVE MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 15 TO AMEND THEIR PETITION TO CONFORM TO EXISTING EVIDENCE AND TO ADD JANE DOE NO. 3 AND JANE DOE NO. 4 AS PETITIONERS Respondent United States, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2's Motion pursuant to Rule 15 to Amend their Petition to Conform to Existing Evidence and to Add Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4 as Petitioners, and states: I. THE CAREFUL BALANCE THAT CONGRESS STRUCK WITH THE CVRA COUNSELS AGAINST THE EXPANSION OF THESE CVRA PROCEEDINGS TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL CLAIMS OR PARTIES. Petitioners have filed their "protective" motion to amend their petit

25p
OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res

65p
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

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.