Skip to main content
Skip to content
Rot BunDear Mr Sloman
Case File
efta-efta00730217DOJ Data Set 9Other

ROY BLACK

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta00730217
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

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. SHAPBtO JARED LOPEZ United States Attorney 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 RE: Jeffrey Epstein Dear BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN &STUMPF February 8, 2010 JESSICA FONSECA-NADER KATHLEEN P. PHILLIPS AARON ANTHON MARCOS BEATON, JR. MATTHEW P. O'BRIEN JENIPER J. SOULIKIAS NOAH Fox 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 • Phon EFTA00730217 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, MARTIN WEINBERG, ESQ. ALAN SHOWITZ, ESQ. ROY By /wg cc: Robert Senior, Esq. Marie Villafana, Esq. Black. Srebnick. Komspan & Stumpf. M. EFTA00730218

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

NY Post seeks to unseal sealed appellate briefs in Jeffrey Epstein appeal, exposing DA and prosecutor conduct

The filing reveals a concrete dispute over sealed court documents that could shed light on why the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and Florida prosecutors allegedly gave Jeffrey Epstein preferent NY Post filed a motion (Dec 21, 2018) to unseal appellate briefs in Epstein’s SORA appeal, requestin Manhattan DA’s office (Danny Frost, Karen Friedman‑Agnifilo) initially opposed unsealing, citing C

55p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Jay P. Lelkowitz, P.C.

11p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

DS9 Document EFTA00296496

96p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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.

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