Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta01657823DOJ Data Set 10Correspondence

EFTA Document EFTA01657823

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 10
Reference
efta-efta01657823
Pages
0
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available
Loading PDF viewer...

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. STUMP** 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 ANTHON MARCOS BEATON. JR. MATTHEW P. O'BRIEN JENIFER J. SOUUKIAS NOAH FOX E-Mail: iffitackralitylllack.com 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 2O1 S. Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 13OO • Miami. Florida 33131 • Phond • vovw.FtoyBlack com EFTA01657823 , 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. PA EFTA01657824

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01297437

0p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01657823

2p
Court UnsealedJul 9, 2019

Epstein

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 463 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2019 Page 1 of 63 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. ______________________________/ JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Limited Intervenor. ______________________________/       LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 463 Entered on FLSD Docket 0

63p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01297437

23p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01719107

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/2672011 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES, Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52), Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50), and Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79).1 All motions are fully briefed and ripe for review, and the Court has heard oral arguments on all motions. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the parties' arguments and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental brie

14p

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.