To: jeevacationftmail.com[jeevacation(ggmail.com]; Jeffrey Epsteinbeeyacation©gmail.com] From: drsra Sent Tue 1/3/2012 3:44:48 PM Subject: Re: Much of the hearing seems normal, except the sidebar in which the Non-Pros Agreement was discussed. She agrees it is an "inducement" to plea. Pages 43-44 show the factual basis as read by ASA, but then Jack changes plea and the sentencing begins. In my experience they always ask the Defendant if they are pleading guilty because they are in fact guilty. Many judges refuse to allow the Defendant to state he-she is pleading guilty because it is in their best interests to do so; they have to admit they are guilty. This may seem insignificant, but there could be major ramifications, especially since the facts and your position are, and apparently always have been, that you are not guilty of the offenses. The hearing supports an assertion that you followed advice and pressure from the Feds to accept a fraudulent plea to get it over with. What does the leagl research show? Seems like you have a basis to reopen your case. The problem is that it sets aside the Non-Pros Agreement and brings back a possibility of ferderal charges. Given what is happening with Rothstein, 1 am not sure the Feds what this case opened up. --- On Mon, 1/2/12, Jeffrey Epstein leevacation@gmaiLcom> wrote: From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation®gmail.com> Subject: To: "drsra" Date: Monday, January 2, 2012, 7:22 AM would love to hear you opinion on vacating the plea based on what you have read *********************************************************** The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communicati