Epstein Secrets

Federal Rule of Criininai Procedure 6(e)(3)(E) do not appear to apply. See, e.g. Carlson v. United°States, $37 F.3d at 763 (7th CJ,T. 201(:,) ("As the Supreine Court put it, Rule 6(e) is 'but deciaratory' of the iong-standing 'principle' that ·'disclosuie' of grand jury materials is 'committed to the discretion o

it wasn’t any.justice served.” Appendix at 2 (Recarey Depo. 496:1-2). 26. Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Andrew Lourie, in a transmittal letter with the prosecution memo of Assistant U.S'. Attorney Ann Marie Villafana, told Criminal Chief Matthew Menchel: “The state i

s that, "while not the equivalent of criminal a post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thorn v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]se

of the NPA. OPR Report at 95. According to the report: me time, at [USAO-SDFL supervisor sent the NPA and its addendum t Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was "not thrilled" about the NPA; described Epstein's conduct as unusually "egregious," particularly because of its serial nature; and obse

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

, protesting about complying with certain parts of the NPA. OPR Report at 95. According to the report: At the same time, at [USAO-SDFL supervisor] Lourie's request, Villafafta sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was "not thrilled" about the

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

, protesting about complying with certain parts of the NPA. OPR Report at 95. According to the report: At the same time, at [USAO-SDFL supervisor] Lourie's request, Villafafta sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was "not thrilled" about the

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

, protesting about complying with certain parts of the NPA. OPR Report at 95. According to the report: At the same time, at [USAO-SDFL supervisor] Lourie's request, Villafafta sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was "not thrilled" about the

for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663, 668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication v. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language of [Rule 26(b)(3)] protects materials prepared for ay litigation o

Counsel" containing: Work product Deliberative process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege ■ 7/13/2007 letter from to with handwritten attorney (Lourie) notes; ■ 6/2 /2 I from Gerald Lefcourt Matt Menchal , and with handwritten attorney • ■ 6/25/2007 email fro to Matt Menchel and entitle

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

, protesting about complying with certain parts of the NPA. OPR Report at 95. According to the report: At the same time, at [USAO-SDFL supervisor] Lourie's request, Villafaiia sent the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was "not thrilled" about the

d.2d 771, vacated judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded. On remand, the Court of Appeals, 322 F.3d 240, again affirmed. On appeal the Su- preme Court, 124 S.Ct. 2783, affirmed the 775 decision which granted the preliminary in- junction, and remanded for trial. Holdings: On remand, the United Sta

arie C. (USAFLS) From: Vi°Mena. Ann Mane C. (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesday. July 31, 2007 1:37 PM To: Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Menchel, Matthew (USAFLS); Lourie. Andrew (USAFLS) Subject: Emailing: Conf Plea Negotiations.wpd Attachments: Conf Plea Negotiations.wpd Hi all -- I fixed some typos. Here is the

tatement reveals how inapposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court’s very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court’s interpretive methodology when it comes to federal c

tember 24, 2007 Email from J. Lefkowitz to M. Villafana. 22. Ms. Villafana replied that she had “forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], Andy [Lourie], and Rolando [Garcia]. I don’t anticipate it going any further than that.” Jd. 23. Ms. Villafana stated that the agreement would be “placed in the