Epstein Secrets

x #3 P-013554 Thru File folder labeled "E-mails Re Plea Negotiations" containing: ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Laurie to A. Marie Villafafta, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; ■ 9/19/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Lourie, R. Garcia, K. A

ts of victims who are not parties to this litigation Suppl. Box #3 P-013282 Thru P-013283 7/9/08 Email from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger letter re victim notification Attorney-Client Privilege Work product Deliberative Proce

x #3 P-013554 Thai File folder labeled "E-mails Re Plea Negotiations" containing: ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to A. Marie Villafafta, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; ■ 9/19/07 e-mail from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Louric, R. Garcia, K. A

ts of victims who are not parties to this litigation Suppl. Box #3 P-013282 Thru P-013283 7/9/08 Email from A. Marie Villafafia to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, K. Atkinson, and FBI re proposed response to Goldberger letter re victim notification Attorney-Client Privilege Work product Deliberative Proce

ely aware, the Department’s prior review of this matter was incomplete and, by its own admission, not “de novo.” See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from A. Oosterbaan. Without considering the Non Prosecution Agreement that left this matter to be resolved in the State or any of the misconduct, CEOS reviewers, tasked

nt representation that “/T]/he SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration...” See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 2. This statement is simply not true. Contrary to Mr. Sloman’s assertion, federal prosecutors refused to accept what the State believed to be app

ely aware, the Department’s prior review of this matter was incomplete and, by its own admission, not “de novo.” See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from A. Oosterbaan. Without considering the Non Prosecution Agreement that left this matter to be resolved in the State or any of the misconduct, CEOS reviewers, tasked

ent representation that “/T]he SDFL indicated a willingness to defer to the State the length of incarceration...” See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. Sloman, p. 2. This statement is simply not true. Contrary to Mr. Sloman’s assertion, federal prosecutors refused to accept what the State believed to be app