Epstein Secrets

ly 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, task

"victims" until after Epstein was sentenced and incarcerated. 38. We have reason to believe that, around this same time, Mr. former law partner, Jeffrey Herman, had met with the father of one of the prospective plaintiffs, Saige Gonzalez.5 At the same time (and until as recent] as March of 2008), the Offici

nity control," and agree that the girls are victims for purposes of damages. Also includes deadlines for a plea and sentencing date 46 9/11/2007 A. Oosterbaan A. Marie Villafaiia Email re status of negotiations with attached correspondence 48 9/11/2007 Lefcourt Villafatia Email with 4 page NPA attac

n Email regarding proposed response to Goldberger B 65 7/10/2008 Victim Notification letters to Individuals #3 (via Richard H. Willits), #8 (via Jeffrey Herman), ##17 (via Theodore J. Leopold), #25 (via Jeffrey Herman), #26 (via Jeffrey Herman), #37 (via Michael E. Dutko), and #44 (via Jeffrey Herman) B-6

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

victims” until after Epstein was sentenced and incarcerated. We have reason to believe that, around this same time, Mr. Sloman’s former law partner, Jeffrey Herman, had met with the father of one of the prospective plaintiffs, Saige Gonzalez.> At the same time (and until as recently as March of 2008), the Offici