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

prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised his rights to appeal to the Department of Justice with the MI consent and knowledge of the USAO, he has not breached the Agreement. The re-commencing of the Grand Jury is in violation of the Agreeme

401 lastosarse nottm .44Isse US DeP•Mlilla I tr4 tram Race.” Fodor& AulaSciti Attailnistratien 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001697 EFTA00209876 U.S. Department of Justice United Slates Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 3340! (361)820-8711 Facsimile: (56

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

on lift of stay by 11 th Circuit]) Box #2 P-008364 Thru P-008382 File folder entitled "Lacerda Immunity Request" containing internal memoranda, Justice Department documentation, and subpoena regarding immunity request 6(e) Work Product Deliberative Process Investigative privilege Box #2 P-008383 Thru P

ated December 16 and 17, 2010, with attached letter from Paul Cassell to Wifredo A. Ferrer, dated December 10, 2010 Page 23 of 23 EFTA00191236 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 S. Ausfrallan Ave, Ste 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561)820-8711 Facsimile: (561)820-

ation; Ordinary Government ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to Investigative Privilege Communication; No Attorney-Client A. Marie Villafatia, A. Oosterbaan, IL Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against Pub

908 Inadvertently marked as privileged, will be produced N/A Suppl. Box 3 P-013909 Thru P-013911 Memorandum, Lisa Howard, Assistant Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), to Ruth Plagenhoef, Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, undated, Subject: Recommendation Deliberati

with the person who was being prosecuted. 50. RFP No. 17 asks for documents concerning an investigation into the Epstein prosecution undertaken by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in Washington, D.C. The investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims, who asked the Justi

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

s has shown that the disclosure is "in connection with a judicial proceeding," that is, in connection with an administrative proceeding conducted by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) arising out of a decision by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra in the matter of Jane Doe 1 a

ly.8 2. Describe in detail your role, and the role of each other person in the USAO, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and elsewhere within the Department of Justice — collectively herein "the government" — who was involved in the assessment of the viability and strength of the federal case against Mr. Epstein a

ation; Ordinary Government ■ 11/28/07 e-mail from A. Lourie to Investigative Privilege Communication; No Attorney-Client A. Marie Villafafia, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia re non-prosecution agreement, with attached correspondence; Relationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against P

908 Inadvertently marked as privileged, will be produced N/A Suppl. Box 3 P-013909 Thru P-013911 Memorandum, Lisa Howard, Assistant Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), to Ruth Plagenhoef, Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, undated, Subject: Recommendation Deliberat

acsimile: www.kirkland.com Dir. Fax: June 19, 2008 John Roth, Esq. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 4115 Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Mr. Roth: I again want to thank you for this opportunity to explain why we be

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

e prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised his rights to appeal to the Department of Justice with the full consent and knowledge of the USAO, he has not breached the Agreement. The re-commencing of the Grand Jury is in violation of the Agreem

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

e prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised his rights to appeal to the Department of Justice with the full consent and knowledge of the USAO, he has not breached the Agreement. The re-commencing of the Grand Jury is in violation of the Agreem

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

prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised his rights to appeal to the Department of Justice with the full consent and knowledge of the USAO, he has not breached the Agreement. The re-commencing of the Grand Jury is in violation of the Agree