Epstein Secrets

Polygraph Examination of Epstein re: 29. 9/1/2006 Palm Beach Count Police Department Incident Report (burglary) 30. 11/16/2006 Letter from 16 to Sanchez" re: Epstein's willingness to provide documents and information for the investi 1 ation 31. 1/16/2007'8 Taped Interview o 32. 1/16/2007'9 Taped

5:23 pm Email from Indyke t , attaching drafts of In re Misconduct by First Assistant United States Attorney 190. 4/28/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker re: civil litigation by former firm 191. 5/16/2008 Fax with 5/15/2008 letter from to Lefkowitz re: propriety discretion to authorize federal pro

of 187. 3/28/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker42 and it: why case not appropriate for federal prosecution 188. 4/8/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker re: questioning the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida 189. 4/14/2008, 5:23 pm Email from Indyke t , att

d that she would confer with Krischer and Belohlavek “to make sure the defense doesn’t try to do an end run.” That same morning, Epstein attorney Sanchez, who had not been involved in negotiations for several weeks, emailed Sloman, advising, “[I] want to finalize the plea deal and there is only one i

to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer.

a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefk

computer equipment. Epstein’s team sought to postpone compliance with the USAO’s demand for the equipment. In late June 2007, defense attorney Sanchez requested an extension of time to comply; in informing Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie of the request, Villafaña stressed that “we want to get the comp

er to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision together with the Department’s Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker. Acosta did consult with Mandelker about the § 2255 civil damages recovery process, but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled discussing the issue

ho advised him to make the following proposal [to defer notification to the State Attorney’s Office].” OPR found no other documentation relating to Mandelker’s purported involvement in the decision. 220 decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst many other issues, properly w