Epstein Secrets

re. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United States I Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein's case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base to minors, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 859(a)

ral prosecutors have pursued under the federal sta tes at issue here. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United States I Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein's case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base

approval) promised to close the money-laundering investigation "if the sex offense case is resolved." See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from M. to G. Lefcourt ("In other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation into other areas as well. The matter has not been,

e. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United Stares v. Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein's case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base to minors, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 859(a)

ion of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); and sex trafficking of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1591. United States v. Boehm, Case No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Alaska 2004). Boehm's actions, unlike Mr. Epstein's, also had a strong interstate nexus: Boehm purchased and distributed

approval) promised to close the money-laundering investigation "if the sex offense case is resolved." See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from I. to G. Lefcourt ("In other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation into other areas as well. The matter has not been,

e are several emails between myself and Jay Lefkowitz about the appointment of a GAL and the possibility of a restitution trust fund similar to the Boehm case out of Alaska. I obtained the trust fund agreement and spoke with the AUSA in 21 Mandatory restitution under § 3663A requires a conviction for

itation cases was a hot-button issue at the time. The District of Alaska USAO had a multi-victim child exploitation case with a wealthy defendant (Boehm) where they had set up a trust fund with a bank and a trustee. With Drew Oosterbaan's help, I explored setting up a similar situation in the Epstein

ll disclose even more. If meeting is held, Villafaiii will ask to have the case reassigned. Attached email correspondence between Andrew Laurie and G. Lefcourt 28/C-4 5/31/2007 Subpoena to J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation, Inc. (return date 6/21/07) 5/31/2007 Subpoena to J. Epstein & Company, Inc. (re

ral prosecutors have pursued under the federal statutes at issue here. When asked, the closest case suggested by the prosecutors was United States v. Boehm—and it hardly could differ more from Mr. Epstein’s case. In Boehm, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base t

) promised to close the money-laundering investigation “if the sex offense case is resolved.” See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from M. Villafana to G. Lefcourt (“In other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation into other areas as well. The matter has not been, an