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

eral charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure . . . " See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. . In fact, by a email dated August 3, 2007, Criminal Division Chief Matthew Menchel advised the defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3,

penses if the Court finds that such expenses fall within the restitution statute. Because any restitution is deducted from the agreed $1.2 million, Boehm, through his attorney Kevin Fitzgerald, has waived notice of such motion, which may be filed with the Court ex parte under seal. After 30 days from

l Building & U.S. Courthouse 222 West Seventh Avenue, Room 253, #9 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7567 (907) 271-5071 SHERRI A. STEPHAN Trial Attorney, Criminal Division Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section United States Department of Justice 1400 New York Ave, NW, Sixth Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 353-4

impartial, independent representative be. appointed to administer that fund. Notably, such a restitution fund was created in a federal case, U.S. v. Boehm, Case No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Alaska 2004). The federal prosecutors here rejected this idea, and they insisted that an attorney representative, paid for

duct fall outside the boundary of our agreed review, they also fall outside the authority of the Criminal Division in the first instance. Simply, the Criminal Division does not investi gate or resolve allegations of professional misconduct by federal prosecutors. For these Teasons, we do not respond to the portion o

penses if the Court finds that such expenses fall within the restitution statute. Because any restitution is deducted from the agreed $1.2 million, Boehm, through his attorney Kevin Fitzgerald, has waived notice of such motion, which may be filed with the Court ex pane under seal. After 30 days from

es Attorney Assistant orn Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 222 West Seventh Avenue, Room 253, #9 Anchors e, Alaska 99513-7567 Trial Attorney, Criminal Division Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section United States Department of Justice 1400 New York Ave, NW, Sixth Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Attorneys f

penses if the Court finds that such expenses fall within the restitution statute. Because any restitution is deducted from the agreed $1.2 million, Boehm, through his attorney Kevin Fitzgerald, has waived notice of such motion, which may be filed with the Court ex pane under seal. After 30 days from

V-MARRA 00 EFTA00233276 TIMOTHY M. BURGESS United States Attorney Assistant U.S. Attorneys Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse Trial Attorney, Criminal Division Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section United States Department of Justice Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE D

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

our review of this case is limited both factually and legally. We have not looked at the entire universe of facts in this case. It is not the role of the Criminal Division to conduct a complete factual inquiry from scratch.” (CEOS letter at p. 1). Indeed, entire subject areas relevant to the inquiry were not considered