Epstein Secrets

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

7 Tenn Sheet for Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement 5 Undated File folder entitled 'Meeting Timeline' with contents 6 7/24/2006 Letter from Chief Reiter to victims informing them of FBI investigation 7 7/26/2006 South Florida Sun-Sentinel Article Regarding Chief Reiter's referral of case to FBI 8

NS 6(e) MATERIAL EFTA00225427 EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION TIMELINE Date To From Re: Exhibit # 5/1/2006 State Attorney • ga y E B ' Krischer Michael S. Reiter, Chief of Police for Town of Palm Beach Letter urging State Attorney to proceed with probable cause affidavits and cast filing packages or to re

Timeline' with contents 6 7/24/2006 Letter from Chief Reiter to victims informing them of FBI investigation 7

I told them that, if the evidence was there, it was a case that could be prosecuted federally. Det. Recarey then told me that his boss - PBPD Chief Michael Reiter — was still pressing the State Attorney's Office to arrest Epstein. d p ' of probable cause affidavits for the arrests of Jeffrey Epstein, and

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

as indicted by a Florida Grand Jury on one count of felony solicitation of prostitution. 3. In a publicly released letter, Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter criticized the Grand Jury's decision and the State Attorney's handling of the case. Shortly after the Grand Jury's indictment, the Chief took the u

released letter, Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter criticized the Grand Jury's decision and the Sta

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

as indicted by a Florida Grand Jury on one count of felony solicitation of prostitution. 3. In a publicly released letter, Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter criticized the Grand Jury's decision and the State Attorney's handling of the case. Shortly after the Grand Jury's indictment, the Chief took the u

released letter, Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter criticized the Grand Jury's decision and the Sta

e are several emails between myself and Jay Lefkowitz about the appointment of I GAL and the possibility of I restitution trust fund similar to the Boehm case out of Alaska. I obtained the trust fund agreement and spoke with the in Alaska. The trust fund a reement was very complex and required I bank

tation cases was I hot-button issue at the time. The District of Alaska USAO had multi-victim child exploitation case with I wealthy % defendant (Boehm) where they had set u trust fund with I bank and I trustee. With Drew help, I ex lored setting up I similar situation in the Epstein case (Exhibit

d, but I told them that, if the evidence was there, it was I case that could be prosecuted federally. Det. then told me that his boss - PBPD Chief Michael — was still pressing the State Attorney's Office to arrest Epstein. Det. had prepared series of probable cause affidavits for the arrests of Jeffre

er handler! between It. apatdit and the victims' representatives, and that this Office should not act as intermediary. Finally, I would note that in Boehm is well, the victims' identities were net Initially disclosed. At the AUSA wrote In dint cam "This filing is made cx ante because Boehm in hit plea

resolution was achieved. (Something I have promised in light of what happened last year.) Rolando is calling, but Rolando knows not to tell Chief Reiter about the money issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and the amount of time that has been agreed to. Rolando also is tel

olando is calling, but Rolando knows not to tell Chief Reiter about the money issue, just about what crimes Mr

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

ls about the agreement. | know that Andy promised Chief Reiter an update when a resolution was achieved. (Someth

out the altiorney representative for the girls, we can discuss what | can tell him and the girls about the agreement. | know that Andy promised Chief Reiter an update when a resolution was achieved. (Something | wouldn’t have promised in light of what happened last year.) Rolando is calling, but Rolando k

thing. Therefore, we urge that you direct that a full and fair and complete examination of the most trustworthy evidence be ordered. 10 In U.S. v. Boehm, the defendant bought and distributed crack cocaine and cocaine to underage girls; admitted to knowing that the girls were underage; arranged for un

with a third party, to the procurer's financial advantage. This distinction is a matter within the exclusive prerogative of the legislative branch. Register, 715 So.2d 274, 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). (emphasis added) 2 Similarly, in Kobel v. State, the defendant's conviction under § 796.03 was reversed bec