Epstein Secrets

-page letter 2 EFTA00211465 to Epstein's attorney, Jay Lefkowitz, Esq., in which he reviewed the factual and legal issues raised by Epstein. Mr. Oosterbaan concluded that federal prosecution of Epstein "would not be improper or inappropriate." Consequently, United States Attorney Acosta "would not be ab

nal prosecution of Epstein. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq., Jane Doe 2 declined to be interviewed without a grant of use immunity. Mr. Eisenberg was retained and paid by Epstein to provide representation to Jane Doe 2. The Government applied for and received immunity for Jane Doe 2 under 18

became known as a possible victim of Epstein. Jane Doe 2 was openly hostile to the idea of a criminal prosecution of Epstein. Through her attorney, James Eisenberg, Esq., Jane Doe 2 declined to be interviewed without a grant of use immunity. Mr. Eisenberg was retained and paid by Epstein to provide representat

ection 2255 issue was raised. After considering the arguments raised at the September 7th meeting, and after conferring with the FBI and with Chief Oosterbaan, our Office decided to proceed with the indictment. At that time, I reminded Mr. Lefkowitz that he had previously indicated his desire to appeal suc

erstood that you wished to present federalism-based concerns regarding our prosecution. To ensure a full consideration of your arguments, I invited Drew Oosterbaan, Chief of the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, to travel from Washington to attend our meeting. During the September 7t

the investigation if the facts are known or might attempt to escape if they have reason to believe certain indictments will issue. United States'. Eisenberg, 711 F.2d 959, 961 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing United States'. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 n.6 (1958)). Several of the "facts" contained i

ry led me to conclude that the inclusion of a provision under § 2255 would be the best way to protect the victims' right to restitution. CEOS Chief Oosterbaan described the agreement as "a very significant result that will serve the victims well" (Exhibit 71). I should note that a plea to one of the feder

hel had engaged in plea discussions with Lilly Ann Sanchez. (Exhibit 3.) The second was in early September 2007 after my discussion with CEOS Chief Drew Oosterbaan regarding this subject. (Exhibit 44.) Later, I believe after the NPA was already signed, Jeff Sloman told me that the Office had taken the position

contacted Jim Eisenberg, counsel for Individual # 28, who is Jane Doe #2 in the Jane Doe I United States suit. As noted on the attached chart, Mr. Eisenberg was paid for by Mr. Epstein. I told Mr. Eisenberg that I was preparing victim notification letters and needed to know if he was still representing

fkowitz to Acosta N gust 11, 2006 victim letter to TM gust 11, 2006 victim letter to CW Epstein appeal letters to CEOS • May 15, 2008 letter from Oosterbaan to Leflcowtiz • June 23, 2008 letter from John Roth to Lefkowitz \limuary 2008 FBI victim letters ' November 28, 2007 letter, Ken Starr to Alice F

imile: February 5, 2007 DELIVERY BY HAND James L. Eisenberg, Esq. 250 S Australian Ave, Ste 704 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5007 Re: n Dear Mr. Eisenberg: I am writing to clarify the ground rules for the interview with your client ("your client"), to occur February , 2007. As I mentioned earlier, M

conduct "due dilligence" on selection of Podhurst firm 11/27/2007 Plea Notification Letter at 7:11 pm )3-3 11/28/2007 A. Marie Villafaiia, A. Oosterbaan, R. Garcia A. Lourie Email re non-prosecution agreement with attached correpondence 11/28/2007 Alice S. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General S

Menchel with attached letter containing counter- proposal for plea to two years of 'supenised custody.' 9 8/24/2006- 10/24/2006 Entails betweenJim Eisenberg and Marie Villafana regarding #28 10 10/30/2006- 10/31-2006 Emails between Marie Vitt:liana and Guy Lewis regarding Lewis respresentation of Eps