Epstein Secrets

then to the Chief of the Criminal Division, then to the First Assistant and the U.S. Attorney. Although the U.S. Attorney continued to defer to Mr. Lourie and me, Epstein's counsel would constantly ask the U.S. Attorney to intervene. As mentioned above, with respect to the terms of the Non-Prosecution

e trusted to protect the victims' interests. I asked whether he thought Ocariz was suitable for and would be willing to accept the assignment and • the Appellate Section. Contrary to allegations raised by Epstein's attorneys, business relationship with Ocariz; they have been friends since law school. Ile is assigned

so the plea agreement would have had to be a binding plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), which is what I drafted. I was informed by Mr. Lourie that USA Acosta did not want to do a (c)(1)(C) plea, so I had to find charges that would result in a two-year statutory maximum. This resulted in m

eir rights. After my response to Mr. Menchel, I know that he spoke with Anne Ruth Schultz, who was Chief of Appeals at the time, about moving me to the Appellate Section. The results of the disagreements catalogued above were communicated to me (orally or via e-mail) as decisions of the Executive Division. They some

ion ............................................20 5. October 2006 – February 2007: Epstein’s Defense Counsel Initiate Contact with Villafaña, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting ....................................................................................22 6. February 2007:

d by U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and provide legal expertise and policy guidance. Among the Criminal Division components mentioned in this Report are the Appellate Section, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, and, most prominently, the Child Exploitation and Obsce