Epstein Secrets

0224729 By May 2007, AUSA Villafana began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Andrew Laurie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid-2006, he had returne

in the day. B. Afternoon of January 2, 2008. Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject matter was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him" Mr.

0190438 By May 2007, AUSA Villafana began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Andrew Lourie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid-2006, he had returne

r in the day. B. Afternoon ofJanualy Z 2008. Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject matter was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him.8 Mr

policy. By May 2007, AUSA Villafafia began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Andrew Lourie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid-2006, he had returne

in the day. B. Afternoon ofJanuary 2, 2008. Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject matter was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him.14 M

policy. By May 2007, AUSA Villafafia began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Andrew Lourie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid- 2006, he had returne

in the day. B. Afternoon of January 2, 2008. Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject matter was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him.1e M

0225329 By May 2007, AUSA Villafana began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Andrew Lourie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid-2006, he had returne

in the day. B. Afternoon of January 2, 2008. Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject matter was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him.8 Mr

policy. By May 2007, AUSA Villafaila began seeking approval from her supervisors to indict Epstein. Her immediate supervisor was Andrew Lourie. Mr. Lourie had served as the Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ as well as in several supervisory positions in the SDFL. By mid-2006, he had returne

in the day. B. Afternoon of January 2, 2008. Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject matter was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him.1° M

ffrey Sloman and Andrei Londe arguing against federal prosecution. 34 7/13/2007 Letter from Roy Black to Marie Villa' la with handwritten attorney Lourie notes 35 7/25/2007 latter from Gerald l.efrourt and Alan Dershowia to Matthew Menchel arguing that no charge can or should be made under 18 U.S.C

15, 2007. (Exhibit 66). The following day, FAUSA Sloman forwarded to me USA Acosta's email with USA Acosta's revisions to the NPA (Exhibit 46). At FAUSA Sloman's request, I incorporated the changes and sent the new version to Mr. Lefcourt (Exhibits 47 and 67). On September 12, 2007, MAUSA Lourie, Rolando Gar

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

meeting, the case agents went to meet with the jail about the issue of work release. I do not recall the exact date. On November 14, 2007, I sought FAUSA Sloman's permission to meet with State Attorney Krischer after ASA Behlolavek stood up the agents a few times. The purpose of my meeting was "to clear up t