Epstein Secrets

vestigation. See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email from M. to J. Lefkowitz (stating that "one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned [retired Judge Joseph Hatchett] as a good choice" to decide any fee disputes concerning Epstein's paying for a lawyer to represent the unnamed women in claims against Epstein).

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,

stigation. See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email from M. to J. Leflcowitz (stating that "one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned [retired Judge Joseph Hatchett] as a good choice" to decide any fee disputes concerning Epstein's paying for a lawyer to represent the unnamed women in claims against Epstein).

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,

investigation. See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email from to J. Lefkowitz (stating that "one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned [retired Judge Joseph Hatchett] as a good choice" to decide any fee disputes concerning Epstein's paying for a lawyer to represent the unnamed women in claims against Epstein).

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

investigation. See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email from to J. Lefkowitz (stating that "one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned [retired Judge Joseph Hatchett] as a good choice" to decide any fee disputes concerning Epstein's paying for a lawyer to represent the unnamed women in claims against Epstein).

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

estigation. See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email from II. to J. Lefkowitz (stating that "one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned [retired Judge Joseph Hatchett] as a good choice" to decide any fee disputes concerning Epstein's paying for a lawyer to represent the unnamed women in claims against Epstein).

a plea to federal charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure . . . " See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Le In fact, by a email dated August 3, 2007, Criminal Division Chief advised the defense that the federal government required a • o two years of incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3, 2007 Email fro Subsequen

Special Master to resolve fees disputes as well as to handie the selection of the attorney, I would recommend that we use retired llth Circuit Judge Joseph Hatchett instead of Judge Davis because of Judge Davis's heaith problems. (No one has contacted Judge Hatchett yet, but one of the District Judges in Miami me

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

tion. See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email from M. Villafana to J. Lefkowitz (stating that “one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned [retired Judge Joseph Hatchett] as a good choice” to decide any fee disputes concerning Epstein’s paying for a lawyer to represent the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). Th

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