Epstein Secrets

uraging civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein under the guise of the terms of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See Tab 35, November 28, 2007 Letter from K. Starr to A. Fisher. 43. Late in the day on November 28, Epstein's attorneys received from AUSA a copy of the USAO's proposed victim-notification letter

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,

uraging civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein under the guise of the terms of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See Tab 35, November 28, 2007 Letter from K. Starr to A. Fisher. 43. Late in the day on November 28, Epstein's attorneys received from AUSA a copy of the USAO's proposed victim-notification letter

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,

uraging civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein under the guise of the terms of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See Tab 35, November 28, 2007 Letter from K. Starr to A. Fisher. 43. Late in the day on November 28, Epstein's attorneys received from AUSA a copy of the USAO's proposed victim-notification letter

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

uraging civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein under the guise of the terms of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See Tab 35, November 28, 2007 Letter from K. Starr to A. Fisher. 43. Late in the day on November 28, Epstein's attorneys received from AUSA a copy of the USAO's proposed victim-notification letter

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

uraging civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein under the guise of the terms of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See Tab 35, November 28, 2007 Letter from K. Starr to A. Fisher. 43. Late in the day on November 28, Epstein's attorneys received from AUSA a copy of the USAO's proposed victim-notification letter

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

Suppl. Box #3 P-013338 Thru 013341 File folder entitled "12/6/07 Sloman to Lefkowitz" containing 12/5/07 faxed letter w/ cover sheet from K. Starr and J. Leflcowitz to A. Acosta (Not considered privileged. Will be produced to opposing counsel upon lifting of stay] Suppl. Box #3 P-013342

prosecution agreement" and "called a time-out." At that time, Acosta asked the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, located in Washington, D.C., to look at the case.l°6 CONCEALING THE NPA WHILE EPSTEIN SOUGHT REVIEW 92. Following the entry of the "time out," any

couraging civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein under the guise of the terms of the Non Prosecution Agreement. See Tab 35, November 28, 2007 Letter from K. Starr to A. Fisher. Late in the day on November 28, Epstein’s attorneys received from AUSA Villafana a copy of the USAO’s proposed victim-notification let

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