Epstein Secrets

A00224642 Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG who advised him to make the following proposal: "[w]e will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whethe

ers of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Palm Beach County, was

ss." Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: "(Me will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regardin

ers of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Pal

Andrew Lourie Marie Villafana Email regarding proposed changes to indictment 36/64 / /6 /007 Meeting where Criminal Chief Menchel announces that USA Acosta will offer a two-year state plea. Present: Matt Menchel, Marie Villafana, Andy Lourie (phone), Valerie Parlave, Junior Ortiz, Nesbitt Kuyrkendall,

, and #38 B-70 7/21/2008 Valhalla; cc: Senior Sloman Email response to Villafafia's 7/21/08 email regarding Motion for Return of Property in State Court 7/22/2008 Valhalla Kuyrkendall Email chain regarding victim addresses 7/22/2008 Emails between A. M. Villafana, A. Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior

ss." Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: "(Me will defer to the discretion of the State Anorney regarding

ers of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Pal

no less." Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: "bode will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regardi

ers of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Pal

A00225184 Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: "[wie will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regard

ers of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Pal

ss." Mr. Starr also objected to the SOFLis intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DAAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: Il(w)e will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regard

ers of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Pal

no less." Mr. Starr also objected to the SDFL's intention to notify the victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In response to Mr. Starr's concerns, USA Acosta again consulted with DRAG Mandelker who advised him to make the following proposal: "(w)e will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regardi

ers of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Pal

the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Regarding the issue of notice to the victims, USA Acosta proposed to notify them of the federal resolution as required by law; however, "[wje will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding w

ers of Mr. Epstein's defense team, prior published reports of a pending State case against Mr. Epstein and public information available through the State Court system. Weinstein refused to answer the first question. As to the second question, Weinstein told him that any matter arising out of conduct in Pal