Epstein Secrets

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

Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate a//concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

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

Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate a//concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

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

ted 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 regarding whether he wishes to provide vict

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

torney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

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

Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate a//concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

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

ttorney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense

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

torney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider. In consultation with DAAG Mandelker, Mr. Acosta proposed the following language regarding the 2255 provision: "Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an offense