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

or damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. See attached August 2, 2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fn 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's "national" attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United St

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

or damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. See attached August 2, 2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fn I. Ironically, it is Epstein's *national" attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United St

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

ges and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. See attached Tab B, August 2, 2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fn 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's "national" attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United St

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

or damages and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. See attached August 2, 2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fn 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's gnationar attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United Sta

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

ges and will always support any disposition that eliminates the need for trial. See attached Tab B, August 2, 2007 letter from Lilly Ann Sanchez to SDFL Criminal Division Chief Menchel, p.2, fn 1. Ironically, it is Epstein's "national" attorneys who are now representing to the Deputy Attorney General of the United St