Epstein Secrets

o one on the defense team believes that the federal investigation in this matter has been for show. Nor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the USAM or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropri

n pleas are appropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM — not you. As for your statement that my concerns about this case hurting Project Safe Childhood are unfounded, I made it clear to you that those concerns were voiced by the US Attorney. Whether or not you are correct, matters of policy are alwa

fense team believes that the federal investigation in this matter has been for show. EFTA00204798 Nor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the USAM or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropri

pleas are appropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM -- not you. As for your statement that my concerns about this case hurting Project Safe Childhood are unfounded, I made it clear to you that those concerns were voiced by the US Attorney. Whether or not you are correct, matters of policy are alw

o one on the defense team believes that the federal investigation in this matter has been for show. Nor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the USAM or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropri

priate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM -- not EFTA00204809 you. As for your statement that my concerns about this case hurting Project Safe Childhood are unfounded, I made it clear to you that those concerns were voiced by the US Attorney. Whether or not you are correct, matters of policy are alw

o one on the defense team believes that the federal investigation in this matter has been for show. Nor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the USAM or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise appropri

pleas are appropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM -- not you. As for your statement that my concerns about this case hurting Project Safe Childhood are unfounded, I made it clear to you that those concerns were voiced by the US Attorney. Whether or not you are correct, matters of policy are alw

o understand that Criminal Chief contacted SLC about moving me to Appeals after I pointed out actions that I considered to be in violation of the Ashcroft memo and victims' rights legislation. I also understand that SLC ma have knowled e of USA Acosta providing my prosecution memorandum to Main Jus

Epstein may have been involved in the manufacture and/or possession of child pornography. Eradication of child pornography was I particular focus of Project Safe Childhood; its production and storage on computer equipment involved the use of items produced in interstate and foreign commerce; and child pornc ty was of

Criminal Chief Matt Menchel contacted SLC Schultz about moving me to Appeals after I pointed out actions that I considered to be in violation of the Ashcroft memo and victims' rights legislation. I also understand that SLC Schultz may have knowledge of USA Acosta providing my prosecution memorandum to Cr

Epstein may have been involved in the manufacture and/or possession of child pornography. Eradication of child pornography was a particular focus of Project Safe Childhood; its production and storage on computer equipment involved the use of items produced in interstate and foreign commerce; and child pornography was

u know is completely unacceptable to the FBI, ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate the Ashcroft memo, the U.S. Attorney[s’] Manual, and all of the various iterations of the victims’ rights legislation. Strategically, you have started the plea

he child exploitation cases in West Palm Beach, along with other criminal matters. In 2006, she was designated as the USAO’s first coordinator for Project Safe Childhood, a new Department initiative focusing on child sexual exploitation and abuse.2 In 2006, Villafaña assumed responsibility for the Epstein investig

he prosecutor harbors a good faith doubt, based on either the law or the evidence, as to the government’s ability to prove the charge at trial. The Ashcroft Memo explains that the “basic policy” “requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all charges that are determined to be readily provable” an

ta’s and Sloman’s “concerns about taking this case because of [the P]etit policy and a number of legal issues” and Acosta’s concerns about “hurting Project Safe Childhood.” Defense counsel raised myriad legal and factual challenges in their voluminous letters to the USAO. Defense submissions attacked the legal theo