Epstein Secrets

atalogued above, but I will try to collect them into general categories in chronological order. a. I did not want to meet with counsel for Epstein (Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt) prior to completin m investi ation. My co-counsel ( ) agreed with me. Our supervisor, overruled us. b. AUSA and

t claims against me was because he disliked my insistence on pushing the case forward. After the NPA was signed, USA recommended that I transfer to the Civil Division. I agreed to meet with them and talk about their work. Despite USA recommendation, I decided not to follow his recommendation, and I stayed in the

in child exploitation cases was an issue of growing concern, so I was mindful that this plea mechanism that Criminal Chief Menchel had devised with Lilly Ann Sanchez would extinguish, the victims' right to restitution. That was one of the reasons why, on July 4, 2007, I wrote to Mr. Menchel that I be

ms against me was because he disliked my insistence on pushing the case forward. After the NPA was signed, USA Acosta recommended that I transfer to the Civil Division. I agreed to meet with them and talk about their work. Despite USA Acosta's recommendation, I decided not to follow his recommendation, and I staye

strict of Florida. Villafaña and Lourie had worked for Lewis, and Lourie was close friends with one of Lewis’s law partners. Epstein also retained Lilly Ann Sanchez, a former AUSA who had been Menchel’s deputy and with whom he had socialized. Later, when Epstein was seeking Acosta’s personal involv

nguage that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conv