Epstein Secrets

Matthew MencheP, First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman, United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of Justice including, but not limited to its Chief, . Many of these legal and factual issues have been discussed and

We have no objection to sending the letters through the mail' but we will not remove the language about contacting AUSA Villafafia or Special Agent Kuyrkendall with questions or concerns. Again, federal law requires that victims have the "reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in t

hose questions are appropriately directed to law enforcement. If questions arise related to the civil litigation, AUSA Villafafla and Special Agent Kuyrkendall will recommend that the victims direct those questions to Mr. Josefsberg. I have attached a revised letter incorporating the changes on which we can

sertion of fact. See DE362-21. The second sentence is denied because it was Epstein's attorneys, not the United States Attorney's Office, who asked the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Department of Justice, to review the case. See DE362-16 at 6, 7 (Bates Nos. RFP MR 000505, 000506). 92. The first sentence of paragraph 92 is admi

osecution of Epstein despite having been informed of a victim's right to confer and having been provided with contact information for Special Agent Kuyrkendall and for AUSA Villafafia. See 6/2/2017 Villafafia Decl. at 1 5; 2d Kuyrkendall Decl. at 1 1 6, 7; Exs. 5, 6. The last two sentences in paragraph 9

sertion of fact. See DE362-21. The second sentence is denied because it was Epstein's attorneys, not the United States Attorney's Office, who asked the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Department of Justice, to review the case. See DE362-16 at 6, 7 (Bates Nos. RFP MR 000505, 000506). 92. The first sentence of paragraph 92 is admi

osecution of Epstein despite having been informed of a victim's right to confer and having been provided with contact information for Special Agent Kuyrkendall and for AUSA Villafafia. See 6/2/2017 Villafafia Decl. at 1 5; 2d Kuyrkendall Decl. at 1 1 6, 7; Exs. 5, 6. The last two sentences in paragraph 9

61 at 31-32, 1 94; See Gov't Fact. Resp., DE 407 at 12, 1 94. In January 2008, Jane Doe 1 met with the line prosecutor and an attorney employed by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice. See Gov't Fact. Resp., DE 407 at 13, 1 97. During that meeting, Jane Doe 1 expressed her view that Epstein 9 EF

cription of the meeting, but 8 EFTA00597325 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 417 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2017 Page 9 of 33 citing only Agent Kuyrkendall's declaration recounting what he said, not what understanding Jane Doe I had). The parties agree that, during the time period before Epstein's entr

torney R. Alexander Acosta met with some of Epstein's defense team, along with the federal prosecutors assigned to Epstein's case and the Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division in Washington, D.C. Epstein's defense team again raised federalism-based arguments that were reje

1232 language that demeans the harm they may have suffered." • "[W]e will not remove the language about contacting AUSA Villafana or Special Agent Kuyrkendall with questions or concerns. Again, federal law requires that victims have a 'reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in th

n). Moreover, this case does not implicate the important national prosecutorial priority in favor of protecting minors that has heretofore animated the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section— specifically, crimes involving Internet luring; sex trafficking of minors; profiting from prostitution as a commercial enterprise with the use of s

gs/Sexual Activity — Grouped by victim — Testimony re Interviews with the Girls b. Plights — Manifests C. Take Questions D. Call Special Agent Kuyrkendall IL RETURN DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO SUBPOENAS ISSUED SINCE THE LAST DOCUMENT RETURN. A. Have additional subpoenas been issued on behalf