Epstein Secrets

ement. The documents contain only the text of communications by government attorneys, but they were not obtained from the U.S. Attorney's Office or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, they were obtained from counsel for Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to Jane Doe # 1 's civil suit against Mr. Epstein, to which the United States

Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding plea negotiations; (2) internal communications between attorneys at the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Justice Department and among the prosecution team; and (3) internal communications among attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein and among the defense team. Internal communicati

d information should be privileged under a common law plea negotiations privilege. In addition, in their initial briefing and at oral argument, the Intervenors argued that the communications were governed by the attorney work-product privilege. ARGUMENT A. The Petitioners Appear to Be Seeking to Use the

Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding plea negotiations; (2) internal communications between attorneys at the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Justice Department and among the prosecution team; and (3) internal communications among attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein and among the defense team. Internal communicati

ement. The documents contain only the text of communications by government attorneys, but they were not obtained from the U.S. Attorney's Office or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, they were obtained from counsel for Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to Jane Doe # 1 's civil suit against Mr. Epstein, to which the United States

d information should be privileged under a common law plea negotiations privilege. In addition, in their initial briefing and at oral argument, the Intervenors argued that the communications were governed by the attorney work-product privilege. ARGUMENT A. The Petitioners Appear to Be Seeking to Use the

torney Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Leflcowitz„ a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit _.Bpsteinls—eriminal—defense eeunselr explaining that the Justice Department's Child Exploitation Obscenity Seotion (CEOS) had-agreeil-te-review-Bpstein1/2 -ehjeetiens-te-the--prepese4-plea-agFeement-that-hed-heen-reaehed with

on with the defendant sex offender and. niter he raised objections. slopped making notilleatIons.* Epstein sought 'a higher level of review' within the Department of Justice the motion says. 'A reasonable inference Irons the evidence is that Epstein used his sirlicani pol.lical and social connections to kitty the Justic

ed on Rule 501 on the ground that Congress has already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(0 and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and likewise rejected the Intervenors' request that the Court recognize a privilege for plea negotiation communications. Id. at 8-9. The Intervenors appealed the Court's ruling to the E