Epstein Secrets

with the person who was being prosecuted. 50. RFP No. 17 asks for documents concerning an investigation into the Epstein prosecution undertaken by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in Washington, D.C. The investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims, who asked the Justi

information about possible improper behavior during the investigation of the Epstein matter. Gov't Answers to RFA ¶22 (government admits that "The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities have collected information about . . . other government attorney's [apart fro

LSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 103 EFTA00184984 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 362-33 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida June 30, 2008 NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIMS On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinaf

are irrelevant, and we really hope he does not prove the point that a man can commit heinous crimes against children and buy his way out of it. If the Department of Justice's recent commitment to the protection of our children from child molesters is to be more than rhetoric, then this is the time and the case where the

h regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft Leteri_ marked `Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo A. =, with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there any indication as to whether the letter wa

with the person who was being prosecuted. 50. RFP No. 17 asks for documents concerning an investigation into the Epstein prosecution undertaken by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in Washington, D.C. The investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims, who asked the Justi

information about possible improper behavior during the investigation of the Epstein matter. Gov't Answers to RFA 122 (government admits that "The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities have collected information about . . . other government attorney's [apart fro

tment accordingly sent various issues related to the Epstein case (and, on information and belief, issues related to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) to the Department of Justice and to a United States Attorney's Office in another District. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the pot

with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft Letter marked 'Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there any indication as to whether the letter was or was not ci

with the person who was being prosecuted. 50. RFP No. 17 asks for documents concerning an investigation into the Epstein prosecution undertaken by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in Washington, D.C. The investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims, who asked the Justi

information about possible improper behavior during the investigation of the Epstein matter. Gov't Answers to RFA 122 (government admits that "The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities have collected information about . . . other government attorney's [apart fro

tment accordingly sent various issues related to the Epstein case (and, on information and belief, issues related to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) to the Department of Justice and to a United States Attorney's Office in another District. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the pot

ith regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft Letter, marked `Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo A. Ferrer, with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there any indication as to whether the lette

e 102. Some of the correspondence that is being withheld by the Government under the deliberative process privilege concerns an investigation that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) opened with' regard to the Epstein case. This investigation was undertaken at the request of the victim

de: a) All documents, correspondence, and other information collected by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and any other component of the Justice Department (including the FBI) in response to the victims' letter; b) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information collected as pa

tment accordingly sent various issues related to the Epstein case (and, on information and belief, issues related to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) to the Department of Justice and to a United States Attorney's Office in another District. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the pote

ith regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft Letter, marked 'Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo A. Ferrer, with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there any indication as to whether the lette

information about possible improper behavior during the investigation of the Epstein matter. Gov't Answers to RFA ¶22 (government admits that "The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities have collected information about ... other government attorney's [apart from

with the person who was being prosecuted. 50. RFP No. 17 asks for documents concerning an investigation into the Epstein prosecution undertaken by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in Washington, D.C. The investigation was undertaken at the request of the victims, who asked the Justi

with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013940 to P-013942. The description there reads: "Draft Letter marked `Confidential: To Be Opened by Addressee Only,' Robin C. Ashton to Wifredo A. = with handwritten corrections." No date is provided regarding this letter. Nor is there any indication as to whether the letter was

remedies also provide a way to insure that those who were responsible for violating their rights are appropriately reviewed for possible sanction by the Justice Department. For example, as the Court knows, the Government has previously declined to investigate the victims' complaint that their rights were violated durin

ld have been addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney . . . ." Letter from Robin C. Ashton to Professor Paul G. Cassell, May 6, 2001, attached as Exhibit 1 to Victim's Mot. File Supp. Auth. DE #82. Accordingly, an order by this Court makin

remedies also provide a way to insure that those who were responsible for violating their rights are appropriately reviewed for possible sanction by the Justice Department. For example, as the Court knows, the Government has previously declined to investigate the victims' complaint that their rights were violated durin

ld have been addressed in the course of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney . . . ." Letter from Robin C. Ashton to Professor Paul G. Cassell, May 6, 2001, attached as Exhibit 1 to Victim's Mot. File Supp. Auth. DE #82. Accordingly, an order by this Court makin

ly raised the point about other attorneys apart from Reinhart. The victims noted that, in the Government's answers to RFA #22(b), it admitted that "[t]he Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities have collected information about . . . [o]ther government [attorneys'] . . .

tantive information that was "collected" during the OPR investigation. Where in the log is the information that was collected? The declaration from Robin C. Ashton, Counsel of OPR, only deepens the mysteries swirling around the Government's privilege log. For example, Ashton asserts "deliberative process" priv