Epstein Secrets

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

l at-564-209--Enentl-this-mentifte-1-am-nweting-widt-the-agents-and-want-to-give-them4heir marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls." U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 359. The reasonable inference is that the "marching orders" agreed to between the Government and Epsteinls-tiefense-eounsel-was-that-ne-mention-

32. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jay sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, Epstein's criminal defense counsel, explaining that the Justice Department's Child Exploitation Obscenity Section (CEOS) had agreed to review Epstein's objections to the proposed plea agreement that had been reached with the

to abide by the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 Agreement as amended by letter from United States Attorney Acosta to Jay Lefkowitz." U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 33. In about April 2008, Jane Doe #1 contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was attempting to take her deposition and private inve

33. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, Epstein's criminal defense counsel, explaining that the Justice Department's Child Exploitation Obscenity Section (CEOS) had agreed to review Epstein's objections to the proposed plea agreement that had been reached with the

to abide by the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 Agreement as amended by letter from United States Attorney Acosta to Jay Lefkowitz." U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 34. In about April 2008, Jane Doe #1 contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was attempting to take her deposition and private inve

On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jay Sloman sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, Epstein's criminal defense counsel, explaining that the Justice Department's Child Exploitation Obscenity Section (CEOS) had agreed to review Epstein's objections to the proposed plea agreement that had been reached with the

to abide by the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 Agreement as amended by letter from United States Attorney Acosta to Jay Lefkowitz." U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 33. In about April 2008, Jane Doe #1 contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was attempting to take her deposition and private inve

848 33. On about February 25, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, Epstein's criminal defense counsel, explaining that the Justice Department's Child Exploitation Obscenity Section (CEOS) had agreed to review Epstein's objections to the proposed plea agreement that had been reached with the

to abide by the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 Agreement as amended by letter from United States Attorney Acosta to Jay Lefkowitz." U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 34. In about April 2008, Jane Doe #1 contacted the FBI because Epstein's counsel was attempting to take her deposition and private inve

o any victim notification, and no further notifications were done." U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 270 (emphasis added). It was a deviation from the Justice Department's standard practice to negotiate with defense counsel about the extent of crime victim notifications. 30. The December 13, 2007, letter also demonstr

have one week to abide by the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 Agreement as amended by letter from United States Attorney Lefkowitz." U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 17 to Jay EFTA00207896 39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Att

o any victim notification, and no further notifications were done." U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 270 (emphasis added). It was a deviation from the Justice Department's standard practice to negotiate with defense counsel about the extent of crime victim notifications. 30. The December 13, 2007, letter also demonstr

to abide by the terms and conditions of the September 24, 2007 Agreement as amended by letter from United States Attorney Acosta to Jay Lefkowitz." U.S. Attorneys Correspondence at 290-91. 17 EFTA00235767 39. On May 30, 2008, another of Mr. Edwards's clients who was recognized as an Epstein victim by the U.S. Attorney's