Epstein Secrets

908 Inadvertently marked as privileged, will be produced N/A Suppl. Box 3 P-013909 Thru P-013911 Memorandum, Lisa Howard, Assistant Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), to Ruth Plagenhoef, Acting Associate Counsel, OPR, undated, Subject: Recommendation Deliberati

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

rom Stake Center and other victims, and pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion and three counts of wire fraud. Pursuant to her plea agreement, DiFrancesco agreed to make restitution to Stake ' Stake Center previously petitioned this court for mandamus, and we denied this petition as premature. See Sta

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

ty in his sentence until the [review by writ] is concluded ...."' LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL Procedure § 26.7(b) (Nov. 2010) (quoting United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 146 (1980)). 39 EFTA00207918 reason, it makes sense for the Court to bifurcate the process and determine, first, the extent of the

Justice Department stopped making victim notifications because of 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

y in his sentence until the [review by writ] is concluded ...."' LAFAvs El' AL., CRIMINAL Procedure § 26.7(b) (Nov. 2010) (quoting United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 146 (1980)). 40 EFTA00208413 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 41 of 42 DATED: March 21.

Justice Department stopped making victim notifications because of 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

in his sentence until the [review by writ] is concluded . . ..'" LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL Procedure § 26.7(b) (Nov. 2010) (quoting United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 146 (1980)). 40 EFTA00210829 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 41 of 42 DATED: March 21.

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

ality in his sentence until the [review by writ] is concluded ...."' LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL Procedure § 26.7(b) (Nov. 2010) (quoting United States DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 146 (1980)). 39 EFTA00235789 reason, it makes sense for the Court to bifurcate the process and determine, first, the extent of the

Justice Department stopped making victim notifications because of 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

ty in his sentence until the [review by writ] is concluded ...."' LAFAVE ET AL., CRIMINAL Procedure § 26.7(b) (Nov. 2010) (quoting United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 146 (1980)). 40 EFTA00079032 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 41 of 42 DATED: March 21,2