Epstein Secrets

opportunity to pursue an independent assessment of this matter by the Justice Department. The subsequent nine-month "delay" was a direct result of the Justice Department's determination that it was appropriate to convene an intense and time-consuming review. Thus, the delay was not dictated at all by Mr. Epstein, but

lax 581.515.1401 leopoldkuvin.com CRASHWORTHINESS • MANAGED CARE ABUSE • CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS • PERSONAL INJURY • WRONGFUL DEATH EFTA00194751 I.J.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Facsimile: (5

y level of review, from West Palm Beach, to Miami, to the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, and, finally, to the highest levels of review at the Department of Justice. As Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General John Roth stated: Even if we were to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe

ovisions of the NPA. We informed the USAO of this request the very next day in a letter to Mr. Acosta. See Exhibit 3, November 29, 2007 Letter from J. Leficowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta at 4. • In a December 4, 2007 letter, Mr. Acosta stated that he supported the defense's appeal to Washington. See Exhibit

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

ich involves "File folder entitled '12/05/07 Starr to Acosta' containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acost to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to J. Leficowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. Marie Villafafia." This information goes very directly to the issues i

opportunity to pursue an independent assessment of this matter by the Justice Department. The subsequent nine-month "delay" was a direct result of the Justice Department's determination that it was appropriate to convene an intense and time-consuming review. Thus, the delay was not dictated at all by Mr. Epstein, but

several objections to the suggested modification in my letter to Mr. Acosta, dated December 21, 2007. See Exhibit 21, December 21, 2007 Letter from J. Leficowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta. I personally became aware of the inclusion of that language on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 and discussed the matter with yo

opportunity to pursue an independent assessment of this matter by the Justice Department. The subsequent nine-month "delay" was a direct result of the Justice Department's determination that it was appropriate to convene an intense and time-consuming review. Thus, the delay was not dictated at all by Mr. Epstein, but

several objections to the suggested modification in my letter to Mr. Acosta, dated December 21, 2007. See Exhibit 21, December 21, 2007 Letter from J. Leficowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta. I personally became aware of the inclusion of that language on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 and discussed the matter with yo

prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised his rights to appeal to the Department of Justice with the full consent and knowledge of the USAO, he has not breached the Agreement. The re-commencing of the Grand Jury is in violation of the Agree

tion Agreement. 21. His attorneys asked to "please do whatever you can to keep this from limit public." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Leficowitz to,. 22. -replied that she had "forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], [ , and I don't anticipate it going any further than that." Id.

opportunity to pursue an independent assessment of this matter by the Justice Department. The subsequent nine-month "delay" was a direct result of the Justice Department's determination that it was appropriate to convene an intense and time-consuming review. Thus, the delay was not dictated at all by Mr. Epstein, but

several objections to the suggested modification in my letter to Mr. Acosta, dated December 21, 2007. See Exhibit 21, December 21, 2007 Letter from J. Leficowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta. I personally became aware of the inclusion of that language on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 and discussed the matter with yo