Epstein Secrets

a state prison, with the option of eliminating incarceration upon StItA.L55fili completion of the term of supervised custody. among other terms. Mr. Menchel stated that "the federal interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two year term in state prison." Sec August 3. 2007 letter. Such an art

eas of traditionally local concern, we urged your Office to contemplate whether a federal prosecution was appropriate. However, on August 3, 2007. Matthew Menchel rejected a proposed state plea which included that Mr. Epstein serve two years of supervised custody followed by two years of incarceration in a st

ch and every term of Mr. Epstein's State plea, including the exact state charges to which Mr. Epstein plead guilty; the time-frame within which Mr. Lipstein must enter that state pica and surrender to state olficials; and the amount of time he must spend in county jail. This is particularly true where th

initial indictment package had been reviewed and approved by Mr. in West Palm Beach and by attorneys with CEOS; however, it awaited review by Mr. Menchel and FAUSA Sloman. The SDFL deferred presenting the indictment to the grand jury to accommodate the Epstein legal team's request for a meeting. We a

suance of several subpoenas. At the time, Mr. Lefcourt began leveling accusations of improprieties with the investigation and sought a meeting 3Mr. Menchel resigned for private practice on August 3, 2007 and was replaced by Robert Senior. 'Although I, Jeffrey H. Sloman, am writing this letter, I will c

nsensual: she lied to Mr.. Epstein about her age; she instructed others to lie about their ages: there was no sexual contact between herself and Mr. Lipstein at any time; and them was never any inducement over the telephone, computer or through any other means of interstate commerce We ask that you consi

n to use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When you and I could not reach agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs. Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to plead

and that ease has since been distinguished as well. B. Ms. Prompted An Unduh• Invasive lInvestiention Of Mr. Epstein. Ms. s investigation of Mr. Lipstein raises serious questions. Despite the fact that she was mac aware of the inaccuracies in the P131'lis Probable Cause Affidavit, she chose to includ

n to use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When you and I could not reach agreement, you repeatedly went over my head, involving Messrs. Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta in the negotiations at various times. In any and all plea negotiations the defendant understands that his options are to plead

elements of this offense. His assertion raises for me substantial concerns. This Off= will not, and cannot, be a party to an agreement in which, Mr. Lipstein pleads guilty to an offense that he believes he did not commit. We are considering how best to proceed. 2 X1003 US_Atty_Cor_00273 EFTA00235599