Epstein Secrets

e Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with

le modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. See attached Tab F. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankl the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider.

Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with p

e modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez.. See attached Tab F. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider

e Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with

le modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. See attached Tab F. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone conside

Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with p

le modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. See attached Tab F. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone consider

e Agreement, the SDFL unilaterally proposed to divest its right to select the attorney representative for the victims. Contrary to Messrs. Starr and Whitley's recent assertion that this was "engineered in a way that appears intended to profit particular lawyers in private practice in South Florida with

ous reasonable modifications and amturunndatinna which ultimately resulted in U.S. Attorney Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to I I. See attached Tab F. In that letter, U.S. Attorney Acosta tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the SDFL was not obligated to address, let alone conside