Epstein Secrets

would result in a financial benefit to him, and because he is Mr. Epstein's subordinate at that corporation, Mr. Indyke may be reluctant to inform the Sheriff's Office of this violation of the terms of Mr. Epstein's Work Release contract. The "references" listed by Mr. Epstein all appear to have the same conflict

er restrain them from notifying the Sheriff's Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide y

would result in a financial benefit to him, and because he is Mr. Epstein's subordinate at that corporation, Mr. Indyke may be reluctant to inform the Sheriff's Office of this violation of the terms of Mr. Epstein's Work Release contract. The "references" listed by Mr. Epstein all appear to have the same conflict

er restrain them from notifying the Sheriff's Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide y

A00225045 that the state offered, including work release. Because of this, I had to withdraw the Notice of Breach and could only write I letter to the Sheriff's Office pointing out all of the false statements contained in Epstein's application for work release and letters to the victims informing them that Epstein

o let us know if Epstein did, in fact, apply for work release. We never received any notice ofas application. Instead, on November 20, 2008, when Gauger stopped by to see on another matter he told her that Epstein had been on work release for the past few weeks (Exhibit 82). Sil spoke with the work

t prior to the scheduled time." Both in this form and in Mr. Indyke's letter in support of Mr. Epstein's application, Mr. Indyke neglects to inform the Sheriff's Office of two significant facts. First, Mr. Indyke lives and works in the New York metropolitan area. He likely will not be present at Mr. Epstein's workpl

er restrain them from notifying the Sheriff's Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide y

would result in a financial benefit to him, and because he is Mr. Epstein's subordinate at that corporation, Mr. Indyke may be reluctant to inform the Sheriff's Office of this violation of the terms of Mr. Epstein's Work Release contract. The "references" listed by Mr. Epstein all appear to have the same conflict

er restrain them from notifying the Sheriff's Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide y

One of them makes clear that our office was not informed of the release until well after the fact. I told the Chief that we had written a letter to the Sheriff's Office and he said he would use a public records request to get a copy. << File: 081213 PB Daily News Editorial.pdf >> << File: 081213 PB Daily News Artie

retion, you may or may choose to consult with the appropriate judge on this matter. Request for Notification As I had previously asked of Colonel Gauger, I would appreciate if you would keep me informed of any changes to Mr. Epstein's release status so that I may fulfill my obligations to keep the v

t prior to the scheduled time." Both in this form and in Mr. Indyke's letter in support of Mr. Epstein's application, Mr. Indyke neglects to inform the Sheriff's Office of two significant facts. First, Mr. Indyke lives and works in the New York metropolitan area. He likely will not be present at Mr. Epstein's workpl

her restrain them from notifying the Sheriffs Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide y

attorneys who are currently retained—and paid—by Mr. Epstein. Their attorney- client privilege obligations might further restrain them from notifying the Sheriff's Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is comp

er restrain them from notifying the Sheriff's Office if Mr. Epstein was not abiding by the work release rules. As I previously mentioned to Colonel Gauger, the decision regarding work release is completely within the discretion of the Sheriff's Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide y

or was one of his employees who lived in New Jersey) and submitted it to the Sheriff's Office (Exhibits 83 and 84). I never received a response from the Sheriff's Office. 30 Gauger also said that Jack Goldberger had threatened that "Ken Starr and the whole crew" would sue the jail if Epstein received less favorable

s know if Epstein did, in fact, apply for work release. We never received any notice of Epstein's application. Instead, on November 20, 2008, when Gauger stopped by to see Karen Atkinson on another matter, he told her that Epstein had been on work release for the past few weeks (Exhibit 82). S/A Kuyrk