Epstein Secrets

il from J. Lefkowitz to a. o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later conceded that the citation to this statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. o The letter wrongly advised all recipients that Mr. Epst

on Agreement places identified individuals in a far better position than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 9. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. Mr. Letter: • "Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to a

il from J. Lefkowitz to a. o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later conceded that the citation to this statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. o The letter wrongly advised all recipients that Mr. Epst

on Agreement places identified individuals in a far better position than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 9. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. Mr. Letter: • "Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to a

from J. Lefkowitz to J. =. o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later conceded that the citation to this statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. o The letter wrongly advised all recipients that Mr. Epst

on Agreement places identified individuals in a far better position than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 9. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. Mr. Sloman's Letter: • "Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally ag

il from J. Lelkowitz tom . o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later conceded that the citation to this statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. o The letter wrongly advised all recipients that Mr. Epst

on Agreement places identified individuals in a far better position than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 9. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. Letter: • "Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to assign

J. Lefkowitz to J. Sloman. o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later conceded that the citation to this statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. o The letter wrongly advised all recipients that Mr. Epst

on Agreement places identified individuals in a far better position than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 9. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. Mr. Sloman's Letter: • "Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally agr