Epstein Secrets

of a federal case, but I don't recall discussing that at the time. 35 I had never before used a non-prosecution 34 As I noted in my filings in the Jane Doe' United States litigation, I had concerns about informing the victims that part of the negotiations involved securing for them the right to obtain d

meeting, the case agents went to meet with the jail about the issue of work release. I do not recall the exact date. On November 14, 2007, I sought FAUSA Sloman's permission to meet with State Attorney Krischer after ASA Behlolavek stood up the agents a few times. The purpose of my meeting was "to clear up t

female in the presence of Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen- .; ;. year-old girl. (8) In or around 2001, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $300 to Jane Doe #2, who was then a fourteen-year-old girl, for allowing an unidentified female to perform oral sex on Jane Doe #2 in EPSTEIN's presence. (9) On or

in the day. B. Afternoon of January 2, 2008. Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that in regard to his sixth topic, the SDFL had no reason to question FAUSA Sloman's judgment or integrity. He also said that this particular subject matter was a private matter that FAUSA Sloman did not want to discuss with him.1e M

Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) arising out of a decision by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra in the matter of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2I United States, S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra; (3) the materials are needed to avoid an injustice in another proceeding, th

15, 2007. (Exhibit 66). The following day, FAUSA Sloman forwarded to me USA Acosta's email with USA Acosta's revisions to the NPA (Exhibit 46). At FAUSA Sloman's request, I incorporated the changes and sent the new version to Mr. Lefcourt (Exhibits 47 and 67). On September 12, 2007, MAUSA Lourie, Rolando Gar