Epstein Secrets

application of federal law." 1. The Alleged "Leak" to the New York Times. AUSA became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he was the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in con

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.

federal law." 1. The Alleged teak' to the New York Times. AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he was the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in co

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

federal law." 1. The Alleged "Leak" to the New York Times. AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he was the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in con

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

federal law." 1. The Alleged "Leak'to the New York Times. AUSA David Weinstein became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (PIO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he was the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in co

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

application of federal law." I . The Alleged "Leak" to the New York Times. AUS became involved in this matter in his capacity as back up for the District's Public Information Officer (NO). While the District's PIO was on annual leave, he was the acting PIO during the first week of January 2008. The entirety of his conduct in conn

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