Epstein Secrets

tein had not agreed to any date. Finally, after multiple communications referring to various potential dates, on December 7, 2007, Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the case for January 4, 2008.150 E. Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA’s § 2255 Provision Relating t

e change of plea hearing had been postponed. In an email reporting this to Acosta and Villafaña, Sloman said that Epstein’s local defense attorney Goldberger had told Belohlavek the postponement was because the facts “did not fit the proposed state charge,” and that Belohlavek told Sloman she agreed with

icy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves as having failed to register with the Selective Service system. The petitioner in Wayte claimed that the self-reported non-registrants were “vocal” opponents of the registration program who were being punished for the exercise of their

r unless based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Id. These principles were reiterated in Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985), a case involving the government’s policy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves as ha

2265 File folder entitled "JEGE & Hyperion from Goldberger OLY-46 & OLY-47" containing documents received i

ts are [not] competent to undertake" the kind of analysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (Judicial deference to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an a

made an inexplicably poor decision when it decided not to prosecute Epstein. "(T]he Government retains `broad discretion' as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985). The CVRA incorporates this principle, providing that Irdothing in this chapter shall be construed to im

to A. Acosta, J. Sloman, R. Senior, K. Atkinson re "Jeffrey Epstein Agreement" discussing 6/24/08 email from A. Marie Villafafia to R. Black and J. Goldberger concerning the binding nature of the Agreement Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciary

k, 630 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing procedure for forfeiture). "[T]he Government retains broad discretion as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985) (quotation omitted). The CVRA expressly does not impair that broad discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6