Epstein Secrets

ards' clients, Individuals 35 and 43 (Exhibit B-66). Whenever I sent a victim notification letter, a redacted version of the letter also was sent to Jack Goldberger, counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. I was not authorized to send a victim notification letter to Individual # 28 or to include her on the list of persons

the document (id.). After conferring with an AUSA who had previously worked at the Palm Beach County SAO, and with FAUSA Sloman, I informed Messrs. Goldberger and Black that the agreement was insufficient because it did not specify that the defendant was supposed to serve his sentence in a custodial settin

aid that he had been threatened with being sued if he didn't allow Epstein to participate (id) I reviewed my emails and notes of conversations with Black, Goldberger, and other defense counsel about Epstein being incarcerated for the MI 18 months (except for credit for "gain time"). Criminal Chief Senior advised

ms against me was because he disliked my insistence on pushing the case forward. After the NPA was signed, USA Acosta recommended that I transfer to the Civil Division. I agreed to meet with them and talk about their work. Despite USA Acosta's recommendation, I decided not to follow his recommendation, and I staye

dwards. DE 14. Moreover, Epstein's counsel, Jack Goldberger, Esq. is copied on letters to Mr. Edwards. I also

llafafia's letters and Special Agent Richards and Kuyrkendall are referenced in certain letters to Mr. Edwards. DE 14. Moreover, Epstein's counsel, Jack Goldberger, Esq. is copied on letters to Mr. Edwards. I also note that the Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie Villafaria (DE 35) notes the existence of a Se

ow-up to your recent meeting concerning the above-referenced case, I write this letter in my capacity as the Electronic Discovery Coordinator within the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (1JSAO-SDFLA). 1 write to advise you of the USAO-SDFLA's legal obligati

iRglffers and Special Agent 1) 'Ph'i le cil'el ii,,yrkanA.I1 are referenced in certain letters to Mr. Edwards. DE 14. Moreover, Epstein's counsel, Jack Goldberger, Esq. is co ied on letters to Mr. Edwards. I also note that the Supplemental Declaration of sYdafaiiw (DE 35) notes the existence of a September 2

dwards. DE 14. Moreover, Epstein's counsel, Jack Goldberger, Esq. is co ied on letters to Mr. Edwards. I also

ow-up to your recent meeting concerning the above-referenced case, I write this letter in my capacity as the Electronic Discovery Coordinator within the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (1JSAO-SDFLA). 1 write to advise you of the USAO-SDFLA's legal obligati

dwards. DE 14. Moreover, Epstein's counsel, Jack Goldberger, Esq. is co fed on letters to Mr. Edwards. I also

A ent Ne bit , F.B.I. is copied on AUSA letters and Special are referenced in certain letters to Mr. Edwards. DE 14. Moreover, Epstein's counsel, Jack Goldberger, Esq. is co fed on letters to Mr. Edwards. I also note that the Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie (DE 35) notes the existence of a September 20

ow-up to your recent meeting concerning the above-referenced case, I write this letter in my capacity as the Electronic Discovery Coordinator within the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFLA). I write to advise you of the USAO-SDFLA's legal obligatio

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

nguage that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conv