Epstein Secrets

and Jury (for person and documents or objects t 201. 7/3/2008, 11:59 am Email from to (F.B.I.), and (F.B.I.) re: work release 202. 7/3/2008 Goldberge 's notes re: 7/3/2008 email from 203. 7/9/2008 Letter from Goldber er to re: notification of identified victims 204. 7/9/2008 Declaration of in

2008 Letter from Lefkowitz to re: deferred rosecution agreement 217. 8/20/2008, 9:29 am Email from to Lefkowitz and m l re: joint submission " Jack Goldberger, Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss P.A. PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL 10 EFTA00296188 CHRONOLOGY OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S DOCUMENTS Date Document 218. 8/2

to Lefkowitz, Black, and re: victim notifications 223. 9/3/2008 Letter from to Josefsberg49 re: victim notifications 224. 9/8/2008 Email from Goldberger to Michael Tein, "JEE Litigation," Critton46, Lefkowitz, Weinberg, Indyke, Guy , an 6 re: victim notification letters 225. 9/17/2008, 12:05 pm

5:23 pm Email from Indyke t , attaching drafts of In re Misconduct by First Assistant United States Attorney 190. 4/28/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker re: civil litigation by former firm 191. 5/16/2008 Fax with 5/15/2008 letter from to Lefkowitz re: propriety discretion to authorize federal pro

of 187. 3/28/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker42 and it: why case not appropriate for federal prosecution 188. 4/8/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker re: questioning the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida 189. 4/14/2008, 5:23 pm Email from Indyke t , att

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

to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language 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.

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 conversation with Starr and Lefk

IN A STATE COURT HEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT On June 30, 2008, Epstein appeared in state court in West Palm Beach, with his attorney Jack Goldberger, and pled guilty to an information charging him with procuring a person under 18 for prostitution, as well as the indictment charging him with felon

63 Both Villafaña and the FBI case agent were present in the courtroom gallery to observe the plea hearing. Later that day, Villafaña met with Goldberger and gave him the list of 31 individuals the government was prepared to name as victims and to whom the § 2255 provision applied. In her 2015 CV

er to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision together with the Department’s Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker. Acosta did consult with Mandelker about the § 2255 civil damages recovery process, but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled discussing the issue

ho advised him to make the following proposal [to defer notification to the State Attorney’s Office].” OPR found no other documentation relating to Mandelker’s purported involvement in the decision. 220 decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst many other issues, properly w