Epstein Secrets

re correct a t" containing 8/5/08 email from A. to A. Acosta, a re "Jeffrey Epstein Agreement" discussing 6/24/08 email from to R. Black and J. Goldberger concerning the binding nature of the Agreement Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Deliberative Process Suppl. Box #3 P-013290 Thru P-0132

efore June 30, 2008, the Office prepared a draft victim notification to be sent to the victims—a letter that it intended to show to both Epstein and Jack Goldberger, as reflected by a place for the initials of both Epstein and Goldberger on the document. The notification was designed to inform the victims of th

t thru and regarding analysis of JeffiSstem agreement, with Deliberative Process P-015135 attached 6/24/2008 email from . I II to R. Black and J. Goldberger and attached Epstein agreement. (NB: Privilege is not being asserted for the two attachments. The 6/24/2008 email will be produced to petitioners'

6. The correspondence further discussed a possible plea disposition that would make it hard for a judge to see what was happening: Andy [i.e., AUSA Andrew Laurie] recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are trying to c

efore June 30, 2008, the Office prepared a draft victim notification to be sent to the victims—a letter that it intended to show to both Epstein and Jack Goldberger, as reflected by a place for the initials of both Epstein and Goldberger on the document. The notification was designed to inform the victims of th

to the victims—a letter that it intended to show to both Epstein and Jack Goldberger, as reflected by a place for the initials of both Epstein and Goldberger on the document. The notification was designed to inform the victims of the provisions of deferral of federal prosecution in favor of state charges

6. The correspondence further discussed a possible plea disposition that would make it hard for a judge to see what was happening: Andy [i.e., AUSA Andrew Laurie] recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are trying to c

efore June 30, 2008, the Office prepared a draft victim notification to be sent to the victims—a letter that it intended to show to both Epstein and Jack Goldberger, as reflected by a place for the initials of both Epstein and Goldberger on the document. The notification was designed to inform the victims of th

to the victims—a letter that it intended to show to both Epstein and Jack Goldberger, as reflected by a place for the initials of both Epstein and Goldberger on the document. The notification was designed to inform the victims of the provisions of deferral of federal prosecution in favor of state charges

6. The correspondence further discussed a possible plea disposition that would make it hard for a judge to see what was happening: Andy [i.e., AUSA Andrew Laurie] recommended that some of the timing issues be addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the judge that we are trying to c

ou will recall, the plea and sentencing hearing originally was to occur in early October 2007, but was delayed until the end of October to allow Mr. Goldberger to attend. It was delayed again until November to allow you to attend. You have provided no showing of how you and your client have used your best

ter have no relation to the allegations against Mr. ISpstein. Notably. affix we objected to these overt broad and intrusive requests. Deputy Chief Andrew Laurie denied knowledge of Ms. s actions and Mr Laurie commendably so t igni tiara ly narrow the list of documen requested. In a subsequent court filin