Epstein Secrets

as counsel to the above noted entities to respond to the subpoenas dated April 24, 2007, served, respectively, on those entities. I understand from Gerald B. Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez, both counsel to Jeffrey Epstein, that as a result of a telephone conversation had amongst you, Mr. Lefcourt and Ms. Sanchez,

d from Gerald B. Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez, both counsel to Jeffrey Epstein, that as a result of a telephone conversation had amongst you, Mr. Lefcourt and Ms. Sanchez, you are now seeking documents reflecting: 1. Ownership of JEGE and Hyperion; 2. Assets of JEGE and Hyperion; and 3. Employees of

ted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal st

s of that conflict of interest. Another prominent attorney who began representing Epstein during the state investigation was New York City attorney Gerald Lefcourt, 4 Epstein’s background has been extensively researched and reported in the media. See, e.g., L

ypassed Villafaña and phoned Lourie, with whom she had worked when she was an AUSA, to press for a meeting. Lourie agreed to meet with Sanchez and Lefcourt. Lourie explained to Villafaña that Sanchez was concerned that federal charges were “imminent,” wanted to meet with the USAO and “make a pitch,” an

Chief] Oosterba[an] to participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting. Thoughts? Acosta told OPR that he had no concern about Departmental “scrutiny of the NPA scheme” and that “[i]f anything,” he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to “drop this case.”96 2. Le

See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from I. to G. Lefcourt ("In other words, if the sex offense case is res

ted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal st

tering; and that it would be “virtually impossible to comply” with four separate state registration requirements. A few minutes later, Sanchez sent Lefcourt’s phone number to Lourie “in case you want to speak to him directly.” In another email sent less than two hours later, Sanchez told Lourie she was

rosecution should Epstein renege on his agreement, and she outlined for Acosta and Sloman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein was pursuing Departmental review. Those steps included re-establishing contact with victims, interviewing victims in New York and one victim who lived in a foreign country,

nted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal stat

3, August 16, 2007 Letter from M. Villafana to G. Lefcourt (“In other words, if the sex offense case is reso