Epstein Secrets

ct Deliberative process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege ■ 7/13/2007 letter from to with handwritten attorney (Lourie) notes; ■ 6/2 /2 I from Gerald Lefcourt Matt Menchal , and with handwritten attorney • ■ 6/25/2007 email fro to Matt Menchel and entitled "Thoughts on Lefcourt's letter" Handwrit

ttorney (Lourie) notes; ■ 6/2 /2 I from Gerald Lefcourt Matt Menchal , and with handwritten attorney

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

alleged conduct. See, e.g., Letter from Gerald B. Lefcourt to a EFTA00299028 USAO-SDFL, June 25, 2007 (a

the many contradictory sworn statements and inconsistencies in the various witness accounts of Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct. See, e.g., Letter from Gerald B. Lefcourt to a EFTA00299028 USAO-SDFL, June 25, 2007 (attached as Exhibit 1). Those presentations also included detailed statutory analysis and discussion

nce value, the Government's 42 EFTA00299062 enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the Government's overall enforcement plan..." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985). As such, the decision to prosecute is "particularly ill-suited to judicial review." Id. "Few subjects ar

ervices B. Y., 818 F.3d 733, 741 (D.C.Cir. 2016), quoting Newman v United States, 382 F.2d 479, 480 (D.C.Cir. 1967). As the Supreme Court noted in Wayte, "[j]udicial supervision in this area, moreover, entails systemic costs of particular concern. Examining the basis of a prosecution delays the crim

lationship; Improper Invocation; Overriding Need; Claims Against ■ 6/25/2007 letter from Gerald Public Prosecutor, Attorney Conduct at Issue; Lefeourt to Jeffrey Sloman, Matt Factual Materials; Court Authorized Under Menchal, Andrew Lourie, and 6(e)(3)(E); Court Inherent Power to Release; Marie

s; Fiduciary Duty; Claims Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Suppl. Box 3 P-013859 Through P413860 Email, Gerald Lefcourt to Marie Villafana, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Roy Black, re: Jeffrey Epstein [Not considered privileged. Will be produced to opposing counsel upon li

517 Thru P-008535 6/25/2007 Letter from Gerald Lefcourt to Jeffrey Sloman and Andrew Lourie [pursuant t

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

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

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