Epstein Secrets

will try to collect them into general categories in chronological order. a. I did not want to meet with counsel for Epstein (Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt) prior to completin m investi ation. My co-counsel ( ) agreed with me. Our supervisor, overruled us. b. AUSA and I did not want to have a subseq

counsel for Epstein (Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt) prior to completin m investi ation. My co-couns

, and who will also protect their rights. After my response to I know that he spoke with who was Chief of Appeals at the time, about moving me to the Appellate Section. The results of the disagreements catalogued above were communicated to me (orally or via e-mail) as decisions of the Executive Division. They some

rald Lefcourt provided written arguments for why Epstein should not be charged federal) Exhibit 32). The following day, Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Lilly M presented their arguments to FAUSA and Chief Sil her supervisor, and I also attended (Exhibit 5). At some point during the meeting,

that, prior to this investigation, I had ever prepared' request for 6001 immunity, so I was researching the process. The meetingwith Ms. and Mr. Lefcourt was set for February 1, 2007. As noted above, despite Ms. statements of Epstein's willina to cooperate, she complained that my document requests w

d who will also protect their rights. After my response to Mr. I know that he spoke with who was Chief of Appeals at the time, about moving me to the Appellate Section. The results of the disagreements catalogued above were communicated to me (orally or via e-mail) as decisions of the Executive Division. They some

P, Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Esq., Martin Weinberg, Esq., Lilly Ann Sanchez,

sciplined. Mr. Epstein is represented by Jay Lelkowitz, Esq. and Dean Kenneth Starr of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Esq., Martin Weinberg, Esq., Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq., Guy Lewis, Esq. and Michael Tein, Esq. to name a few. Background. On September 24, 2007, th

e trusted to protect the victims' interests. I asked whether he thought Ocariz was suitable for and would be willing to accept the assignment and • the Appellate Section. Contrary to allegations raised by Epstein's attorneys, business relationship with Ocariz; they have been friends since law school. Ile is assigned

counsel for Epstein (Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt) prior to completing my investigation. My co-cou

will try to collect them into general categories in chronological order. a. I did not want to meet with counsel for Epstein (Lilly Ann Sanchez and Gerald Lefcourt) prior to completing my investigation. My co-counsel (John McMillan) agreed with me. Our supervisor, Andrew Lourie, overruled us. b. AUSA McMillan

eir rights. After my response to Mr. Menchel, I know that he spoke with Anne Ruth Schultz, who was Chief of Appeals at the time, about moving me to the Appellate Section. The results of the disagreements catalogued above were communicated to me (orally or via e-mail) as decisions of the Executive Division. They some

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

d by U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and provide legal expertise and policy guidance. Among the Criminal Division components mentioned in this Report are the Appellate Section, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, and, most prominently, the Child Exploitation and Obsce