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

prospective witnesses, Mr. Epstein and his attorneys) Not surprisingly, Ms. issued this subpoena without the requisite prior approval by the DOJ's Office of Enforcement Operations. See United States Attorneys' Manual, § 9-13.410. When confronted, she misleadingly responded that she had consulted with the Department of Justice

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

rospective witnesses, Mr. Epstein and his attorneys.' Not surprisingly, Ms. issued this subpoena without the requisite prior approval by the DOJ's Office of Enforcement Operations. See United States Attorneys' Manual, § 9-13.410. When confronted, she misleadingly responded that she had consulted with the Department of Justice

As you put it, your group has a "combined 250 years experience" to my fourteen. The agreement itself was signed by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr. Lefcourt, whose experience speaks for itself. You and I spent hours negotiating the terms, including when to use "a" versus "the" and other minutiae. When y

rospective witnesses, Mr. Epstein and his attorneys.' Not surprisingly, Ms. issued this subpoena without the requisite prior approval by the DOJ's Office of Enforcement Operations. See United States Attorneys' Manual, § 9-13.410. When confronted, she misleadingly responded that she had consulted with the Department of Justice

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

rospective witnesses, Mr. Epstein and his attorneys.' Not surprisingly, Ms. issued this subpoena without the requisite prior approval by the DOJ's Office of Enforcement Operations. See United States Attorneys' Manual, § 9-13.410. When confronted, she misleadingly responded that she had consulted with the Department of Justice

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

ll prospective witnesses, Mr. Epstein and his attorneys.' Not surprisingly, issued this subpoena without the requisite prior approval by the DOJ's Office of Enforcement Operations. See United States Attorneys' Manual, § 9-13.410. When confronted, she misleadingly responded that she had consulted with the Department of Justice

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

rospective witnesses, Mr. Epstein and his attorneys.' Not surprisingly, Ms. issued this subpoena without the requisite prior approval by the DOJ's Office of Enforcement Operations. See United States Attorneys' Manual, § 9-13.410. When confronted, she misleadingly responded that she had consulted with the Department of Justice

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

rospective witnesses, Mr. Epstein and his attorneys.' Not surprisingly, Ms. issued this subpoena without the requisite prior approval by the DOJ's Office of Enforcement Operations. See United States Attorneys' Manual, § 9-13.410. When confronted, she misleadingly responded that she had consulted with the Department of Justice