Epstein Secrets

t. 1, 2007. ABC News later reported that federal charges “could carry more substantial prison time. Now, Epstein’s high-powered lawyers, including Kenneth Starr, . . . may try to get him out of registering as a sex offender . . . .” Scott Michels, “Money Manager Said to Plan to Plead Guilty to Prostitution

of Hearing (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Dec. 7, 2007). 151 In a meeting with Acosta and Sloman on November 21, 2007, Lefkowitz informed them that Starr had placed a call to Fisher. 95 not recall for OPR the substance of his conversation with Starr, other than that it was likely about Epst

, the legal prowess, if you will, of the attorneys [ ] [became] something to consider. . . . . I think that the ability of Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr and Jay Lefkowitz to convince Alex Acosta that I didn’t know what I was talking [about] also, all came into play. So I think there were a number

ing decisions, the choice to resolve a case through a non-prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement “resides fundamentally with the Executive” branch. Id. at 741. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard in the USAM prohibiting the use of a non- prosecution agreement in the circumsta

rneys to the Deputy Attorney General. Ex. V. On June 23, 2008, John Roth, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General, wrote to Messrs. Leflcowitz and Starr, advising them that "federal prosecution of this case is appropriate." Ex. I. Mr. Roth also told Epstein's attorneys that their allegations of pros

. The NPA itself was attacked on a number of grounds, including the provision for compensation of Epstein's victims. Ex. K, Nov. 28, 2007 Ltr. from Kenneth W. Starr to Assistant Att'y Gen. Alice S. Fisher. The Government cannot be faulted for properly recognizing that the NPA might be set aside by the efforts o

ited States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence of the Executive with regard to charging decisions and concluding that "[n]othing in the [Speedy Trial Act's] terms or structure suggests any intention to subvert t

ibit 39 (May 15, 2008 letter by the head of CEOS to Epstein's counsel overruling their objections), see Motion, Exhibit 96 (May 19, 2008 Letter from Kenneth Starr, Esq. to DAG Mark Filip seeking further review). The Government properly determined for their own interests in the event that there was a future pr

ion, Exhibit 96 (May 19, 2008 Letter from Kenneth Starr, Esq. to DAG Mark Filip seeking further review).

udicial records and those that may not"). In general, "there is no First Amendment right of access to government processes," including those of the Executive branch. United States v. Gonzales, 50 F.3d 1246, 1260 (10th Cir. 1998). As the District of Columbia Circuit stated in evaluating whether a plea agre

rneys to the Deputy Attorney General. Ex. V. On June 23, 2008, John Roth, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General, wrote to Messrs. Leflcowitz and Starr, advising them that "federal prosecution of this case is appropriate." Ex. I. Mr. Roth also told Epstein's attorneys that their allegations of pros

. The NPA itself was attacked on a number of grounds, including the provision for compensation of Epstein's victims. Ex. K, Nov. 28, 2007 Ltr. from Kenneth W. Starr to Assistant Att'y Gen. Alice S. Fisher. The Government cannot be faulted for properly recognizing that the NPA might be set aside by the efforts o

ited States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence of the Executive with regard to charging decisions and concluding that "[n]othing in the [Speedy Trial Act's] terms or structure suggests any intention to subvert t

ressional intent"); see also Letter from Kenneth Starr, Esq. to John Roth, June 19, 2008 (attached as Ex

of this case fall squarely outside the heartland of those [federal] statutes — in fact, in law, and in congressional intent"); see also Letter from Kenneth Starr, Esq. to John Roth, June 19, 2008 (attached as Exhibit _J. Defense counsel also urged the USAO-SDFL to respect the long-recognized "Petite Policy,"'

-Violence v. Pierce, 786 F.2d 1199, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ("The power to decide when to investigate, and when to prosecute, lies at the core of the Executive's duty to see the faithful execution of the laws"); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985) ("[t]he decision of a prosecutor in the Executive B

im Conde, Tyler Green, Felise Thorpe Moll, Justin Starr, and Stewart Young; and especially to my wife Tri

need for further legislative action or even, possibly, a federal constitutional amendment. Congress is watching to see whether the Judiciary (and the Executive) will fully and fairly implement this new Act. As Senator Leahy warned, "Passage of this bill will necessitate careful oversight of its implementatio