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

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

rch, handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz (Also contains a November 28 2007 letter from Kenneth Starr to , and a November 29, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz to R. Alexander Acosta (P-010528 thru P-010530 and P410556 thru P-010559). Pursuant to the

contains a November 28 2007 letter from Kenneth Starr to , and a November 29, 2007 letter from Jay Le

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

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,"'

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

handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz (Also contains a November 28, 2007 letter from Kenneth Starr to Alice S. Fisher, and a November 29, 2007 letter Erom Jay Lefkowitz to IL Alexander Acosta (P- 010528 thru P-010530 and P-010556 thru P-010559).

privileged. Will be produced to opposing counsel upon lifting of stay N/A Suppl. Box #3 P413342 Thru P413350 File folder entitled "12/05/07 Starr to Acosta" containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acosta to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz re performance and victim notifica

s Against Public Prosecutor; Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue; Waiver Suppl. Box #3 P413504 Thru P413507 File folder labeled "Mtg w/ Ken Starr, RAA, JS, Drew" containing handwritten notes by A. Marie Villafttfla Attorney-Client Privilege Work Product Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinn

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

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

ment's enforcement policy. All these are substantial concerns that make the courts properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute. Wayte v. United 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 o

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

ment's enforcement policy. All these are substantial concerns that make the courts properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute. Wayte v. United 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 o