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

to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer.

a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefk

cuss Epstein's agreement with the US Attorney's Office 150. 11/29/2007, 6:30 pm Emails between and Lefkowitz re: victim notification letter 37 Kenneth Starr, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL 7 EFTA00296185 CHRONOLOGY OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S DOCUMENTS Date Document 151. 11/29/2007 I L

ution of Epstein Investigation" 152. 11/29/2007 Letter from Lefkowitz to Acosta re: victim notification letter 153. 12/4/2007 Fax from Acosta to Starr re: Starr's 11/28/2007 letter questioning the non- prosecution agreement 154. 12/5/2007 Memo from Whitley38 to Lefkowitz re: issues with non-prosec

5:23 pm Email from Indyke t , attaching drafts of In re Misconduct by First Assistant United States Attorney 190. 4/28/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker re: civil litigation by former firm 191. 5/16/2008 Fax with 5/15/2008 letter from to Lefkowitz re: propriety discretion to authorize federal pro

of 187. 3/28/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker42 and it: why case not appropriate for federal prosecution 188. 4/8/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker re: questioning the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida 189. 4/14/2008, 5:23 pm Email from Indyke t , att

so as to permit victims to make impact statements or take legal action they deem necessary. On December 4, 2007 US Attorney Acosta sent a letter to Kenneth Starr, then with the Kirkland, Ellis LA office and principal negotiator for the Defense Team. Acosta informed Starr in that letter that he (Acosta) EFTA

orney Acosta sent a letter to Kenneth Starr, then with the Kirkland, Ellis LA office and principal negotiator for the Defense Team. Acosta informed Starr in that letter that he (Acosta) EFTA01681964 intended to send a victims notification letter out by mid-December. However, this was not to be beca

s statement was an untruth. But let us presuppose for argument's sake that Acosta of his own accord failed to send out the letters. Then Fisher and Mandelker who were aware that the victim letters had not been sent as of April 28, 2008 should have caused Acosta to send the letters as required and thus pr

out and being sentenced. The victims would have also been notified of the plea agreement giving them time to attack the provisions. But Fisher and Mandelker didn't do so because they were confederates in a plot to subvert justice and concealment was paramount. Finally, it should be noted that it is hig

overseeing responsibilities of the Department of Justice. We greatly appreciate your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, 2Le 12,5) Kenneth W. Starr • • EFTA00225910 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP • March 28, 2008 Page 4 • Clear violations of ethics rules by discussing specific details of the case

f this matter. Sincerely, 2Le 12,5) Kenneth W. Starr • • EFTA00225910 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP • Ma

tation and Obscenity Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice 1400 New York Avenue, 6th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Dear Ms. Mandelker and Mr. Oosterbaan: Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 Enclosed, please find our submission as discussed at the meeting. This submission includes a brief

was dissatisfied with the NPA, “we stand ready to unwind the Agreement” and proceed to trial. Shortly thereafter, Acosta informed defense counsel Starr by letter that he had directed prosecutors “not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday [December 7] at 5 p.m., to provide you with t

er to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision together with the Department’s Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker. Acosta did consult with Mandelker about the § 2255 civil damages recovery process, but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled discussing the issue

ho advised him to make the following proposal [to defer notification to the State Attorney’s Office].” OPR found no other documentation relating to Mandelker’s purported involvement in the decision. 220 decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst many other issues, properly w