Epstein Secrets

which as Drew politely reminded me, is required under the law. (Exhibit 44). On September 7, 2007, USA Acosta, FAUSA , CEOS Chief and I met with Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, and Lilly Ell (Exhibit 5). At the meeting, Mr. Starr focused primarily on federalism/policy arguments, and Mr. Epstein's backgroun

On September 7, 2007, USA Acosta, FAUSA , CEOS Chief and I met with Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, and Lilly Ell (Exhibit 5). At the meeting, Mr. Starr focused primarily on federalism/policy arguments, and Mr. Epstein's background. I remember Mr. Starr thanking me for bringing § 2255 to their attent

d numerous emails and conversations (mostly via telephone and possibly some in person) with members of the defense team. USA Acosta had contact with Ken Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, Gerry Lefcourt, and Alan Dershowitz. FAUSA had contact with Alan Dershowitzi • Lefcourt, and Lilly . Criminal Chief had contact

the a plication of the law to different defendants and defense attorneys has resulted in I call for the resignation of the who dared to challenge the Executive Office's conclusions. I find that very disheartening. However, my first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims

s Office (Exhibits 83 and 84). I never received a response from the Sheriff's Office. 30 Gauger also said that Jack Goldberger had threatened that "Ken Starr and the whole crew" would sue the jail if Epstein received less favorable treatment than others (id). 31 1 do not recall whether Alan Dershowitz or

er to USA Acosta. (Exhibit B-9). USA Acosta asked Mr. Lefkowitz to discuss the matter with Jeff Sloman and me. (Exhibit B-10). On December 5, 2007, Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz wrote a letter to USA Acosta requesting an updated victim notification letter incorporating their objections. (Exhibit B-11). On

ructing me to send out that notification (Exhibit B-49). On June 23, 2008, DAG Filip completed his review, and John Roth sent a letter to Attorneys Starr and Lefkowitz stating their finding that there was no abuse of discretion and no misconduct (Exhibit B-44). I immediately sent an email to Jay Lefk

application of the law to different defendants and defense attorneys has resulted in a call for the resignation of the AUSA who dared to challenge the Executive Office's conclusions. I find that very disheartening. However, my first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims

ge unrelated to the crimes that we had investigated. Throughout the drafting of the NPA, eve time Ja Lefkowitz and I reached an impasse, he and/or Ken Starr would appeal to or MIM, making it impossible to hold a firm line or keep a singular negotiating strategy. I tried to work from the Office's stand

efkowitz and I reached an impasse, he and/or Ken Starr would appeal to or MIM, making it impossible t

application of the law to different defendants and defense attorneys has resulted in a call for the resignation of the AUSA who dared to challenge the Executive Office's conclusions. I find that very disheartening. However, my first and only concern in this case (and my other child exploitation cases) is the victims

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

for the Southern District of Florida and the Executive Office of United States Attorneys. (DE 212-1 at 22-23); see Table at P-013248-13278). One of the Executive Office's functions is to "[p]rovide general legal interpretations, opinions, and advice to United States Attorneys in areas of recusals." Offices of the Uni