Epstein Secrets

o related to the indictment. On September 7, 2007, Epstein's attorneys met with the U.S. Attorney, Drew Oosterbaan, Jeff Sloman, John McMillan, and I. Ken Starr presented federalism arguments, urging deferral to state prosecution. When those arguments failed, Epstein's attorneys slated that he wanted to enga

RNEY 3 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011819 EFTA00192865 U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 June 23, 2008 Jay Lefkowitz„ Esq. Kenneth Starr, Esq. Kirkland and Ellis LLP 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Gentlemen: This Office has completed a thorough review of the U.S.

sterbaan, Jeff Sloman, John McMillan, and I. Ken Starr presented federalism arguments, urging deferral t

tiff—which they did not—§ 2255 only authorizes suit based on predicate convictions under certain federal statutes..:' (Id. at 21 (emphasis added).) States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described i

lawyers, including but not limited to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, former Independent Counsel and Solicitor General of the United States Kenneth Starr, just to name a few, entered into a global resolution of state and federal liabilities faced by your client ("the Agreement") with the SDFL. Althou

). Ultimately, you requested an independent review. Subsequent to the above-mentioned meeting, the SDFL received three letters from you and/or Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14i° meeting. Essentially, you portrayed the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unkno

lid of the attorney representative. As a result, on October 29, 2007, the parties executed an A um wherein it was mutually agreed that former ' States District Court Judge Edward B. would serve as the independent third-party. Judge selected the venerable law firm of Podhurst and Josefsberg to represent the app

a copy of the prosecution memo related to the indictment. On September 7, 2007, Epstein's attorneys met with the U.S. Attorney, Jeff Sloman, , and I. Ken Starr presented federalism arguments, urging deferral to state prosecution. When those arguments failed, Epstein's attorneys stated that he wanted to enga

th the U.S. Attorney, Jeff Sloman, , and I. Ken Starr presented federalism arguments, urging deferral t

ff—which they did not—§ 2255 only authorizes suit based on predicate convictions under certain federal statutes. . ." (Id. at 21 (emphasis added).) States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any person as described i

). Ultimately, you requested an independent review. Subsequent to the above-mentioned meeting, the SDFL received three letters from you and/or Mr. Starr which expanded on some of the themes announced in the December 14th meeting. Essentially, you portrayed the SDFL as trying to coerce a plea to unkno

Method of Compensation and Notification. During this same time period, you and others, including the former Solicitor General of the United States Kenneth Starr, took issue with the implementation of the methodology of compensation (hereinafter "the 2255 provision")) and the SDFL's intention to notify the vi

tion of the attorney representative. As a result, on October 29, 2007, the parties executed an Addendum wherein it was mutually agreed that former States District Court Judge Edward B. would serve as the independent third-party. Judge selected the venerable law firm of Podh r nd Josefsberg to represent the appro

ll Clin- ton investigator Kenneth EFTA00233356 Starr. Lefcourt is a past president of the National A

dividuals referred to in paragraph. (7) sups, elect to Me suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction oftheUtrited States District Court fortbe Southern District *Merida over his person and/or the subject matter ,andEp stein waives bisrightto contemliability and also waives hi-slight