Epstein Secrets

Subsequently, Ms. 4 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001657 EFTA00209836 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP emailed the defense stating that United States Attorney Acosta would accept no ess than 18 months of incarceration, following by a one-year term of house arrest. Federal Prosecutors Misrepresented the Number of

rom beci ninr public." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Lefkowitz to M. 22. Ms. replied that she had "forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], Andy [Lourie], and Rolando [Garcia]. I don't anticipate it going any further than that." Id. 23. Ms. stated that the agreement would be "placed

matters related -to these subpoenas with other attorneys. Thank you again for your assistance. cc: E. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, FBI By: Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Att A. Marie Assistant United States Attorney 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001698 EFTA00209877 05/15/2007 16:57 FAX 5618021787 US

ecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal criminal law—powerfully demonst

that the United States Attorney could bring this case in the exercise of his federal discretion should he so choose ("we conclude that U.S. Attorney Acosta could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case."). (CEOS letter at p. 2). However, CEOS drew the conclusion that the 3505-

p this from limit public." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Leficowitz to,. 22. -replied that she had "forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], [ , and I don't anticipate it going any further than that." Id. 23. stated that the agreement would be "placed in the case file, which will be

ecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal criminal law—powerfully demonst

AO to do so, it is not in accord with the principles of justice. Indeed, as noted, just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court underscored this point in Santos and Cuellar. The Court made clear that prosecutorial discretion does not provide the USAO cart blanche to expand criminal statutes as they seek to

and comply with the letter and spirit of the NPA. As to the third item, we have reviewed your letter to Mr. Sloman of February 8, 2010. While Mr. Acosta did state in his letter of December 19, 2007, that he did not believe that the Office was EFTA00194762 ROY BLACK, ESQ. FEBRUARY 11, 2010 PAGE 2

kowitz to Black. Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A EFTA00194768 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Bob Senior, Esq. Marie Villafana, Esq. March 5, 2010 Page 4 Alex Acosta October 10, 2007, p.4 and November 29, 2007, p.2. Again, we are only requesting that you inform us whether in the event Mr. Epstein did not contest

, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

and comply with the letter and spirit of the NPA. As to the third item, we have reviewed your letter to Mr. Sloman of February 8, 2010. While Mr. Acosta did state in his letter of December 19, 2007, that he did not believe that the Office was EFTA00183808 ROY BLACK, ESQ. FEBRUARY 11, 2010 PAGE 2

e.g., letters from Jay Lefkowitz to Black. Srebnick. Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A EFTA00183814 Jeff Sloman, Esq. Esq. , Esq. March 5, 2010 Page 4 Alex Acosta October 10, 2007, p.4 and November 29, 2007, p.2. Again, we are only requesting that you inform us whether in the event Mr. Epstein did not contest

of inertia upon the party that can best induce Congress to speak more clearly and keeps courts from making criminal law in Congress's stead. ... In Santos. the Court was faced with the interpretation of the term "proceeds" in the federal money laundering statute, 18 . §1956. "The federal money-launder

aning of the statute would prevail. See United Statcs I. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9 EF

that the United States Attorney could bring this case in the exercise of his federal discretion should he so choose ("we conclude that U.S. Attorney Acosta could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case."). (CEOS letter at p. 2). However, CEOS drew the conclusion that the EFTA0

criminal statute could support both a narrow or broad application of the federal criminal law, "the tie must go to the defendant." United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. and Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S (June 2, 2008), Slip Op. at 6. 2 February 25, 2003 Trafficking in Persons National Security Presi

AO to do so, it is not in accord with the principles of justice. Indeed, as noted, just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court underscored this point in Santos and Cuellar. The Court made clear that prosecutorial discretion does not provide the USAO cart blanche to expand criminal statutes as they seek to

the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." 2 EFTA00233429 1111111111111 Sinccrcly, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 3 EFTA00233430 IN RE: INVESTIGATION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT IT APPEARING that the City of Palm B

0233429 1111111111111 Sinccrcly, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 3 EFTA00233430 IN RE:

, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025: 3 See argument in sections (2) and (3) th

ot wooed by SIPC uBS. AG Starniced Btanch detrain Acosta Wanes ale not insured by fOIC and are not protec

ation about your statement LB5 Fromial Sewn Mc. (Me Firma UGS I Wartctal Sonde), n a meryter ol alprndpalØy, canmcdty and cobra «hraes U0S inameal Santos and MS Bart USA re naked mbsdri•sd UPS AG rd ofhtalas of U3S Sean U.0 1MFiml frontal statement rt nvrbbkaearrearrest 1he Fern's ~cane offces re a

maul hot Wooer Cunt) and the by/national Depose Acosta Ceara cusarnen with at miernmaud Ammo Management

wagered roth the adicated melon We Intoned you of therationale alien you owned file =cum In this taw. /OW hrds and earn is are looted a 185 knout Santos aid not the wroducre Weer, aid you must may a rope of an moorage:4bn to both Wm. All ACCOutIC Stawrencs shall be defined COMplate and acaratedra o

ed an the In diedend or meet parent nude by the usurer and assanes the sena iedepoor s reel be hold'a one werfran the statement date or witenzurty Acosta and continued pad at not guaranteed • Amen not held lay WS aneroid Swaim Conan aThre are net Thai lathe Prci awl not "gm the Inn; pOSkif Uri or e

aragement 'Oh the adcated nnuton We Wormed sou of tharebtionthp short you opened Pas acervnt in this caw, your ked5 and no/kW re bated 2185 /Magi Santos sod not the aroducrig actor ad you must mace a report of am error or amain to bah In All account stmerents shall he deemed Carepine and tante d ri

secution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court’s very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court’s interpretive methodology when it comes to federal criminal law—powerfully demonstra

sequently, Ms. 4 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012163 --- PAGE BREAK --- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Villafana emailed the defense stating that United States Attorney Acosta would accept no less than 18 months of incarceration, following by a one-year term of house arrest. Federal Prosecutors Misrepresented the Number of

lic.” See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Lefkowitz to M. Villafana. 22. Ms. Villafana replied that she had “forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], Andy [Lourie], and Rolando [Garcia]. I don’t anticipate it going any further than that.” Jd. 23. Ms. Villafana stated that the agreement would be