Epstein Secrets

Advisor =. AUSA ■ opined that he did not see a conflict. Should you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me. By: cc: R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States At me •-1/4---- First Assistant United States Attorney 3 Case No. 08-80736-

feel free to contact me. By: cc: R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney Sincerely, R. Alexander

ages from Epstein and that Epstein would provide counsel for the victims. I provided Epstein's counsel with a series of possible attorss, including Humberto Ocariz ("Ocariz"), who is a friend of my boyfriend, E.J. (M"). At the time, I identified Ocariz as a friend of a "good friend." Epstein's attorneys rejec

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

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good friend" wa

Mr. advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only for abuse of discretion: Mize question we sought to answer was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this case. See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from p. 1 (emphasis added). See also, id.,

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good friend" wa

baan advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only for abuse of discretion: Mize question we sought to answer was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this case. See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from D. Oosterbaan, p. 1 (emphasis added). S

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms.l iaccount was misleading, as it omitted that this "good frie

tted. 61. Admitted. (citation is incorrect). 62. Denied. The Thursday, October 18, 2007 email from Mr. Lefkowitz expresses thanks to U.S. Attorney Acosta for meeting on Friday. 63. Admitted. 64. Admitted. 65. Admitted. 66. The government admits that the NPA contained the following language: "The p

d language does not appear in Exhibit 4; it appears at DE361-5. 36. The government admits paragraph 36 but notes that Exhibit 2 is not an email to Humberto Ocariz; the referenced email appears at DE361-3. The second sentence of paragraph 36 is admitted. 37. Admitted. 38. The Government admits that on Septemb

tted. 61. Admitted. (citation is incorrect). 62. Denied. The Thursday, October 18, 2007 email from Mr. Lefkowitz expresses thanks to U.S. Attorney Acosta for meeting on Friday. 63. Admitted. 64. Admitted. 65. Admitted. 66. The government admits that the NPA contained the following language: "The p

d language does not appear in Exhibit 4; it appears at DE361-5. 36. The government admits paragraph 36 but notes that Exhibit 2 is not an email to Humberto Ocariz; the referenced email appears at DE361-3. The second sentence of paragraph 36 is admitted. 37. Admitted. 38. The Government admits that on Septemb

r. advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only for abuse of discretion: /T/he question we sought to answer was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this case See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from D. p. I (emphasis added). See also, id

ve" to an independent third party, AUSA Marie had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good frien

repeatedly suggested that the misconduct was intertwined with the investigation and would therefore seek higher review), Mr. Lefkowitz e-mailed Mr. Acosta directly. On February 29, 2008, Mr. Sloman responded to Mr. Lefkowitz's e-mail to Mr. Acosta, stating that Mr. Sloman was acting out of frustration

independent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he bad been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. Villafana's account was misleading, as it omitted that this

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

ndependent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an “attorney representative.” She - had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a “good friend in the Appellate Division.” Ms. Villafana’s account was misleading, as it omitted that this

Mr. advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only for abuse of discretion: Mite question we sought to answer was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this case. See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from D. EMI, p. 1 (emphasis added). See als

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good frien