Epstein Secrets

o asserted that OPR “misunderstands and devalues Secretary Acosta’s very real and legitimate interest in the develo

afaña opined, “This is NOT good faith negotiations.” Lourie responded that he would “reach out to Alex to discuss.” Lourie immediately emailed Acosta the following: I looked at the latest draft from Jay [Lefkowitz] and I must agree with Marie. Based on my own conversations with him, his draft is

n for work release because his sexual offender registration would not take place 177 Letter from R. Alexander Acosta “To whom it may concern” (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The Daily Beast. The FBI Special Agent in Charge told OPR that he had no recollection

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 of factors and it all came together. Altho

ing decisions, the choice to resolve a case through a non-prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement “resides fundamentally with the Executive” branch. Id. at 741. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard in the USAM prohibiting the use of a non- prosecution agreement in the circumsta

ions, including but not limited to: R. Alexander Acosta (U.S. Attorney), Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant

lated federal law. The USAO- SDFL investigation was led by honorable federal prosecutors with outstanding reputations, including but not limited to: R. Alexander Acosta (U.S. Attorney), Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant U.S. Attorney), Matthew Menchel (Chief, Criminal Division), Andrew Lourie (Deputy Chief, Northern

ial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction."). The notion that "well-connected lawyers corrupted [] then-U.S Attorney Alex Acosta and his team into giving Epstein a sweetheart deal" has been soundly debunked; 11 EFTA00299031 there is no such evidence — NONE. Sloman, Alex Aco

-Violence v. Pierce, 786 F.2d 1199, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ("The power to decide when to investigate, and when to prosecute, lies at the core of the Executive's duty to see the faithful execution of the laws"); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985) ("[t]he decision of a prosecutor in the Executive B

rney's Office concerning imminent charges for sex with ininors.(683{71) In August 2007, a month after the fund collapsed, the U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, entered into direct discossions about the plea a eLed_a_lenientsleal,_ ccording to him, becausne-had been ordered by higherflovernm_, ent offiri

collapsed, the U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, entered into direct discossions about the plea

ted to Roger Kirch- ner. Director of the Port Pirie District Hospital, who is connected to Heidi Salvemini through family rela- tions of an employee, Executive assistant Jemma Salvemini - Roger Kirchner connected to Jonnie Wes- ton and David Bradley, connected to motorcycle gang members and involved connecti

07, the Office's prosecutors were recommending and ready to proceed with the federal indictment of Epstein. In early September 2007, U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta met with some of Epstein's defense team, along with the federal prosecutors assigned to Epstein's case and the Chief of the Child Exploitation and

te" threat of future CVRA violations. [ Id. at 1328. Third, the court rejected petitioner's requests for a victim-impact hearing and a meeting with Acosta on the grounds that petitioner had already participated in an Epstein- related hearing in New York, that the Epstein prosecution had concluded, and

r in the Executive Branch not to indict ... has long been regarded as [within] the special province of the Executive Branch, inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' " (quoting U.S. Const., Art. II, § 3)). This Executive Bra

cute Epstein, maintaining he committed no federal crimes. However, following a September 7, 2007 meeting with Epstein's defense team, U.S. Attorney Alexander R. Acosta" notified Epstein's team that "our Office [has] decided to proceed with the indictment." 3 Despite this statement, the former U.S. Attorney subseque

ediate" threat of future CVRA violations. Id. at 1328. Third, the court rejected Ms. Wild's requests for a victim-impact hearing and a meeting with Acosta on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over Acosta, that she had already had the opportunity to participate in an Epstein- related hearing in N

resolution of this petition for a writ of mandamus would not change. Moreover, ow opinion about pre-charge *1272 rights would not be binding on the Executive in the same way that the opinions about pension requests were not binding in? I He/Aunts Case. B. We Construe Statutes by Reading the Whole Text,

ments regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at 9-15. 4 EFTA00211721 significant because, "[i]t is

ited States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence of the Executive with regard to charging decisions and concluding that "[n]othing in the [Speedy Trial Act's] terms or structure suggests any intention to subvert t

ents regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Leflcowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at 9-15. 4 EFTA00799828 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume

ited States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence of the Executive with regard to charging decisions and concluding that "[n]othing in the [Speedy Trial Act's] terms or structure suggests any intention to subvert t

ments regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at 9-15. 4 EFTA00591465 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docume

ited States, 470 U.S. 598, 607-08 (1985); see also Fokker, 818 F.3d at 737-738 (noting the long-settled understandings about the independence of the Executive with regard to charging decisions and concluding that "[n]othing in the [Speedy Trial Act's] terms or structure suggests any intention to subvert t

deed, the NPA's plain terms directly limit the agreement to "this District." See NPA at 2 (noting that the agreement was signed "on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida" and requires that "prosecution in this District for [various federal offenses] shall b

s conference held by then-Labor Secretary R. Alexander Acosta on July 10, 2019. Before the Washington press corps and a global television audience, Acosta discussed the substance of the affidavit and deliberations by the USAO-SDFL on the case. See https://www.c-span.orgivideon462479-1/1abor-secretary-

erogatives. The USAO-SDFL has been actively engaged in this litigation and has filed dozens of pleadings. Any issues regarding interference with the Executive branch have, no doubt, been properly advanced by that Office — and Epstein is simply an interloper who is not free to kibitz on constitutional issu

-prosecution. As a result, through its 6 Waiver by the Government is also further demonstrated by the press conference held by then-Labor Secretary R. Alexander Acosta on July 10, 2019. Before the Washington press corps and a global television audience, Acosta discussed the substance of the affidavit and deliberati

s conference held by then-Labor Secretary R. Alexander Acosta on July 10, 2019. Before the Washington press corps and a global television audience, Acosta discussed the substance of the affidavit and deliberations by the USAO-SDFL on the case. See https://www.c-span.orgivideon462479-1/1abor-secretary-

erogatives. The USAO-SDFL has been actively engaged in this litigation and has filed dozens of pleadings. Any issues regarding interference with the Executive branch have, no doubt, been properly advanced by that Office — and Epstein is simply an interloper who is not free to kibitz on constitutional issu