Epstein Secrets

50.) On September 24, 2007, the Office sent an email to Lefkowitz: Thank you, Jay. I have forwarded your message only to [United States Attorney] Alex [Acosta], . I don't anticipate it going any further than that. When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one copy to you. The other will be pla

ter and its resolution with Mr. Epstein is confidential. You may not make public statements regarding this matter." (DE 407 at ¶ 61.) U.S. Attorney Acosta then met with Lefkowitz for breakfast and Lefkowitz followed up with a letter stating, "I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me d

pe of communication between prosecutors and victims that was intended by the passage of the CVRA. See United States v. Heaton 458 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Utah 2006)(government motion to dismiss charge of using facility of interstate commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not

50.) On September 24, 2007, the Office sent an email to Lefkowitz: Thank you, Jay. I have forwarded your message only to [United States Attorney] Alex [Acosta], and . I don't anticipate it going any further than that. When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one copy to you. The other will b

ter and its resolution with Mr. Epstein is confidential. You may not make public statements regarding this matter." (DE 407 at ¶ 61.) U.S. Attorney Acosta then met with Lefkowitz for breakfast and Lefkowitz followed up with a letter stating, "I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me d

pe of communication between prosecutors and victims that was intended by the passage of the CVRA. See United States v. Heaton 458 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Utah 2006)(government motion to dismiss charge of using facility of interstate commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not

e example of a subject for a deposition is a "breakfast meeting" that appears to have taken place on around October 12, 2007, between U.S. Attorney Acosta and Epstein attorney Jay Lefkowitz. This Court has previously noted that 18 EFTA00027793 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 452

e of communication between prosecutors and victims that was intended by the passage of the CVRA. See United States v. Heaton, 458 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Utah 2006)(government motion to dismiss charge of using facility of interstate commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would no