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

icy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves as having failed to register with the Selective Service system. The petitioner in Wayte claimed that the self-reported non-registrants were “vocal” opponents of the registration program who were being punished for the exercise of their

r unless based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Id. These principles were reiterated in Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985), a case involving the government’s policy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves as ha

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

nce value, the Government's 42 EFTA00299062 enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the Government's overall enforcement plan..." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985). As such, the decision to prosecute is "particularly ill-suited to judicial review." Id. "Few subjects ar

ervices B. Y., 818 F.3d 733, 741 (D.C.Cir. 2016), quoting Newman v United States, 382 F.2d 479, 480 (D.C.Cir. 1967). As the Supreme Court noted in Wayte, "[j]udicial supervision in this area, moreover, entails systemic costs of particular concern. Examining the basis of a prosecution delays the crim

ates respectfully requests that the Application and any Order related to the Application be sealed. Dated: April 16, 2007 Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA ASSISTANT UNITED STA1 ES A ORNEY Florida Bar No. 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Tel: Fax: Case No. 08-8073

rida West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Attention: Asstetantlinited States Attorney Re: Grand Jury Investigpuion, terfrey Epstein, et al. Dcar Mr. Acosta: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 18 U.S.C. § 6003(h) and 28 C.P.R., § 0.175(a), I hereby approve ycur request for authority to apply to °

ts are [not] competent to undertake" the kind of analysis necessary to assess the "strength of the case" for or against any particular prosecution. Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; see also United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996) (Judicial deference to prosecutors' decisions "rests in part on an a

made an inexplicably poor decision when it decided not to prosecute Epstein. "(T]he Government retains `broad discretion' as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985). The CVRA incorporates this principle, providing that Irdothing in this chapter shall be construed to im

rivileged — have been produced to opposing counsel]); signed Non- Prosecution Agreement, Addendum, and operative portion of 12/19/2007 Sanchez- Acosta letter (P-008328-P-008343 [not being withheld as privileged — have been produced to opposing counsel]); subfolder entitled "12/19/07 Acosta-Sanche

older entitled "Meeting Timeline" containing Villafaria typed notes summarizing meetings with opposing counsel prepared at request of R. Alexander Acosta, with handwritten correction and typed guideline estimate Work product Deliberative process Inadequate Log; No Factual Underpinnings; Fiduciar

ry Duty; Claims Against Public Prosecutor, Overriding Need; Attorney Conduct at Issue Waiver Suppl. Box 3 P-013850 E-mail, Marie Villafana to Alex Acosta, Andrew Lourie, Rolando Garcia, Karen Atkinson, and John McMillan, September 18, 2007, 9:31 a.m., RE: Epstein Negotiations Atty work-product

k, 630 F.3d 1139, 1144 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing procedure for forfeiture). "[T]he Government retains broad discretion as to whom to prosecute." Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985) (quotation omitted). The CVRA expressly does not impair that broad discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6

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

ment's enforcement policy. All these are substantial concerns that make the courts properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute. Wayte v. United 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 o

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

ment's enforcement policy. All these are substantial concerns that make the courts properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute. Wayte v. United 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 o