Epstein Secrets

Quiz 013/013 et 00U Honorable Mark Filip May 19. 2008 Page 8 prosecution is fair and appropriate has been placed, once again, in U.S. Attorney Acosta's hands. in light of the foregoing, we respectfully ask that you review this matter and discontinue all federal involvement so that the State cam

rights of our client, are at issue. Recently, the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter tit the request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded many important aspects of this ease. Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, we received a t

SUFI, offered, in my opinion, numerous and various reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimately resulted in United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta's' December 19, 2007 letter to Lilly Ann Sanchez. In that letter, the United States Attorney tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite frankly, the

eterred prosecution agreement. The consistent representations of key Government wimesses (such as Tatum Miller. Brittany Beak, Saige Gonzalez. and Jennifer Laduke) confirm the following critical points: First, there was no communication, telephonic or otherwise, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). Par in

avenues have now been shut donna. Mr. Shuman's letter purports to prohibit any further cantata between Mr. lipskirrk defense learn and U.S. Attorney Acosta. and instead requires us to communicate with the IJSAO only though Mr. Sloman's subordinatcx. While it pains us to say this, this misguided proscou

rights of our client, are at issue. Recently. the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter at the request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded many important aspects of this case. Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, We received a l

brred prosecution agreement. The consistent representations of key Government witnesses (such as Tatum Miller. Brittany Beale, Saige Gonzalez, and Jennifer Laduke) confirm the following critical points: rips!, there was no communication, telephonic or othcnvisc, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). For in

rights of our client, are at issue. Recently, the Criminal Division concluded a very limited review of this matter at the ' request of U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta. Critically, however, this review deliberately excluded many important aspects of this case. Just this past Friday, on May 16, 2008, we received a le

below. A001438 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025353 --- PAGE BREAK --- Honorable Mark Filip May 19, 2008 Page 2 By way of background, we were informed by Mr. Acosta that, at his request, CEOS would be conducting a review to determine whether federal prosecution was both appropriate and, in his words, “fair.” That

deferred prosecution agreement. The consistent representations of key Government witnesses (such as Tatum Miller, Brittany Beale, Saige Gonzalez, and Jennifer Laduke) confirm the following critical points: First, there was no communication, telephonic or otherwise, that meets the requirements of § 2422(b). For ins