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

to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he proposed including in a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer.

a revision to the NPA’s § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and Acosta that he did not have “any insight” to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefk

175 Epstein’s state guilty plea.250 As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to resolve the case in this manner, but OPR concludes that in light of all the surrounding circumstances, his decision to do so r

that I spoke with him, you know, there had been all of this . . . letter writing or all of these concerns and instructions that I had been given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeff [Sloman] not to disclose things further and not to have any involvement in victim notification, and so I felt like that prohibited me from

otify the victims, “OPR identified no reason why Secretary Acosta should have distrusted his team on these points.”

er to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision together with the Department’s Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker. Acosta did consult with Mandelker about the § 2255 civil damages recovery process, but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled discussing the issue

ho advised him to make the following proposal [to defer notification to the State Attorney’s Office].” OPR found no other documentation relating to Mandelker’s purported involvement in the decision. 220 decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst many other issues, properly w

le at DOJ I believe that the Epstein saga is larger in scope. Sincerely, ei;c, EFTA01681962 NON PUBLIC RECENT DOJ REPORT OF FORMER US ATTORNEY ALEX ACOSTA ACTIONS IN THE EPSTEIN, CO-CONSPIRATOR CASE PROVIDES YET ANOTHER LAYER OF CONCEALMENT Firstly the plea was signed by five DOJ Officials including

iven a Non Prosecution Agreement (NPA) which immunized them from federal prosecution. DOJ determined this resolution, despite the recommendation by Acosta and his staff that Epstein and co-conspirators should be charged with sex trafficking in minor females. In that connection, there had been prepared

s statement was an untruth. But let us presuppose for argument's sake that Acosta of his own accord failed to send out the letters. Then Fisher and Mandelker who were aware that the victim letters had not been sent as of April 28, 2008 should have caused Acosta to send the letters as required and thus pr

out and being sentenced. The victims would have also been notified of the plea agreement giving them time to attack the provisions. But Fisher and Mandelker didn't do so because they were confederates in a plot to subvert justice and concealment was paramount. Finally, it should be noted that it is hig

d Lefkowitz re: home confinement 87. 9/21/2007, 2:55 pm Email from to Lefkowitz re: immigration issue 88. 9/23/2007, 12:23 pm Emails between Acosta, Lefkowitz, and re: registration charge U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida. 11.11.can er costa, U.S. Attorney. PRIVILEGED & C

5:23 pm Email from Indyke t , attaching drafts of In re Misconduct by First Assistant United States Attorney 190. 4/28/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker re: civil litigation by former firm 191. 5/16/2008 Fax with 5/15/2008 letter from to Lefkowitz re: propriety discretion to authorize federal pro

of 187. 3/28/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker42 and it: why case not appropriate for federal prosecution 188. 4/8/2008 Letter from Starr to Mandelker re: questioning the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida 189. 4/14/2008, 5:23 pm Email from Indyke t , att

aan, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:50 PM To: Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Garcia, Rolando (USAFLS) Cc: Acosta, Alex (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS); Atkinson, Karen (USAFLS); Braden, Myesha Subject: RE: Epstein update Just to update — I have a call into Lef

aan, Andrew Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:26 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Senior, Robert (USAFLS); Sloman, Jeff (USAFLS) Cc: Mandelker, Sigel; Braden, Myesha Subject: RE: Epstein update I just got off the phone with Jay Leficowitz. It was a positive conversation centered mostly on