Epstein Secrets

that the United States Attorney could bring this case in the exercise of his federal discretion should he so choose ("we conclude that U.S. Attorney Acosta could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case."). (CEOS letter at p. 2). However, CEOS drew the conclusion that the 3505-

p this from limit public." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Leficowitz to,. 22. -replied that she had "forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], [ , and I don't anticipate it going any further than that." Id. 23. stated that the agreement would be "placed in the case file, which will be

il from J. Lelkowitz tom . o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later conceded that the citation to this statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. o The letter wrongly advised all recipients that Mr. Epst

Mr. advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only for abuse of discretion: Mize question we sought to answer was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this case. See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from p. 1 (emphasis added). See also, id.,

il from J. Lefkowitz to a. o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later conceded that the citation to this statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. o The letter wrongly advised all recipients that Mr. Epst

baan advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only for abuse of discretion: Mize question we sought to answer was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this case. See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from D. Oosterbaan, p. 1 (emphasis added). S

il from J. Lefkowitz to a. o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later conceded that the citation to this statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. o The letter wrongly advised all recipients that Mr. Epst

r. advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only for abuse of discretion: /T/he question we sought to answer was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this case See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from D. p. I (emphasis added). See also, id

from J. Lefkowitz to J. =. o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later conceded that the citation to this statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. o The letter wrongly advised all recipients that Mr. Epst

repeatedly suggested that the misconduct was intertwined with the investigation and would therefore seek higher review), Mr. Lefkowitz e-mailed Mr. Acosta directly. On February 29, 2008, Mr. Sloman responded to Mr. Lefkowitz's e-mail to Mr. Acosta, stating that Mr. Sloman was acting out of frustration

J. Lefkowitz to J. Sloman. o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later conceded that the citation to this statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. o The letter wrongly advised all recipients that Mr. Epst

Mr. advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only for abuse of discretion: Mite question we sought to answer was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this case. See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from D. EMI, p. 1 (emphasis added). See als

il from I. Lefkowitz to I. o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later conceded that the citation to this statute as a justification was wholly incorrect. o The letter wrongly advised all recipients that Mr. Epst