Epstein Secrets

ed States Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana, on behalf of United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. D.E. 291-1 at 17-20. Jane Doe No. 3 even goes so far as to state that, "Whig kind of written communication, on official FBI stationary (sic), is t

on behalf of United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. D.E. 291-1 at 17-20. Jane Doe No. 3 even goes s

n letter to me. This was the first written communication I had received from the FBI. The letter was attached as Exhibit 1 to my earlier statement." D.E. 310- 1, 1 34. Exhibit 1 to her earlier statement of January 19, 2015 (D.E. 291-1), is the notification letter from the United States Attorney's Offi

on June 30, 2008, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County to various similar state offenses including solicitation of minors for prostitution." D.E. 1,1 2. Once they received the non-prosecution Jane Doe No. 3, who seeks to be added as a party, also wasted little time in utilizing the non- prosec

supplemental privilege log (DE 216-1), with regard to Suppl. Box #3 P-013342 to P-013350. The entry reads: "File folder entitled '12/05/07 Stan• to Acosta' containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acosta to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz re performance and victim notification with ha

arlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." Shortly thereafter, Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorney Roy Black sent a responsive letter to Alexander Acost's letter to the news media in which he claimed that he did not pry into the personal lives of prosecutors but merely pointed out misconduct and over-

elephone logs, photographs, emails or statement(s) of other credible sources) about a personal or business relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Alex Acosta. UNITED STATES RESPONSE: Denied 22. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility and/or other Government entities have collected

vilege log with its objections annotated (D.E. 224-1); (2) a motion to compel production of documents that are not privileged, numbering eight pages D.E. 225; (3) a twenty-four page, single-spaced affidavit of petitioners' counsel, addressing the EFTA00179785 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 230 Ent

the United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida, signed by Assistant gEhEimesteposseillekete, on behalf of United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. D.E. 291-1 at 17-20. Jane Doe No. 3 even goes so far as to state that, "[t]his kind of written communication, on official FBI stationary (sic), is

on behalf of United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. D.E. 291-1 at 17-20. Jane Doe No. 3 even goes s

n letter to me. This was the first written communication I had received from the FBI. The letter was attached as Exhibit 1 to my earlier statement." D.E. 310- 1, ¶ 34. Exhibit 1 to her earlier statement of January 19, 2015 (D.E. 291-1), is the notification letter from the United States Attorney's Offi

ed States Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana, on behalf of United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. D.E. 291-1 at 17.20. Jane Doe No. 3 even goes so far as to state that, "[t]his kind of written communication, on official FBI stationary (sic), is

on behalf of United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. D.E. 291-1 at 17.20. Jane Doe No. 3 even goes so

FBI's investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. She told S/A Slater that she did not want to be bothered about the Epstein matter again. D.E. 304-1, ¶ 7 and D.E. 290-3 at 17-18. In their motion, petitioners claim that the facts surrounding this exchange are highly disputed, when they are not. D.E. 311 at 16

ered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2017 Page 27 of 176 JAWS EISENBERG, ESQ. JANUARY 24, 2007 PAus 2 I look forward to your response. By: Sincerely, IL Alexander Acosta Una States Attorney A. Marie Villafafla Assistant United States Attorney Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-003737 EFTA00799631 Case 9:08-cv-80736-

you and your client to agree to unconscionable contract terms cannot square with the true facts of this case. As explained in letters from Messrs. Acosta and Sloman, the indictment was postponed for more than five months to allow you and Mr. Epstein's other attorneys to make presentations to the Offi

the person whom Petitioners refer to as "Jane Doe 5" also had been approached by the investigative team in 2007 but refused to speak with them. (See D.E. 14 at 1 3.) Regardless of the perceived strength of the corroborating evidence, it was and remains my professional opinion as an experienced prosec

ALOW 400 14. Ashley DrivesSuite I 100aTampa. FL 33602 813-984-3060 (Phone)•813-984-3010 (Fax) Toll Free: 866-395-7100 facsimile transmittal To: R. Alexander Acosta, Eiq. Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq. Michael McAuliffe, Esq. Jack Alan Coldberger, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. From: »mi

95-7100 facsimile transmittal To: R. Alexander Acosta, Eiq. Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq. Michael McAuli

EPSTEIN upon her, Plaintiff intends to rely exclusively on the statutory damages, rather than those damages which are available at common law. (See D.E. 113). If however, the Court rules that the statutory floor applies only one time, regardless of the number of times EPSTEIN committed an enumerated

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

ined that, after the NPA was signed in September 2007, four victims were contacted and the provision for a federal restitution remedy was discussed. D.E. 14,1 8. When Epstein's attorneys learned of this, they complained that the Government was incentivizing the victims to overstate their involvement

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

ined that, after the NPA was signed in September 2007, four victims were contacted and the provision for a federal restitution remedy was discussed. D.E. 14,1 8. When Epstein's attorneys learned of this, they complained that the Government was incentivizing the victims to overstate their involvement