Epstein Secrets

Ile...LeneA nein Black srcbmck. Kornsparl & Stumpf EFTA00179082 U.S. Department Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY VIA FACSIMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. Fowler White Burnett 1395 Brickell Ave Fl 14 Miami Florida 33131-3300 Re: Jeffre

ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. AUGUST 3, 2007 PAGE 2 Please let us know your client's decision by no later than August 17. I have conferred with U.S. Attorney Acosta who has asked me to communicate that the two-year term of incarceration is a non-negotiable minimum to vindicate a federal interest, and, at this ti

s in opposition to enforcement of the subpoena.' These are rights personal to Epstein, and the government would no doubt be the first 2 Lanebrd v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 513 F.3d 1121 (2d Cir. 1975), on which the government relies. Response at 37, concerned a motion to quash a trial subpoena duces tecum issued by th

Utah law professor who is representing the two women. The U.S. attorney's office in Miami would not comment. But the U.S. attorney at the time. R. Alexander Acosta. said in a 2011 letter defending his office that more evidence came to light after Epstein made his deal. "Many victims have spoken out. filing det

in made his deal. "Many victims have spoken out. filing detailed statements in civil cases seeking damages. Physical evidence has been discovered." Acosta wrote. "Had these additional statements and evidence been known. the outcome may have been different." Epstein has settled lawsuits for undisclosed

e plea discussions are not confidential: Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversary• waives the work-product privilege. See. e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig.. 86012.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F.2d 1073. 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the com

ed States was prepared to name in an indictment. SO STIPULATED AND AGREED. Dated: BRADLEY EDWARDS, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiffs Jane Does #1 & 2 R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY DEXTER LEE Attorney for Defendant United States -5- EFTA00191289 Case 9:08-cv-

ney for Plaintiffs Jane Does #1 & 2 R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: ASSISTANT

ed, for example, the work product argument: Disclosure of work-product materials to an adversarywaives the work-product privilege. See, e.g., In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litig., 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Doe, 662 F2d 1073, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1981). Even if it shared the com