Epstein Secrets

ions, including but not limited to: R. Alexander Acosta (U.S. Attorney), Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant

lated federal law. The USAO- SDFL investigation was led by honorable federal prosecutors with outstanding reputations, including but not limited to: R. Alexander Acosta (U.S. Attorney), Jeffrey Sloman (First Assistant U.S. Attorney), Matthew Menchel (Chief, Criminal Division), Andrew Lourie (Deputy Chief, Northern

ial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction."). The notion that "well-connected lawyers corrupted [] then-U.S Attorney Alex Acosta and his team into giving Epstein a sweetheart deal" has been soundly debunked; 11 EFTA00299031 there is no such evidence — NONE. Sloman, Alex Aco

resent here, that a court cannot enforce facially invalid plea agreements that contain illegal terms or omit the required components of a sentence. Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60 (Colo. 1999) (court cannot enforce a plea 28 EFTA00299048 agreement that waives the mandatory parole period); State v. Garc

vents. At this time, your case is wider investigation) If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be notified. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta By: cc: Special Agent F.B.I. Assistant United States Attorney I • SI EFTA00229967 - Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48-4 Entered on FLSD

, you will be notified. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta By: cc: Special Agent F.B.I. Assistant Unite

ation, but it later appeared that would be an illegal sentence in this case, and thus only adequate remedy is to allow defendant to withdraw plea); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60 (Cob. 1999) (because "neither the prosecutor nor the trial court have authority to modify or waive the mandatory parole period

ad the government conferred with them before entering into the NPA. See Doc. 458 at 23 (explaining that "[a] chance to discuss this matter with Mr. Acosta to get answers about that and other related questions will, Jane Doe 1 and 2 believe, provide the kind of information that they would have received

(holding that complete rescission of plea agreement was only permissible remedy when defendant was induced to enter plea based on mistake of law); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 966 (Colo. 1990) (noting that if plea was induced by illegal promise, proper remedy was defendant's option to withdraw from plea agr