Epstein Secrets

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was supposedly sent to plaintiff, the US attorney at the time, Mr. Acosta, also sent a letter saying that he believed it was preferable to have engaged in that kind of plea bargaining with Mr. Epstein because they had a r

that he was a victim instead. That's not the situation here. So this has all the components to warrant admission under 803(8). And one more point. Alex Acosta never said he didn't have enough evidence to convict Epstein. He said it was a risk to go to trial. Every trial is a risk, and a decision not to g

s. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00592422 H3ulgiva 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Seventh Circuit case cited by defendant can be distinguished because in that case someone was trying to show that he wasn't a criminal and that he was a victim ins

o appear and provide testimony and evidence in accordance with the issued subpoenas at the next meeting of the Grand Jury. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorne West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: Facsimile: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY

rand Jury. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United

jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to testify and then asserted a claim of privilege in response to particular questions. The Seventh Circuit found that the following questions did not call for privileged communications: (1) Whom did you direct [in the search of documents responsive to the

o appear and provide testimony and evidence in accordance with the issued subpoenas at the next meeting of the Grand Jury. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 CERTIFICATE OF SERVI

rand Jury. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United St

jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to testify and then asserted a claim of privilege in response to particular questions. The Seventh Circuit found that the following questions did not call for privileged communications: (1) Whom did you direct [in the search of documents responsive to the

as a victim instead. 4 That's not the situation here. So this has all the components 5 to warrant admission under 803(8). 6 And one more point. Alex Acosta never said he didn't 7 have enough evidence to convict Epstein. He said it was a risk 8 to go to trial. Every trial is a risk, and a decision not

ission under 803(8). 6 And one more point. Alex Acosta never said he didn't 7 have enough evidence to

of Identified Victims, not identified witness. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. EFTA00794473 (212) 805-0300 EFTA00794474 55 H3ulgiva 1 The Seventh Circuit case cited by defendant can be 2 distinguished because in that case someone was trying to show 3 that he wasn't a criminal and that he was a vict

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

2001) (information regarding the receipt of attorney's fees is not protected). In Matter of Grand Jury Proceeding, 68 F.3d 193 (7th Cir. 1995), the Seventh Circuit discussed specific questions asked of an attorney during his testimony before the grand jury. There, unlike here, the attorney properly appeared to