Epstein Secrets

ought the matter to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), who opened a file with her supervisor’s approval and with the knowledge of then U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta. She worked with two FBI case agents to develop a federal case against Epstein and, in the course of the investigation, they discovered additional

ttle the case, the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment remained pending for more than a year. In 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. At his March 2017 confirmation hearing, Acosta was questioned only briefly about the Epstein case. On April 17, 2017,

thy substantive email about the case to her immediate supervisor, Lourie, Sloman, and Acosta on August 23, 2006, Lourie emailed Sloman: “Do you and Alex [Acosta] want her updating you on the case?” Sloman responded, “At this point, I don’t really care. If Alex says something then I’ll tell her to just run

Report are the Appellate Section, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, and, most prominently, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS). CEOS, based in Washington, D.C., comprises attorneys and investigators who specialize in investigating and prosecuti

07, the Office's prosecutors were recommending and ready to proceed with the federal indictment of Epstein. In early September 2007, U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta met with some of Epstein's defense team, along with the federal prosecutors assigned to Epstein's case and the Chief of the Child Exploitation and

te" threat of future CVRA violations. [ Id. at 1328. Third, the court rejected petitioner's requests for a victim-impact hearing and a meeting with Acosta on the grounds that petitioner had already participated in an Epstein- related hearing in New York, that the Epstein prosecution had concluded, and

Acosta explained, "[a]fter considering the arguments raised at the September 7th meeting, and after conferring with the FBI and with [the Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section], our Office decided to proceed with the indictment." At that time, the State of Florida had already charged Epstein with on

he SDFL offered, in my opinion, numerous and various reasonable modifications and accommodations which ultimatel resulted in United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to . In that letter, the United States Attorney tried to eliminate all concerns which, quite y, e DFL was not obligated t

s Chief of Staff.' Above Mr. in the SDFL's chain of command were 1 Criminal Division Chief, First Assistant USA Sloman and finally, U.S. Attorney Acosta. Prior to seeking approval to return an indictment, Epstein's legal team had been actively working to convince this Office that such action was not

atthew MencheP, First Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey H. Sloman', United States Attorney R. Alexander Acosta as well as various members of the Child Exploitation and Eenity Section (CEOS) at the Department of Justice including, but not limited to its Chief, a. Oosterbahn. Many of these legal and factual iss

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 EFTA00211721 significant because, "[i]t is

t. First, he raised challenges to the United States Attorney's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. See Exs. G, K, L. Indeed, from late 2007 to May 2008, Eps

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

t. First, he raised challenges to the United States Attorney's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. See Exs. G, K, L. Indeed, from late 2007 to May 2008, Eps

fforts of Mr. Epstein and his counsel to avoid the full terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. So, for example, you write that, in an email to Mr. Acosta, you "confirmed that `there were significant irregularities with the deferred prosecution agreement,' and that "Mr. Acosta agreed to many of our ob

ance, you neglect to mention that all of your objections were soundly rejected at each and every level of review, from West Palm Beach, to Miami, to the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, and, finally, to the highe review at the Department of Justice. As Senior Associate Deputy Attorney Genera stated: Even i

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

t. First, he raised challenges to the United States Attorney's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion with the Assistant Attorney General and with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), within the Criminal Division of the DOJ in Washington, D.C. See Exs. G, K, L. Indeed, from late 2007 to May 2008, Eps