Epstein Secrets

that the United States Attorney could bring this case in the exercise of his federal discretion should he so choose ("we conclude that U.S. Attorney Acosta could properly use his discretion to authorize prosecution in this case."). (CEOS letter at p. 2). However, CEOS drew the conclusion that the 3505-

p this from limit public." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Leficowitz to,. 22. -replied that she had "forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], [ , and I don't anticipate it going any further than that." Id. 23. stated that the agreement would be "placed in the case file, which will be

on Agreement places identified individuals in a far better position than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 9. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. Letter: • "Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to assign

Mr. advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only for abuse of discretion: Mize question we sought to answer was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this case. See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from p. 1 (emphasis added). See also, id.,

on Agreement places identified individuals in a far better position than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 9. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. Mr. Letter: • "Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to a

baan advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only for abuse of discretion: Mize question we sought to answer was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this case. See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from D. Oosterbaan, p. 1 (emphasis added). S

on Agreement places identified individuals in a far better position than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 9. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. Mr. Letter: • "Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally agreed to a

r. advised Mr. Lefkowitz that CEOS reviewed the matter only for abuse of discretion: /T/he question we sought to answer was whether U.S. Attorney Acosta would abuse his discretion if he authorized prosecution in this case See Tab 38, May 15, 2008 Letter from D. p. I (emphasis added). See also, id

on Agreement places identified individuals in a far better position than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 9. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. Mr. Sloman's Letter: • "Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally ag

repeatedly suggested that the misconduct was intertwined with the investigation and would therefore seek higher review), Mr. Lefkowitz e-mailed Mr. Acosta directly. On February 29, 2008, Mr. Sloman responded to Mr. Lefkowitz's e-mail to Mr. Acosta, stating that Mr. Sloman was acting out of frustration

on Agreement places identified individuals in a far better position than they would be in if Mr. Epstein were convicted at trial. 9. ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO SELECT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. Mr. Sloman's Letter: • "Prior to any issues arising concerning the implementation of the 2255 provision, the SDFL unilaterally agr