Epstein Secrets

evised letter incorporating the changes on which we can agree. Please provide any further comments by the close of business on Tuesday. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: EFTA00214794 First Assistant United States Attorney cc: It Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney AUSAI Based upon the lan

of business on Tuesday. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: EFTA00214794 Firs

atute, your statement that our notification must be limited only to the right to restitution is incorrect. nYou may want to review United States v. Crompton Corp. , 399 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (N.D. Cal. 2005), where the district court would not allow an unindicted co-conspirator to have his name redacted from a plea

d the victims in the press, and the mounting evidence that you did not enter into our plea negotiations in good faith. This letter and U.S. Attorney Acosta's letter are the last opportunity for your client and his entire defense team to conform unwaveringly to all of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Ag

evised letter incorporating the changes on which we can agree. Please provide any further comments by the close of business on Tuesday. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: First Assistant United States Attorney name redacted from a plea agreement in order to assist him in defending or avoi

eld and a sword? Thus, while we will not involve ourselves in the civil litigation, we will not allow you to 2You may want to review United States. Crompton Corp., 399 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (N.D. Cal. 2005), where the district court would not allow an unindicted co-conspirator to have his EFTA00221297 JAY P. LEF

hat you continue to erect as we try to perform our contractual obligations coupled with Mr. Epstein's nonperformance. This letter and U.S. Attorney Acosta's letter set forth the last opportunity for your client and his entire defense team to conform unwaveringly to all of the terms of the Non-Prosecuti

evised letter incorporating the changes on which we can agree. Please provide any further comments by the close of business on Tuesday. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: First Assistant United States Attorney cc: R. Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney AUSA A. Based upon the language of thi

statute, your statement that our notification must be limited only to the right to restitution is incorrect. You may want to review United States. Crompton Corp. , 399 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (N.D. Cal. 2005), where the district court would not allow an unindicted co-conspirator to have his name redacted from a plea

evised letter incorporating the changes on which we can agree. Please provide any further comments by the close of business on Tuesday. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Jeffrey Sloman EFTA00189928 First Assistant United States Attorney cc: It Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney AUSA A. M

of business on Tuesday. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: Jeffrey Sloman EFTA

statute, your statement that our notification must be limited only to the right to restitution is incorrect. nYou may want to review United States. Crompton Corp. , 399 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (N.D. Cal. 2005), where the district court would not allow an unindicted co-conspirator to have his name redacted from a plea

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

that neutrality to create a false impression that we do not believe in the validity of the victims' claims. 2You may want to review United States'. Crompton Corp., 399 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (ND. Cal. 2005), where the district court would not allow an unindicted co-conspirator to have his name redacted from a plea