Epstein Secrets

that Epstein's counsel claims that I should be removed from supervising the current investigation and/or disciplined. Mr. Epstein is represented by Jay Lelkowitz, Esq. and Dean Kenneth Starr of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Esq., Martin Weinberg, Esq., Lilly A

and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz_ In connection with the federal investigation, Epstein added Rimier Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and Jay Lcfkowitz from • Kirkland and Ellis, former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis, former Assistant U.S. Attorneys Lilly Ann Sanchez and Michael Tien, and Massachusetts de

several times over several months at the request of Epstein's lawyers), so this significant change needed to be dealt with quickly. I explained to Lefkowitz that, unless a case was pending, there was no basis for the United States to file such a motion and there was no basis for the federal court to pay

ages from Epstein and that Epstein would provide counsel for the victims. I provided Epstein's counsel with a series of possible attorss, including Humberto Ocariz ("Ocariz"), who is a friend of my boyfriend, E.J. (M"). At the time, I identified Ocariz as a friend of a "good friend." Epstein's attorneys rejec

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Response to Letter by FAUSA MI Dated May 19, 2008 In a May 19 2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz (See Tab 1), SDFL First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey I= provided what purported to be a summ of the events that have occurred during the inves

ot really up to speed on the facts" o CEOS' review was not de novo: ■ B letter dated May 15, 2008 (four days before Mr. letter), 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 dis

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good friend" wa

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Response to Letter by FAUSA MI Dated May 19, 2008 In a Ma 19 2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz (See Tab 1), SDFL First Assistant U.S. Attorney provided what purported to be a summ of the events that have occurred during the investigation of

to speed on the facts" o CEOS' review was not de novo: • By letter dated May 15, 2008 (four days before Mr. letter), Mr. Oosterbaan 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 dis

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms.l iaccount was misleading, as it omitted that this "good frie

. 53. Admitted. 54. The Government admits that paragraph 54 accurately quotes from an email dated September 25, 2007 from AUSA Marie Villafafia to Jay Lefkowitz, but denies that the email "tr[ied] to set up an arrangement whereby Epstein's victims would not be represented by various 7 EFTA00799809 Case 9

6/2/2017 Villafafia Decl. at ¶ 38. 60. Admitted. 61. Admitted. (citation is incorrect). 62. Denied. The Thursday, October 18, 2007 email from Mr. Lefkowitz expresses thanks to U.S. Attorney Acosta for meeting on Friday. 63. Admitted. 64. Admitted. 65. Admitted. 66. The government admits that the NPA

d language does not appear in Exhibit 4; it appears at DE361-5. 36. The government admits paragraph 36 but notes that Exhibit 2 is not an email to Humberto Ocariz; the referenced email appears at DE361-3. The second sentence of paragraph 36 is admitted. 37. Admitted. 38. The Government admits that on Septemb

. 53. Admitted. 54. The Government admits that paragraph 54 accurately quotes from an email dated September 25, 2007 from AUSA Marie Villafafia to Jay Lefkowitz, but denies that the email "tr[ied] to set up an arrangement whereby Epstein's victims would not be represented by various 7 EFTA00799787 Case 9

6/2/2017 Villafafia Decl. at ¶ 38. 60. Admitted. 61. Admitted. (citation is incorrect). 62. Denied. The Thursday, October 18, 2007 email from Mr. Lefkowitz expresses thanks to U.S. Attorney Acosta for meeting on Friday. 63. Admitted. 64. Admitted. 65. Admitted. 66. The government admits that the NPA

d language does not appear in Exhibit 4; it appears at DE361-5. 36. The government admits paragraph 36 but notes that Exhibit 2 is not an email to Humberto Ocariz; the referenced email appears at DE361-3. The second sentence of paragraph 36 is admitted. 37. Admitted. 38. The Government admits that on Septemb

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Response to Letter by FAUSA Dated May 19, 2008 In a May 19 2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz (Sec Tab 1), SDFL First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey MI provided what purported to be a summ of the events that have occurred during the inves

not really up to speed on the facts" o CEOS' review was not de novo: By letter dated May 15, 2008 (four days before Mr. letter), Mr. 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 di

ve" to an independent third party, AUSA Marie had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good frien

ll and fair review of the facts here is critical to this analysis. Yet, it is clear that CEOS did not conduct such a review. In his recent letter to Jay Leflcowitz, First Assistant United States Attorney ("FAUSA") confirmed our understanding that the USAO was to have "facilitated" an "independent de novo revi

eventually conceded that only "1 is definitely under 18 still, and I think there is another minor." See Tab 25, September 23, 2007 Email from,. to J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). 19. The next day, retreated from the number "40," stating that she had now "compiled a list of 34 confirmed minor victbns with

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good friend" wa

avene the government's commitment to take no position regarding potential claims of government witnesses. See Tab 39, November 28, 2008 Email from J. Lefkowitz to J. Sloman. o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta

hearing." 2 RFP MIA 000432 EFTA00225659 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Response to Letter by FAUSA Sloman Dated May 19, 2008 In a May 19, 2008 letter to Jay Lelkowitz (See Tab I), SDFL First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman provided what purported to be a summary of the events that have occurred during the

independent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he bad been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. Villafana's account was misleading, as it omitted that this

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Response to Letter by FAUSA MI Dated May 19, 2008 In al 2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz (See Tab 1), SDFL First Assistant U.S. rn Attoey MI provided what purported to be a summ of the events that have occurred during the investigati

avene the government's commitment to take no position regarding potential claims of government witnesses. See Tab 39, November 28, 2008 Email from I. Lefkowitz to I. o The letter cited to an inapplicable statute (the Justice for All Act of 2004) as its justification for being sent. Id. AUSA Acosta later co

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good frien

See Tab 37, February 27, 2008 Email from J. Sloman. Again, that claim was utterly false; Mr. Thomas’s contemporaneous hand-written notes, reviewed by Jay Lefkowitz, confirm that the USAO had violated settled Department policy and ethical rules by providing case-specific information about the Department’s legal t

ndependent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an “attorney representative.” She - had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a “good friend in the Appellate Division.” Ms. Villafana’s account was misleading, as it omitted that this