Epstein Secrets

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

tein had an actual practice of attempting to verify age, and would not let them in his house if they were under the age of 18. See United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (1 3'Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v Puche, 350 F.3d t 137, 1149 (11th Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignoranc

MI 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 Lelkowitz, First Assistant United States Attorney ("FAUSA") confirmed our understanding that the USAO was to have "facilitated" an "independent de novo revi

tein had an actual practice of attempting to verify age, and would not let them in his house if they were under the age of 18. ss& United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (11th Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v. Puche 350 F.3d 1137, 1149 (111° Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignoranc

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

pstein had an actual practice of attempting to verify age, and would not let them in his house if they were under the age of 18. See United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (11" Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137, 1149 (11™ Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignorance

MI 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 Lelkowitz, First Assistant United States Attorney ("FAUSA") confirmed our understanding that the USAO was to have "facilitated" an "independent de novo revi

tein had an actual practice of attempting to verify age, and would not let them in his house if they were under the age of 18. ss& United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (I 1th Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v. Puche 350 F.3d 1137, 1149 (111° Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignoran